Scott Barstow

A Captcha Alternative

On last week’s 350 Third podcast, Anders and I talked a lot about the evils of Captcha (shameless plug).  It’s a technology idea whose time has come and gone.  I hate it, as does most of the civilized world.  It’s remarkable that we put up with inferior, outdated ideas as long as we do.  

Anyway, we talked about using better technology to solve this problem, and also talked about ways to turn the problem into a business that advertisers could use for real engagement with potential customers.

I did some poking around this week and found this company working on alternative.  Are You a Human is doing some interesting things.  They are working on many of the ideas we discussed.  I am going to start using them everywhere that I might have previously used Captcha and see how it goes.

The Network Made Me Do It

A good friend posted an article on Facebook the other day about the network effect on extremism in modern life.  The author, Bill Davidow, is a veteran of business and studying the market.  

First, let me say that I agree with the premise of this article in that the network produces positive effect more rapidly than at any other time in human history.  We see this in the examples provided by the author, whether in wild market swings or the liberation of countries in the Middle East.  

However, I disagree with most all of the conclusions presented in the article.  

Davidow says “The Internet can be a powerful vehicle for creating thought silos. Most of us tend to read material that supports our opinions. Liberals usually listen to NPR. Conservatives get their news from the Fox network. “

Davidow seems to be saying that the network is making us more myopic.  I don’t believe this to be true.  While I can, if I desire, find all manner of information and commentary to support my viewpoints, I can also more easily find a wealth of competing or divergent opinions at lower cost than at any other time.  The network is not the cause of the myopia.  The cause is ignorance.

Davidow also seems to blame the mortgage and economy issues on the network.  It seems to me that the cause of the mortgage meltdown was unchecked greed, not the fact that there was a network upon which to facilitate it.  With no real threat of jail time or even loss of money, those that facilitated the housing bubble walked away not only unscathed but hundreds of millions of dollars richer.

Lastly, the thing that really set me off was the network being blamed for income inequality.  He goes on to make the tired point that the cause of job loss in the US is companies being able to manage work around the globe as if it were next door.  The flagship example of this account is the Chinese factory worker making $300 a month.  I simply don’t understand this point of view.  Why are we lamenting the loss of low-paying, low-skill jobs, and not welcoming a new era of higher paying, higher-skill jobs?  Could it be that we are simply behind with our education and job training?  The rest of the world is running past us while we sit and suck our collective thumb about losing jobs putting rivets on cars.  

I would think we would be excited about someone in India or China being able to afford an iPhone or something else made in the US.  A rising tide generally floats all boats.  Furthermore, the global marketplace is about finding the best talent.  It is not about finding the best talent that has a US passport.

I can imagine that previous generations similarly lamented the advance of innovation.  I bet people hated the telephone because less people went outside and talked to their neighbor on the sidewalk.  I bet people thought the world was ending when we built railroads or the interstate highway system.  

It turns out that humans as a species evolve as innovation evolves.  In 100 years, there will be the next crisis like Davidow sees now, and the internet will just be that thing that people got all worked up about in the 2000’s.

Question:  Do you agree with Davidow?  Is the network having more adverse affects than we realize?

An App I Would Like To See

In Facebook, I have listed most of the musical artists I would go out of my way to listen to or go see.

A few months back Sara Bareilles came to Wake Forest University, about 2 hours from here.  I have been a big fan for a while now, and had wanted to see her live.  I happened to check her website a month or so before the show and found out she was coming.  Otherwise I would have missed it.  That seems crazy to me.  

I have chosen to make this information public in my profile, so it seems like there is an opportunity to build a simple app that would take things like tour schedules for artists and make sure I know about them.  Write on my wall or send me a message when artists I care about are within a radius I specify.  

For instance, I might travel 500 miles to see U2, but only 50 miles to see Eminem or five steps out my front door to see Brittany Spears.  Using a Facebook app, I could add artists I want to see and select the radius.

Does this exist out there and I am just not finding it?  Or is there something similar / better?  Let me know!

Life Without Google ( Search )

I received a link to an article today on Eric Schmidt’s vision of the future, a world where passive search is the norm, not active.  In the article, Mr. Schmidt talks about “knowing your needs before you even ask.”  There are examples in the article about walking down the street and having your mobile device recommend restaurants or shops based on your prior activities and interests.  While I agree that the future is going to be about contextual information, I don’t think Google is necessarily the best positioned to lead us going forward.

I think it is very clear that the next few years of the Internet are going to be about “where.”  We have spent the last decade or more concerned about who, what and when.  If you follow any of the major technology blogs, it is obvious that lots of people feel this way.  Venture money is pouring into companies focused on location-based services.  There are major technology confabs focused on solving problems of where.

I think as or more important than where are the twin questions of “who with” and “who from”, and of those two “who from” is paramount.

The example from the article about finding a Mexican restaurant helps to make my point.  I don’t necessarily care that a Mexican restaurant was rated highly by people I don’t know.  I will care more about a Mexican restaurant being rated highly by people I know and trust, plus or minus a few degrees of separation.  Instead of searching Google for that restaurant, or Google passively recommending things as I walk down the street, it is far more likely that Facebook is the kind of application I will get that information from.  The obvious disadvantage Google has in this fight is that they cannot crawl Facebook and index my personal information.

In the future, why wouldn’t I search Facebook for movies I want to see, or places to eat, or what doctor to go to?  I am not talking about posting an entry on my wall asking for opinions.  Rather, I use Facebook just like I use Google today.  As people share more and more of their lives online, Facebook becomes far more important to me than Google for decison-making.  And, if I want to expand the scope of my search, I can search all publicly available information on Facebook and probably have less to sift through.

If you add in the ability to figure out the “who with” question, it’s still more compelling.  If you re-imagined the same scenario in the article in a bit different light, it might go something like this:  Tell me where I should eat tonight based on recommendations of my social graph in combination with who is already out tonight.  Who better to answer that question that than Facebook?

It’s a stretch to think that Google search might become less relevant.  We use it so much every day that it seems indispensable now.  If, however, information becomes more cloistered in private networks, and Facebook is the biggest private network, then it seems that the gatekeepers of the information will be uniquely positioned to facilitate the next wave of innovation.

What are your thoughts?  Does Google have the right strategy to continue it’s domination?

Update:  This article in TechCrunch is an interesting add-on to my points above

Mint.com, what are you doing?

A few weeks back, I was singing the praises of Mint.com.  Now, I am beginning to wonder if the acquisition by Quicken is starting to drag them down.

There has been an issue for over three months with Capital One Bank wherein the account update will update the balance but not the transactions.  While I can understand that this is probably a complex issue, the message boards on the Mint.com site are silent in terms of participation from Mint.com personnel.  They are doing a lousy job of communicating the status of what is happening.  The frustration is building with everyone that has the problem, and yet there is nothing from the Mint.com team.  Users are walking out the door.

Good lesson here.  It does not matter how good of a site you have.  If you fail to deliver quality service, and more importantly fail to communicate when you are not, users will go elsewhere.

Mint

About a year or so ago I moved all of our personal finances to Mint.com and away from Quicken.  I did it because I liked how dead simple it was, and because of the fact that it made integrating with all of my financial institutions a breeze.  Oh, and I didn’t have to worry about offsite backups.  And, I could get to it from anywhere.  And they had an iPhone app.  But, I digress.  There were some things lacking at the time, like the ability to import my current info into their application, but I wanted to take the step and deal with whatever pain there was.  It has turned out to be a great decision.  Fast forward twelve months….

Do You Think Craig Newmark Cares?

I was reading some news this morning, and came across this post about Craigslist blocking Yahoo Pipes, and indirectly a mash-up for a company called Flippity.

There are cries abounding in all the major technology news sources. How could Craigslist block someone trying to use their data in new ways? Isn’t that what the web is all about? If you know anything about the owner of Craigslist, the answer is not just no, but hell no.

Craig Newmark did not start Craigslist to make money, or to have a cool app. If you read the story of the founding of his company, and his core values, it had nothing to do with making money or being “the next big thing.” He was looking for an easy, familiar way to connect buyers and sellers. It is remarkably simple, remarkably good, and is not in need of a raft of new features. This last part is just scandalous to developers in web land.

What I love about Craigslist is that even though it has achieved massive scale, the vision and the reality remain largely unchanged. If you bought or sold something on Craigslist three or seven years ago, the experience is still largely the same today.

Craigslist has one thing going for it that all of us that write software for a living crave: Acceptance by the marketplace of the vision of the product from the beginning. It is extremely rare, and I for one have no issues with them doing whatever they think is right for their product. It’s pretty clear that they have not been wrong a whole lot. Maybe they know best and should be entrusted with maintaining the vision.

Sacrilege, I know.

Ala Carte TV

I was online the other night chatting with a good friend of mine, when he pinged me a link to a UStream channel that featured Jacory Harris broadcasting live from his apartment in Miami. Jacory Harris is the quarterback for the Miami Hurricanes in the case that you do not follow sports.

I really could not care less about Jacory Harris. What was really interesting to see is that he had something like 400-500 people watching this initial broadcast. He had his group of hangers on in the room with him ( including a guy that claimed to be 27 and looked a bit out of place, but obviously had his role in the crew ), and each of them had a chance to get in front of the camera and have their 15 seconds of air time.

The people watching the broadcast were able to post questions to Jacory in real time, and he basically sat there answering them. What struck me ( and the guy I was chatting with ) is that this is clearly the future of TV. We have already seen this happen with just about every other medium. The channels of distribution no longer are requiring the right degree, the right equipment, or the right approval.

Jacory Harris flipped on his webcam and just started broadcasting. And people showed up to watch. I realize we have been doing this for a while ( broadcasting live via webcam, etc. ). However, it feels like to me that we are nearing the tipping point where users can get the specific kinds of content they want without turning on their TV at all, or needing cable or satellite.

Additionally, today I got an email forwarded to me from someone who owns a Roku box. Roku allows you to stream movies from Netflix and Amazon to your TV. Roku is now offering ten new, free channels on their box that will allow you to do things like view your Facebook and Flickr photo albums, play and create new Pandora stations, and even watch your own videos via the new MotionBox station. Check out the new offerings on their Channel Store.

Who will be the first “real” network to offer their content via this medium? I can’t wait to find out. I am going to order my Roku box this weekend.

Oh, How I Love Slingbox

A few years ago, I was at the VON conference in Northern California. I don’t remember the exact circumstances now, but somehow I walked away with a Slingbox in some sort of give away.

In the course of my move about two years ago, it found its way into a box and did not find it’s way out. Until now.

For those of you that don’t know what a Slingbox is, its a device you can hook up to your home network and your cable box. Once connected, you can watch your TV from literally anywhere in the world. You can change the channels, program favorites, and all sorts of other goodies from wherever you are.

Because of our recent renovations, and our decision to not have TV in our new house except for one room, there have been numerous times when I have wanted to watch something, but have not had the necessary gumption to go to our TV room to watch ( yes, that was the reason for having only one TV, and yes I realize it is unbelievably lazy to not be willing to walk 40 ft to the other end of the house).

I have now reconnected my Slingbox, and can happily stream my TV to my Macbook Pro ( or any other computer ) from anywhere in the house. As I write this, I have my browser window open right next to Monday Night Football. I watched most of the World Series on my PC from various parts of the house. I could also watch it from Buenos Aires if I felt so inclined ( more about Buenos Aires in the next few months ).

If you have the means, I highly recommend this device. They have new versions that will stream HD content ( I don’t have that one ). They also have a mobile app for iPhone and just about every other mobile platform. I am getting ready to test that as well. Will post an update once I have it loaded and see how it works.

Porting your mobile voicemail to Google Voice

Google released a new feature for Google Voice wherein you can now forward your mobile phone voicemail to Google Voice. Google Voice is a service that allows you to have a phone number “in the cloud” ( to use an over-hyped buzzword ) that you can then control all of your inbound and outbound call activities through one interface.

This new feature allows you to have your mobile voicemail be stored at / with Google Voice instead of with your mobile provider. The advantages ( if it works well ) are that you have central voice mail for all of your phone numbers, and get all of the voicemail features of Google Voice ( transcription, email alerts, etc. )

The process took all of about three minutes to complete, and is supported for most of the major carriers in the US. You just go into the ‘Settings’ section for your Google Voice account and choose to ‘Activate Google Voice voicemail for this number’. Once you select it, you will be prompted to enter the number sequence to forward your voicemail. You get immediate confirmation.

I intend to test it for the next few days and see how it works.

Update:

GV users…calls to your cell can either ring other phones or go straight to VM. Go to “Edit” a phone, hit “Advanced Settings”, and choose ‘Go Straight to Voice Mail’