From the outside in

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Imad Mouline: Ground Zero in Net Neutrality Debate: New Survey Shows Consume...

via Technology on HuffingtonPost.com by Imad Mouline on 8/31/10

We've heard a lot lately from the corporate and governmental sides of the net-neutrality debate. Today a new survey shows the consumer side -- and what all the jockeying is really about. The key finding: Many visitors will abandon websites that load slowly, and some will go to competitive sites as a result.

It's clear that millions of dollars are at stake -- for some companies, billions, if new regulations allow some sites to have a speed advantage. This survey, conducted for Gomez by Equation Research, shows that consumers are getting increasingly impatient with slow websites -- a cautionary tale for all web businesses.

The survey shows that nearly a third of visitors will start abandoning slow sites anywhere between one and five seconds. That's quite a difference from the "eight-second rule" of a decade ago and the half-minute many of us were willing to wait in the early, dial-up days of the web.

There's simply so much competition, most consumers know they can find what they want on another site if their original destination is too slow or unavailable. That means every second counts. The survey reveals that 37 percent of consumers say a slow site makes them less likely to return, and 27 percent say they'd be more likely to visit a competitor's site.

Two-thirds of all consumers say they encounter slow-loading sites on a weekly or more frequent basis, and 70 percent agree that slow-loading sites are "frustrating."

If you think this is just an unfounded opinion, think again. We recently monitored 500 million individual web-user interactions, which showed that with an extra two seconds of wait time, user abandonment rates rise by eight percent. For an extra eight seconds of wait time, abandonment rises by 38 percent. Those are big numbers in today's highly competitive business environment.

And what about the mobile web? Certainly wireless device customers are more forgiving of slower sites on a smartphone? Well, only to a point. More than half expect websites to load as fast on their mobile device as on their home computer.

It makes sense that mobile expectations are rising given the many exciting new mobile devices now available to consumers. But the reality is that wireless performance is still lagging behind.

Gomez real-user data shows that mobile users have significantly different experiences, depending on whether their network provider is a wireless carrier or traditional wired (or WiFi) ISP. There were also large performance variances among U.S. mobile network carriers compared to the more consistent wired networks.
2010-08-27-WiredMobileNetworkPerf1.jpg

However, not all mobile performance problems can be blamed on limitations inherent in today's wireless networks. The best websites are structured or architected to minimize the impact of performance problems on the end-user experience. As consumers get increasingly savvy, more of them understand that some sites simply do better than others.

The bottom line for mobile: Regardless of who's to blame for slow websites, the customer is likely to have a negative impression of the website itself.

This means slow websites risk a long-term, damaging effect on their corporate brands. Can you name a few websites you visit that consistently perform more slowly than others? Most active web visitors can.

In your mind, poor performance is now part of that website's image. This can be just as damaging as a physical store, restaurant or other business that is known for its poor service. Now think of a few sites you visit that always load quickly. How positive is their brand image to you as a result?

That's why the smartest web businesses do all they can to ensure a speedy web experience, regardless of the network being used. And why services that either monitor or speed up website performance are doing well. It's also why major players are jockeying right now to influence net neutrality regulations to their advantage.

Imad Mouline is the Chief Technology Officer of Gomez, the web performance division of Compuware Corporation (NASDAQ: CPWR). He is a veteran of software architecture, research and development and is a recognized expert in web and mobile application development, testing and performance management. His breadth of expertise spans web 2.0, cloud computing, web browsers, web application architecture and infrastructure, and SaaS.

Posted via email from The New Word Order

Video of Girl Throwing Puppies in a River Causes Social Media Uproar

via Mashable! by Stan Schroeder on 8/31/10


A video of a young girl in a red sweatshirt throwing several puppies into a river has caused a huge social media backlash on sites like 4chan, reddit and Facebook.

The backlash is similar to the one caused by the Cat Bin Lady, a woman who was caught on video throwing a cat into a dustbin, and whose identity was quickly revealed by 4chan members. Similarly, some members of 4chan and reddit started a campaign to find out the identity of the girl, while a Facebook group related to the incident has gathered more than 3,000 members in a little more than a day.

Although the exact identities of the girl and the person behind the camera are unknown, the girl speaks Croatian in the video, and other inconclusive evidence suggests that she is resident of a city of Bugojno in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

According to threads on 4chan and reddit [Warning: Strong language is used in the thread], the footage was filmed by the girl’s brother, who uploaded the video to YouTube, but soon removed it. Faced with threats from 4chan, a person identifying himself as the girl’s brother asked for help on the forum section of Croatian gaming site HCL.hr, arguing that these were stray puppies and that they had to do it to “protect their health.”

However, due to the extreme cruelty captured in the video (we decided not to include it in the post due to its graphic nature), in which the girl cheerily throws the puppies into the river — at one point asking, “Can it swim?” — the backlash has been extreme. Thousands of forum members have condemned the girl’s acts and media outlets describe the act as “shocking” and “terrible.”

Meanwhile, another interesting topic has been posted on reddit by an administrator of the site, asking for members to stop acting like “vigilantes and lynch mobs,” and threatening to ban members who post anyone’s private info on the site. “You are seriously messing with innocent people’s lives and you have no right to do so,” the message concludes.

What do you think? Is “Internet lynch mob” behavior justified? What would you do if you encountered a video portraying animal cruelty? Please, share your thoughts in the comments.


Reviews: Internet, YouTube, reddit.com

More About: 4chan, facebook, reddit, social media, video

For more Social Media coverage:


Posted via email from The New Word Order

Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

via Wired Top Stories by Robert Capps on 8/31/10

Wired speaks to author Simon Singh, who has become a hero to those challenging the pseudoscience surrounding everything from global warming to evolution.

Posted via email from The New Word Order

There's A New Dance Craze Among Florida Republicans-- The Tallahassee Twist

via DownWithTyranny! by DownWithTyranny on 8/30/10


Statewide, Florida voters have been rejecting corrupt, right-wing ideologue Bill McCollum for many years. After two decades of disgracing himself in the House-- he was one of the leaders of the attempted coup against President Clinton-- he ran, unsuccessfully, for the Senate against Bill Nelson in 2000 and, in the GOP primary, against Mel Martinez in 2004. This month he was the favored candidate of the Tallahassee Establishment to replace Charlie Crist as governor. He lost again-- and not just lost; he lost to Rick Scott, a former Missouri donut maker who went on to national fame as a career criminal, defrauding Medicaid and Medicare of millions of dollars and incurring $1.7 billion in fines. He was kicked out of his company but somehow managed to avoid prison. He beat McCollum 47-43% in the primary and will now face one of Florida's most respected and well-liked political leaders, state CFO Alex Sink.

An aside before we get into Rick Scott. This morning Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice wrote on the futility of McCollum's immigrant bashing even in the Republican primary. Florida's not Arizona and it's not buying the hate. The bare bones:

Attorney General Bill McCollum was the favorite in the GOP gubernatorial primary, with a moderate record on immigration and strong support from Latino Republicans. His opponent Rick Scott, a political newcomer and self-funded multi-millionaire, decided to make a name for himself by riding the wave of anti-immigrant sentiment so popular with a segment of the Republican base. He emphasized his strong support for an Arizona-like immigration law in Florida and painted McCollum as soft on illegal immigration. Still, once McCollum started attacking Scott as a shady businessman, he regained the lead and was expected to win.

In what proved to be the fatal move of his campaign, McCollum introduced his own version of an Arizona-type law less than two weeks before the primary. McCollum called on the Florida state legislature to enact it in September and bragged that the bill was tougher than Arizona’s.

Turns out, McCollum’s strategy of trying to outflank Scott on immigrant bashing backfired. McCollum rapidly lost support from Latino leaders, and faced a backlash in the press.  On Tuesday, many Latinos in Miami-Dade County stayed home. Turnout in what was expected to be a McCollum stronghold was less than 17%, while statewide turnout was 21%. Scott raced over the finish line and pulled off the come-from-behind upset.


When Scott, the much-despised billionaire, first announced his intention to run against the colorless and plodding McCollum, the Tallahassee GOP Establishment was dismissive, then mortified-- and finally, pissed off. It was widely held that the tarnished image of the Florida Republican Party would be irreparably damaged by a crook-- and an extremist crook at that-- like Scott at the head of the ticket. The Republican elite rallied around McCollum and in many cases attacked Scott with more venom then they use even against Democrats. Current state party leaders, chairman John Thrasher, state Senator Mike Haridopolos, and state Representative Dean Cannon, helped fund vicious attack ads against Scott. This was a particularly appropriate ad that the next Republican House Speaker, Dean Cannon, funded to the tune of almost three quarters of a million dollars:

Although McCollum is still bitter, still grousing and still refusing to back Scott, the rest of the party developed instant amnesia and jumped onto the Rick Scott teabagger bandwagon, though not with much gusto. Let's help some of the more prominent of them remember what they had to say about the gubernatorial nominee they'll all embracing now.

After Jim Greer, the last Republican Party Chairman, was caught stealing, arrested and hauled off to jail, his replacement, John Thrasher wasn't shy about pointing out how Scott was smearing the entire GOP with Greer's criminal behavior. "Over the last several weeks and in an escalated manner this weekend," Thrasher wrote in an August 23rd press release, "Rick Scott has orchestrated a multifaceted campaign of misinformation in an effort to mislead Florida voters and confuse the facts surrounding the arrest and indictment of Jim Greer as well as the Party's financial situation and preparedness to support our candidates as we move towards the November election." That didn't work and he and Scott are posing as BFFs now.

State Senate leader Mike Haridopolous criticized Scott for being afraid "stand up in front of people and take questions." He then funneled contributions to the Florida First Initiative for a television ad attacking "Rick Scott, on his tenure as CEO of Columbia/HCA, the largest for-profit hospital chain in the U.S." The ad featured "former U.S. Attorney A.G. (Alec) Alexander III, who from 2002 to 2010 was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, focusing primarily on health care fraud."

According to the June 29th issue of the Jacksonville Observer Dean Cannon "steered money from his Florida Liberty Fund to the Florida First Committee, which earlier this month ran a $600,000 weeklong statewide television spot accusing McCollum rival Rick Scott of profiting from the 'largest Medicare fraud in American history.' All told, Cannon has poured $727,000 ... into the committee."

Other Florida Republicans now sucking up to him include ex-Punta Gorda state Rep. Lindsay Harrington who told the Sarasota Herald Tribune in July that Scott's "candidacy is based on monies that could have been defrauded from the United States government." And Broward County's Republican State Committeeman Ed Kennedy told the Ft Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel two days later that Scott is "dangerous to vote for." A prominent Hillsborough GOP activist, Angela Panezza apparent agrees: "If it comes down to it, I've got to say that I probably would vote for Alex Sink." Gary Lee head of the Lee County Republican Party put it another way to the News-Press: "About all I know is what I have heard about a shady past, running a company that was fined $1.7 billion for Medicare fraud."

And then there's a Republican who really understands fraud better than most. Rudi Giuliani chimed in with an exceptionally unflattering description of Scott a few days before the vote explaining that Scott is "someone who was fired from his company" after it engaged in a multimillion-dollar fraud.

Scott is hoping to keep a low profile and just use his personal wealth to flood the Florida airwaves with TV and radio ads and brainwash an easily brainwashed electorate. He's unlikely to accept Alex Sink's challenge to five debates. He had refused to appear on TV with McCollum in any debates and most Tallahassee Republicans say he's either unaware of the issues or unwilling to share his views on them with the voters. As Lake County GOP Chairman Joseph Rudderow told the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel late in July, "He's become more like a product the consumer is going to pull off the shelf." Nancy McGowan, a vice president of the Republican Women's Club of Duval County put it another way: "No one knows who he is or what he stands for." And a few days before the primary Jack Furnari, Assistant Vice Chairman of the Palm Beach County Republican Party told the Sun-Sentinel "...I think he's demonstrated an appalling lack of respect for the voting public." 

On the other hand, he put $50 million of his own money into the race so he doesn't much care what any of these pipsqueaks have to say. And at least he isn't David M. Rivera.

Posted via email from The New Word Order

Monday, August 30, 2010

Emailing tweet from: sallykohn (Sally Kohn)

sallykohn: Accessible + funny piece on complex issue! RT @rachel_dry: OK Go’s Damian Kulash on net neutrality http://bit.ly/okgowapo Original Tweet: http://api.twitter.com/1/sallykohn/status/22539579150 Sent via TweetDeck (www.tweetdeck.com)


Sent from my iPhone

Posted via email from The New Word Order

The Koch Brothers Profiled via #DailyDish

via The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan by Andrew Sullivan on 8/30/10

by Conor Friedersdorf

In The New Yorker, Jane Mayer has a long investigative piece about the Koch brothers, who fund various libertarian causes to the tune of millions. I'm an admirer of Ms. Mayer due to her indispensable reporting about the war on terrorism. Several months back, I dug into a dispute she had with Marc Thiessen, the former Bush speechwriter turned torture apologist, and defended the integrity of her work, having found it to be both intellectually honest and accurate. Her reputation is deserved, as is the reputation of the New Yorker, one of America's best magazines.

The piece on the Koch brothers is worth a look, and includes a lot of information about her subjects, who are certainly very influential and legitimate targets of scrutiny. If I'd just spent several years investigating Dick Cheney, I might also be predisposed to approach a new story on influential right-of-center power brokers with dark conspiracies on the brain. But as best I can tell, the Koch brothers are legitimately upset by some aspects of the piece, and anyone who reads it should also look at the rebuttals from libertarians who are persuasively pushing back against some of its conclusions. 

One false note, pointed out to me by a libertarian with no ties to Koch money, is that the article invokes the term "Kochtopus" in service of showing how far-reaching is the power of these political donors, but doesn't explain -- presumably because Ms. Mayer didn't know -- that the term was actually coined by paleo-libertarians, who insist that the Koch brothers are nefarious influences on the movement because the DC organizations they fund are too liberal. (For example, Reason ran stories about Ron Paul's ties to a racist newsletter during his presidential bid, to the consternation of many in the libertarian movement.)

In that same magazine, Matt Welch complains about another aspect of the story, and a follow-up column by Frank Rich:

That whole self-interested "climate-science denial" premise, buttressed by anonymous quotes about how the intellectual product of Koch-recipient outlets "all coincide perfectly with the economic interests of their funders," well, it has a certain Ron Bailey problem. Which is, when a small magazine's science correspondent announces that "we're all global warmers now," it kinda takes takes the fun out of pretending that an evil polluter is using a whip made of million-dollar bills to produce climate-science orthodoxy.

The truth is that the Koch brothers help fund some of the most intellectually honest people in the libertarian movement, as well as some unapologetic hacks. This makes them much like almost every big donor in American politics, and it's probably best to praise or criticize specific efforts they fund because dividing into antagonistic and supportive tribes doesn't get us anywhere. As clear is that they sometimes direct money to back causes they believe in, and others times do it to advance their business interests. It's good to scrutinize billionaires who influence our political system, whatever their motivation, and to criticize them when warranted. Even honest efforts to accurately provide that scrutiny can get some things wrong, it's okay to complain when that happens, and the blog fodder that results helps us reach even better conclusions. 

Full disclosure: I'm a big Jane Mayer fan, and named her book The Dark Side the best non-fiction effort of 2008. I'd also help fund Reason and The Institute for Justice, but not scientists antagonistic to climate change, if I were a billionaire. As far as I know, I've never benefited from Koch money, though it's possible that they help fund Doublethink, where I've written pieces calling for better conservative journalism and criticizing Andrew Breitbart. If billionaires were setting the pay rates it certainly wasn't apparent! The Week has even more links. Probably best to do the reading and make up your own mind.

Email this Article Add to digg Add to Reddit Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to StumbleUpon Add to Facebook

Jane Mayer - United States - Koch - Ron Paul - Dick Cheney

Posted via email from The New Word Order

Modern Marketing And PR Prof Fluency Matrix

via The Future Buzz by Adam Singer on 8/30/10

Recently, Eric Friedman published an EarlyStager approval matrix I found quite interesting.  Taking inspiration from that I decided to create a modern marketing and PR professional fluency matrix.  See below for a breakdown of my perspective on the current state of marketing and PR professionals.  This is, of course, a view from my own experiences – curious what you think?

Credit: Hugh MacLeod for the “self-proclaimed experts” graphic and Shutterstock for the stock photo images.

Modern Marketing And PR Prof Fluency Matrix is from The Future Buzz, a Blog Covering Digital Marketing

Posted via email from Out of my Mind

The Gentle Art Of The Retweet


As Twitter evolves and grows, the etiquette and "rules" change, morph and evolve along with it.

Recently, a very influential person on Twitter sent me a direct message saying that they were insulted because I had thanked a few people for retweeting one of my tweets, but I forgot to thank this individual. They were even more insulted because the people I had thanked were actually retweeting this individual's tweet (and not mine).

I suck at Twitter.

I sort of knew that before (more on that here: The Trouble With Twitter - Confessions Of A Twitter Snob), but as the platform grows, I'm getting even suckier at it. I find it hard to follow everyone back. I don't like following companies or brands that I am not in love with. I rarely thank anyone for retweeting my content. It takes me forever to respond to direct messages. People often ask me questions, but by the time I respond they've usually forgotten what their question was in the first place. I tend to be on Twitter when most people are busy enjoying their lives, etc...

Maybe we're all still getting used to how real-time chat in 140 characters really works... and it's not so obvious/easy?

The hardest part about all of this is that I am actually trying. I spend quite a bit of time on Twitter, and I'm constantly trying to post relevant content and context about Marketing, but I can never seem to really get my head above the wave and - more often than not - I feel like I'm barely treading water. Beyond apologizing profusely to this individual with a sincere mea culpa, I also wondered...

What do most people think of thanking those who retweet their content?

So, I hopped over to Twitter and asked. It turns out I'm not alone in my thanking suckage. That being said, the responses ran the gamut from "I thank people publicly for every retweet" to "there really is no point in just thanking someone for a retweet." The general sentiment expressed back, was that most people don't thank others for retweets because they feel that it clutters up the twitterstream. Beyond that, a lot of people agreed that while they do not thank people for retweets, they make sure to respond to every question asked of them.

So, what do most people think about thanking those who retweet their content? Here's what I learned:

  • People do thank for retweets, but claim they do so because they don't have that many followers, and it's fairly easy.
  • People try, but think they fail at it (like I do).
  • People try, but say that they only do it hours after it first appeared and they often get a message back saying, "thanks for what?"
  • People don't do it publicly but send that person a direct message (sometimes).
  • People don't publicly thank for any retweets.

There were also these tweets of wisdom:

  • "I always think 'Thank you' but I don't always type the words." - via @MegMathur.
  • "Not if it just a RT, I treat it as a little gift. If RT with a interesting comment then I reply w/comment. But not a thanks." - via @avinash.
  • "A better way to thank someone for RTing you is to RT something interesting of theirs. Sometimes I DM them instead." - via @aussiegoldy.
  • "I try to acknowledge near 100% of nice direct comments, but retweets only upon occasion. (Though I obviously appreciate!)" - via @tom_peters.

Now, it's your turn: what do you make of all of this?

Tags:

Posted via email from Out of my Mind

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Beck WHO?!

via Rumproast by YAFB on 8/29/10

Silly media reports“maybe thousands”@Beck’s “irrelevant” event;insinuating MSM sheeple mustn’t believe their own eyes&ears re: event’s truth
about 4 hours ago  via Twitter for BlackBerry®
Retweeted by 100+ people

SarahPalinUSA

Snooki should have stopped typing after “Silly me.”

Screenshot in case Snooki deletes the Tweet (in which case you’ll have to take my word about the Beck link):

image

Posted via email from Out of my Mind