photo credit: elecnix

I recently read Matt Alder’s great post “The Job Cloud – Why Twitter is the future of Job Boards“, and had a few thoughts.  While it was very interesting to read that he was getting a lot of quality resumes by posting jobs on Twitter, should we take this as an early sign that Twitter jobs is the future?

Twitter is great for some things, but for searching for jobs?  I’m skeptical.  In fact, I think this is a really backward idea.

The proposed advantage, of course, is that companies can easily post their jobs online for free without paying job boards.  Great idea, I’ve long said paying expensive fees for postings jobs is archaic, but why Twitter?  Companies have had the opportunity to do this for years using simple RSS.   We also have “free” job search engines that can index these sites, like indeed.com and simplyhired.com.  So how does Twitter job search help us?

Another thing raises a large flag for me: how do you stop the spam?  If Twitter (and the internet in general) has taught us anything, spam will be a big issue.  It is easy to simply limit the accounts searched to those of companies, but what about the large percentage of companies which use external agencies?  Ok, let’s say we allow those agencies to be apart of the search.  Who are the gatekeepers here?  The only reason we have job boards today is because it already solved the spam issue, filtering the quality job postings from the spam.  How is this model different?

I have a big problem with ideas which see social networking sites and being a free ticket to success.  It takes a lot of time, and therefor money, to be successful using social media, and I don’t see Twitter job postings as being any exception.

As an early adapter, you might just have some quality candidates find your way, but as the use increases, so will the garbage.  Hopefully I’m proved wrong, maybe I’ve been reading too much Andrew Keen, but I’m just not sold on the idea.

photo credit: Benjamin Haines

People were pretty divided on whether or not Buzz should have been put into Gmail.  I really liked that I was able to check both email and Buzz on the same page.  I am now using Google reader a lot more because of the enhanced sharing functionalities.

I am now, however, experiencing serious multiple-update-checking-itis.  I have to check twitter, and Buzz, and Email, and Reader, and Facebook… it’s tiring me out.  I can’t keep up.  I don’t have the time.

So here is my plea: Google, give me a single stream.  Please Google, put Gmail, Buzz, and Reader all into a single stream.  Make it look exactly how gmail is right now, but add little icons so I can see from what service it came from.  I know it might be a lot of updates, but it’s ok, I can scroll.

Do not stop there Google.  I want to know when my shared documents were updated.  I’d also really like to know that’s it’s my friend’s birthday, or that I have a meeting in an hour.   My brother just added Flickr photos of my nephew.. give me the heads-up (pretty please).

Make an open protocol for it.  Let me add services.  Make it easy for me to share anything that comes into my stream.

Anyone else have any ideas?

Why I like Google Buzz:

• It’s right beside my gmail.  Winer doesn’t seem to like this, but I do.
• Commenting on posts.   @replying is just confusing, and if you’re not attached to your twitter stream it’s sometimes hard to follow what they are @’ing about.
• The “Like” button.
• Realtime updates.
• It’s made by Google (I’ll explain below, try not to shout “fanboi” too soon)

Why I don’t like it:

• Apparently, (I haven’t looked myself) the API is very weak, and it isn’t openly compatible.
• Not available outside of gmail?
• No retweet? How do I pass on information?
• It’s made by Google (hah, see?)

Let me explain why I like that this is a Google product and why I don’t.  I love that Google is taking on this space because I know they will enhance it.  Let’s face it, there is nothing new here that we haven’t seem from Friendfeed, Facebook, or Twitter.  It’s all been done before, and as Robert Scoble points out… Friendfeed probably did it better.  Why I like Google driving it is because they will upgrade, and they’ll do it quickly.  Hopefully we’ll see Scoble’s “Super Tweet“, and all the other requests we’ve seen from the tech community that Twitter had been hopelessly slow to implement.  I also like Google doing it because my friends and family will actually use it.  (Please, oh please, get them off Facebook.)  And what about enterprise?  I haven’t had a chance to check out if this will integrate into Google enterprise offerings, but I would love to see this integrated.  Will most employers use Yammer?  Probably not.  But Google buzz is a better possibility.  Since all the advertising hype is centered around Social Media these days, is using Google enterprise products giving a company an online competitive advantage?  How long will it take for Buzz posts to commonly show up in Google Social Search results or Google Realtime results?

At the same time I’m excited about using Buzz I’m also afraid I’m using Google’s multi-colour bricks to seal myself into a Google corner.  I already use almost every service they make available, is there a danger Google having too much control?  I am worried to see the innovation on the internet sputter just like OS development with Microsoft.

Another quick thought: Is Twitter’s openness also a huge liability?  I already have 50 Buzz friends, almost entirely from Twitter.  Will I need Twitter in a Month?

photo credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com

I’ve long had the opinion that consumer PC market is due for a major overhaul.  The problem: Normal people hate computers.  They do, it’s a fact, and I don’t blame them.  I hate computers myself sometimes.

Nobody likes having a desk in their house taking up space.  It’s uncomfortable, anti-social, and just play ugly.  We’ve modified people’s natural environment to accommodate for the PC.

PCs were developed by nerds, for nerds.  Windows was not developed for the consumer market, even though they may have marketed it that way.  The iPad was developed for people who don’t like computers, and they will love it.

This is the beginning of the end of computers for normal people.   I’m not saying the iPad will necessarily bulldoze Windows off the map, but it will be known as the product that started the ball rolling.

Unfortunately, Microsoft have painted themselves into a corner by chaining themselves to the desk.  Latching onto Windows is isolating Microsoft to enterprise software (even the Courier tablet is enterprise).  Windows, as it is currently, cannot be their consumer OS.

As hopefully Ballmer understands, Window OS market share is not the only thing that is at stake here for Microsoft.  Losing the consumer market OS also isolates the Xbox.  Make no mistake Apple’s eyes are getting bigger and bigger, and pretty soon they will attack that big screen in your living room.  Apple will offer media, games, and applications that will sync to all devices.  Why buy an Xbox when it can’t play my iTunes movies?  (Also, Mom and Dad would buy an Apple TV, but they wouldn’t buy an Xbox or a PS3.)

Can Microsoft fight back? Absolutely, and I really hope they do.  The worst thing that can happen is that Apple becomes a Monopoly for consumer devices.  (I also really hope Google digs into the consumer market more, but I’ll save that maybe for another post.)

In order for Microsoft to fight back they need media.  Media, media, media.  Music, video, games. How can you sell consumer devices without our precious media?  Invent a new form of media for all I care, just give us what we want.  Break me from my crappy internet media experience, and from my crappy TV viewing experience.  Make it simple and make it transferable to new devices.  Oh, and do it SOON.

That PC in the office is going to start collecting cobwebs in a lot of houses.  The only question is who will control your living room?

(Edit: I just read this post by Techcrunch which explain really well why the iPad will be a success.  I completely agree… but dammit I still want a camera on it)

Why announce a year in advance?  Are they trying to build momentum with other publishers?

I’ve read some responses which seem to be horribly shortsighted, relying on math like “users x estimated price”.  I’m sure their accountants have crunched the numbers.  The New York Times is no doubt betting on a larger content strategy (one that isn’t free).  Why would someone pay to view their content on an iPad (etc.) when they could see it free on their website?

I haven’t made the decision myself whether this is a good move for them or not.  Quite frankly, it won’t concern me.   If I am linked to an article of theirs I usually regret not stopping at the title.  A harsh critique, but I just generally don’t have the time to get into a song-and-dance with content (mostly tech news).  Give me the goods quickly, and bonus if you make me laugh.  No disrespect.  Maybe I’m just not the target audience.

I will say though that it is always sad for everyone else.  I’m sure there are plenty of situations worldwide where their good writing is appreciated, but unfortunately the money isn’t available to purchase it.  But, of course, other sites will fill the gap, and the NYTimes would have lost an opportunity for increased readership.

What I really wish was that the NYTimes would have sucked it up and kept on probing for that hidden goldmine, that unknown business model that can only be found through sweat and tears.  But they didn’t, they picked the easy way, but it’s hard to blame them; they have employees to pay with families to feed.  I can’t help to think though that they’ll now sit on their heels and risk becoming part of the pack (instead of leading it).

They have other properties though that could be a little more adventurous.  Who knows!  Time will tell.  But… I just can’t help but feel that a slow-moving and popular publisher will be swallowed by bigger, nimbler, fish.

I defended this type of content creation of past posts, but after my real-life experience I’m very dubious.  Basically the video went on to waste a minute of my time by telling me to unplug the battery and call a tow-truck.  Thanks e-how, even someone as clueless with cars as me could have figured that out.

Even if this article didn’t help me, finding a video for this was really encouraging.  I really hope these companies will increase their quality, because there is a lot of promise here.

Why is this? I think people are a. afraid of malicious comments, b. don’t think the value is worth the resources to monitor, or c. maybe haven’t thought of it.

I will lay out some advantages I see enabling comments:

1. Increased participation - I know when I was job searching I always had questions about the position I was reading about.  I’d phone for some, but generally I wouldn’t bother and move on.  If I could comment I might consider the position if some things are clarified.
2. Better job descriptions – I am just discussing comments, but really this is about crowdsourcing the quality of the job posting.  Getting feedback would make better description, and would generate more relevant applications.
3. Gain knowledge for employer – I was just reading an article from Harvard Business School who discusses similar thoughts on improving job postings.  They’ve gone one step further tho, and suggested crowdsourcing could better define what skills are needed for the role.  Sometimes people hiring don’t entirely know the skills involved with getting the job done: ask the experts!

My crusade is for better job seeking on the internet, and I think this is the kind of mentality shift the industry needs.

In a nutshell, Demand Media manages to churn out 4,000 content articles a day using algorithms, in combination with human labour.  The process of creating the articles is tactfully broken into several small jobs, each handled by various experts.   Creating a single article will touch around 9 or more hands before being finally approved.  (This process is also being repeated on informational videos as well.)

ReadWriteWeb just published an article questioning the quality of the content being published by Demands ‘assembly line’ styled publishing (in which they ironically had a few errors which seriously questioned the article’s quality, hah!).  I like ReadWriteWeb, but this article felt shallow, and really didn’t add anything to the conversation.  (ASIDE: To my surprise a few of Demand’s authors wrote in the comments vigorously defending Demand’s quality; I, maybe ignorantly, assumed a sweatshop styled labour was been wrongly taken advantage of!   But maybe not…)

In any case, were they right, and should we be wary of the cheap content, or should we expect great things like the Model-T?  Call me an optimist, but I think this is a good thing, and I want to see it making more than informational content.

Some advantages I’d like to point out:

• content being produced may never have been created because it was too expensive
• employees are global, and may reduce barriers for internalization
• skilled labour can be utilized (not just data entry jobs!)
• dramatically increasing scale could radically change business models

I cannot for an instant believe that Demand’s process is a one time fluke, and only applies to content creation.  No… no, I think every company should take a step back and take a look at this.  Can any part of my business processes be managed in this way? In my opinion many will.  Not all successfully, not all to our benefit, but I see this kind distributed labouring taking off in the not so near future.