Posts Tagged ‘Microsoft’

Yahoo! is researching a pay-per-email system called CentMail, which would require senders to pay a penny for every email sent to Yahoo! servers in hopes of reducing spam. The twist is that the one cent “stamp” would go to charity. There are many questions that go unanswered, even in the 10 page case study CentMail provides on their website. What happens if an email bounces? If there is no “stamp,” do the emails get dropped? Will Yahoo! senders need the stamp to send to another Yahoo! user? Is this just a ploy for Yahoo! to pass expenses to senders under the guise of reducing spam?

Spam is a problem, yes. It is dangerous due to trojans, viruses, 63 year old women who open and click on every piece of email they receive, and the morons who continually give money to Nigerian princes. That being said, spam filters and junk mail folders are getting better at capturing actual spam. Check out your Gmail spam folder next time you log on: rarely do those male anatomy enlargement offers or free Viagra pills actually get through. Nay, a vast majority of what gets through to the inboxes are newsletters and offers that people inadvertently signed up for when they got the “free” $5 Starbucks gift card or signed up to play Flash games on that website. That is not spam: No, good reader, that is you opting in, forgetting that you did, and then complaining.

Why do Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Google offer “free” email services? They want your information and what you talk about in email so they market to you. The “payment” for you to use that service is ads. Yahoo! isn’t letting Netflix and Bank of America spam me with ads for free (by the way, where is my “This is Spam” button for the ads, hypocrites?).

Yahoo wants me to pay for my ads in my email...for charity

Yahoo! wants me to pay for my ads in my email...for charity

Spam is a cost of doing business for ESPs. If Yahoo! forces everyone (including private senders) to pay actual currency for sending to their servers, then they are essentially asking senders to pay for the spam filtering and hosting of the message, which is part of the Yahoo! mail service and you STILL get the ads. Paint me pink and call me crazy, but with the price of memory dropping to almost zero and Yahoo! offering unlimited email storage, I doubt that it costs Yahoo! a penny to house that email.

Even though there are reports claiming that between 90-97% of all email sent globally is spam (which I don’t believe), 89-96% of that is harmless or ignored.* Spam costs the receiver essentially nothing, especially if they are using a free internet connection (in a public library or at work) and a free email service (such as Gmail or Yahoo! Mail) except the annoyance of deleting or unsubscribing from the message. Spam is costing is the free email providers money, because they are housing all of that crap.

Conveniently, the email service providers, the authentication services, and the makers of spam filter software are the people funding and releasing the spam studies. Yahoo!, ReturnPath, Symantec, and Goodmail wouldn’t define spam as broadly as possibly to make another buck, would they?

“But charity gets that penny, and I love charity.” you say. But what if, in the future, Yahoo! needs cash? Also, in the United States, when getting something in return for a charitable donation, the value of the product received cannot be deducted from taxes. Will Yahoo! give an actual value for the cost of the storage of the email? This would be necessary for large B2C companies that marketing to Yahoo! mail users. And if so, why not just charge that $0.00000001 per email directly to the companies?

(Not only would businesses be pissed, but can you imagine the uproar and push back from the free email users if their friends stopped emailing them because it cost money? People leave Yahoo! because they have to pay for POP3 access- unless you go around the system. People were pissed when Facebook changes its look or its policies for free services rendered. Paying to get emails to a server? My Yahoo! friends would never get that YouTube clip** from me again. People would bolt for Gmail even faster than they currently are.)

While I am all for reducing spam, I don’t believe CentMail is the answer.  Since its inception, email has promoted free communication due to the economics and environment on which the Internet was created, for better or worse. Normal economic thought points out that monetizing sending would deter spammers, but it would also deter legitmate users and drive them to other options, and the internet has never really followed traditional economics. Other plans, such as Microsoft’s (yes, the Evil Empire) Penny Black plan are much better and don’t cost normal senders anything.

* this is from my personal research

** This YouTube Clip. My mom used to buy me GoBots because we were poor and couldn’t afford Transformers.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I was trained as a research scientist. Statistics, research methodology, hours in the library….all the things chicks dig, right? Although I’ve twice worked in the hallowed halls of academia, I’ve always leaned toward the applied side of science. I can theorize and hypothesize with the best of them, but I like my experiments conducted in the real world and I like to see the results that make a difference.

Page Hunt: A Bing GameI also appreciate it when I see clever research. And one of the most clever things I’ve seen recently is the Bing game: Page Hunt. Players are shown a series of web pages and asked to guess a keyword or words that can be used on the Bing search engine to make the site appear in the top 5 search results. Players are given 100 points for guessing a result that is in the #1 result slot, 90 points for #2 and so on. If the keyword(s) do not produce a top 5 result, you are given another chance. The game is timed (an interesting 2 minutes and 58 seconds) and there are a few interesting twists like bonuses for avoiding common terms. It’s an easy game and it’s already produced some interesting results. Why not play a round or two yourself?

According to Ars Technica, Page Hunt was developed by Microsoft Research Interns Chris Quirk and Raman Chandrasekar along with Hao Ma and Abhishek Gupta from The Chinese University of Hong Kong and Georgia Institute of Technology respectively. Before they unleashed the game on the unsuspecting and great unwashed of the web, they piloted the game internally. They found that the length of the page URL was negatively correlated to the ability of the player to correctly achieve a top 5 result. In other words, the shorter the URL, the easier it was to win.

Findability as a function of URL length from Ars Technica

While this is an interesting result, I seriously doubt that this is the real gold mine that is to be found in this research game. One of the things that has stuck with me from my graduate studies was the influential work of Karl Popper. Popper’s theories are a little domplex at times, but in a nutshell, he believed that an experimental result that contradicted a hypothesis was vastly more valuable than a result that confirmed the hypothesis. In other words, a single disconfirmation is worth a thousand confirmations.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China (or Hong Kong for that matter)? Because I believe that the Page Hunt game’s core value is in using it for the results that players get wrong rather than the things they get right.

What is the value in having players guess a result that already appears in the top 5 results? Are you just confirming what is already working? Sure, it helps show that Bing is aligning well with player expectations. But again, these are all just confimatory results. What will be really interesting to mine are the results where there are clustered patterns of results produced by players that DO NOT appear in the top 5. What is it about a particular page that makes a player suggest a keyword they think best describes the page yet does not produce a top 5 result? That’s the real value here.

If you have ever effectively managed an internal search engine for a web site, this process is probably intuitively obvious to you. One of the best uses of internal search data is to look for keywords that users have entered that produce zero results (also referred to as null sets). Of course, this is typically only interesting if the web site in question actually has content that would be an appropriate “answer” for the null search query. The difference here is that the web site owner can typically “fix” this problem pretty directly. The search engine itself often has tools to allow the manual “promotion” of a page based on a specific query. But a search engine that indexes the entire web doesn’t have this luxury.

The Page Hunt game provides a crowd-sourced solution to this problem. Analyzing the keywords generated by players that do not produce a top 5 result could provide fertile ground for improving the Bing algorithm. It won’t be easy and it would certainly require Page Hunt/Bing to collect more page data than what is shown to players. It struck me that a similar game would be a useful tool for assessing the skills of SEO practitioners. If you allowed the person being tested to evaluate the page source, I believe that any SEO’er worth his or her salt should be able to deduce a top 5 search keyphrase at or above 80% of the time. It could be a more objective way to evaluate skill sets. Of course, the test itself would have to be normed first and it would require a large set of sites to avoid cheating. But it is still an interesting idea.

But I digress….

Using crowd-sourcing does carry some inherent risks. A motivated community could “game the game.” For example, let’s say the 4chan community decided to target the game and collectively distort the results of the pages that they are displayed during the game. They could all input the same irrelevant keyword for the same page. So, they could give the answer “Cleveland Steamer” for the page of a political candidate, for example. If enough of them provided the same keyword for the same page, it could carry some weight.

Of course, Microsoft isn’t likely to just automatically accept the results of the Page Hunt game. It’s just a research tool. It’s not a magic bullet answer to improving Bing’s algorithm. Human review is still a big part of the search engine industry. Remember the “miserable failure” Google bomb from a few years back? Ultimately, Google had to hand edit its results to eliminate the results of this prank. So I doubt there is any chance that we’ll see any “Cleveland Steamering” of Bing any time soon. But it would be amusing.

The only thing I can think of to improve the Page Hunt game is to increase the incentives to play. Right now, you can really only compete against yourself. A simple upgrade would be to have a community high scores page that encouraged players to compete against the community. Never under-estimate the human ego. Of course, they could up the odds with just a tiny prize incentive, like a t-shirt for high scorers. You wouldn’t believe the weird things people will do to win a cruddy little prize. Or maybe you would.

Penny Arcade

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Don’t get me wrong. I love my current gig. I’ve got a team of A-players and utility infielders that anyone would be envious of. But if I were to move on at some point, it would have to be for a role that deals with the next generation of User Interface (UI) methods and techniques. For now, that would most likely be in the video game industry. With the overwhelming success of Nintendo’s Wii, a whole new set of UI possibilities entered the consumer electronics market (also known as “your living room”). If you haven’t heard about the Wii, you shouldn’t be able to surf the Internet, much less operate a computer….so I’m going to assume you already know that the Wii allows you to play games by using a fairly simple positioning device (the Wii-mote…..clever, huh?) and an infrared bar that sits atop your boob tube. The actual game hardware isn’t really all that sophisticated (the Wii uses much of the same hardware and programming as its predecessor the Nintendo Gamecube launched way back in 2001 – a virtual lifetime ago in the evolutionary age of electronics).

The interface is what makes the Wii interesting. But even as the Wii was just getting off the ground, a young UI engineer name Johnny Chung flipped the Wii concept on its head…sort of literally! While at Carnegie Mellon, Chung posted a YouTube video showing how you could do fairly accurate head tracking by using the Wii’s infrared bar (watch the video and it will all make sense):

Chung got hired on by Microsoft. His interface work isn’t limited to playing games either. Check out his Johnny’s personal web site to see his projects and vitae. Microsoft didn’t waste any time putting Lee to work on its escalation of the console video game interface war. Microsoft announced “Project Natal” at its E3 media presentation in June of 2009. Project Natal is a controller-less interface…or perhaps more accurately, a human-powered interface. In other words, the video game hardware will interact with you based on a combination of body movements/gestures and voice commands. The system is also said to do facial recognition allowing individual users to be differentially recognized by the system. Again, a brief video makes it all clear:

Not to be left out, Sony’s Playstation 3 group made an announcement that brought the controller back to the equation…two of them in fact. And most interesting of all, the technology uses the Playstation Eye camera that has been around for several years. Video break time yet again (hey, would you rather have me write a thousand words asking you to imagine how this stuff works or would you rather see it in action? I thought as much.):

 

 

The Playstation Motion Controller extends the Wii methodology and blends it with the emerging concept of “augmented reality” (AR). Unless I miss my guess, AR is going to be a big thing in the next year. It’s popping up all over the place. Augmented reality is already being used for games, iPhone apps, and even a business card that you will eventually be able to make yourself:

Speaking of the iPhone, it has quickly become a very prominent gaming platform. Forget Solitaire, Minesweeper, Bejeweled and Tetris. High quality games are being produced for the iPhone right now including many ports from other platforms. Given that the iPhone is a multitouch interface with a single button that can’t really be used with applications, this presents some interesting new interface challenges.

There are rumors circulating that Apple is also developing a tablet computer that utilizes much of what they have learned in developing the multitouch iPhone interface. You might be thinking “Tablet PC’s have been around for years and haven’t ever really taken off….so what?” Maybe nothing, but Apple has a track record of introducing new interface modalities into the public consciousness. They aren’t the first ones to create such a system either. HP already has a multitouch tablet on the market. There are even demo stations in airports and other high traffic areas.  Video. Thousand words. You know the drill:

I’ve been lucky enough to have had a lot of interesting experiences in my career. I’ve worked at big companies and small companies in a variety of industries that have really excited me. This new set of interface challenges are definitely in need of the same scrutiny, research and innovation that has allowed the web to evolve from personal web sites that listed people’s CD collections to the web we see today complete with Rich Internet Applications. And don’t even get me started on Google with its proposed Chrome web operating system and Google Wave (a potential revolution to electronic communication). That’s for another time. For now, let’s just say that these are interesting times for those of us interested in user interface, usability, and user experience.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,