Unknown's avatar

About JoeDuck

Internet Travel Guy, Father of 2, small town Oregon life. BS Botany from UW Madison Wisconsin, MS Social Sciences from Southern Oregon. Top interests outside of my family's well being are: Internet Technology, Online Travel, Globalization, China, Table Tennis, Real Estate, The Singularity.

The Demise of Tech TV, or why China is the next global tech powerhouse….


There used to be a neat show on cable called “Tech TV”, which catered to geeks of all ages and discussed computer news, hardware and software items of interest to computer people, and more.

The show’s been effectively replaced, or perhaps cancelled in favor of, shows about computer gaming. This is interesting and reflects the growing challenges of a computer generation that is more interested in simulated chain saw massacres than programming and technology.

Yes, there are many who like BOTH these things, but forces have converged now that make it unnecessary to know any programming or hardware skills to become an accomplished gamer.
This was NOT the case in the past when the community needed to do more programming, hacking, and hardware modifications to get things going right.

More importantly gaming is more fun and we have a new leisure class that appears not to understand the relationship of work to fun. Exceptions? Of course there are. I think many of the tech elite are doing fine in all respects. HOWEVER who will be the NEW tech elite – the guys who are spending 60 hours per week playing Halo and the rest watching TV? I think things are changing in dangerous ways.

This is more of the stuff discussed in the brilliant “The World is Flat” by Tom Friedman. Noting the seriousness with which Chinese and Indian Engineers take on the challenge of the new global technologies he observes that in China Bill Gates is “Britney Spears”. In America? …. Britney Spears is Britney Spears.

…Ooops, we did it again…

GOOG 2006 = YHOO 1999 ?


I think Google is a great company but I simply don’t get the stock price. Not sure if I’m in good or bad company pretty much agreeing with Henry Blodget on this. He’s the Wall Street insider who can’t give stock advice anymore, but gives some REALLY interesting comments in his new blog.

Interesting to me is the fact the ultimate Google insiders felt that $85 was about the “right number” for the IPO and the fact nothing really fundamental has changed since that time unless I missed something online. Of course they have great earnings from ads as the online ad market swells, but Google knew this would happen even if Wall Street was slow on the uptake of the implication of massively superior ROI from online advertising.

This sure reminds me of the Yahoo bubble of 1999.

Also interesting is the degree to which Yahoo can affect Google’s revenue by manipulating the revenue YAHOO shares from it’s Publisher Network which is in beta now.

What if Yahoo decided to pay out a 100% rev share for 6 months as an incentive for Adsense people to jump the Google ship? Google would see a HUGE drop in revenues. Simply HUGE – Adsense was 43% of total Google revenues for 3rd Quarter of 2005!

If this happened Google profit would not be nearly as strongly affected as revenues because most of this revenue goes back to publishers. 78.5 pecent of the total to be exact, thought the rev share varies among publishers. However I suspect even the savvy street folks don’t really understand where all this money has been coming from, and would be alarmed to see it dry up as suddenly as it appeared.

Yahoo could keep up this pressure for some time since they don’t get nearly as much from their publisher network.

Would it be legal for Yahoo to short Google and then announce this move? I assume the SEC would say “NOT LEGAL” and this would wind up as a complex case of stock price manipulation, but in any case what’s Yahoo going to do with revenue share?

Indications at the conferences and from my read of the company are …… they’ll keep them about the same as Google so both Yahoo and Google can turn a good buck, but seems to me if so Google’s buck is not going to grow fast enough to justify current pricing.

Are blogs bogging down?


Blogging has become the rage both as spectator sport and participatory democracy. Yet problematic is today’s news that the Washington Post has stopped accepting comments at their blog. Why? Too much junk and too much abusive posting.

Challenges facing blogs are many: they include Commercial Challenges (people use them in junky ways to promote commercial stuff such as setting up a blog called “cell-phones-for- sale” with little or not content except ads. Also blog posts are used to promote linking to sites. The widespread use of the nofollow attribute and nofollow aspects to blogging helped reduce this SEO tactic but it’s still going on with affects that appear to vary depending on search engine and blog.

Also a challenge is the Popularity of blogs. Even good bloggers waste a lot of digital ink, and it’s hard to sort through the posts at millions of blogs to get the good stuff. Tools like Digg.com help sort the mess but as noted before leave much to be desired as search tools.

My biggest beef with blogs is the one-sided nature of the blog. Most readers are thoughtful people, and I doubt they’ll continue to put much time into commenting unless a way can be found to raise the prominence of good commentary. But this of course makes the Commercial challenge an even bigger threat to quality and can lead to actions like the Washington Post’s comment ban.

So where’s it all headed? I think both websites and blogs are moving in the direction of serving increasingly specific niches of interest rather than the web at large. The popularity of tech centric sites like Digg.com and Technorati support this, as does the popularity of a very targeted blogs like “breaking search news” over at John Battelle’s place.

More about Privacy, Free Speech, and the oxymoron known as Fox “News”.


More about Privacy, Free Speech, and the oxymoron known as Fox “News”.

I’ve been surprised by how complacent the Religious right has been about online porn, so maybe the battle over censoring porn won’t be coming soon, though I think this DOJ action is the shot over the bow by GW, Gonzales et al.

I’m hoping the online community handles self-censorship better than the movie industry or, far worse, video game industry. I’m not optimistic about it though and expect a lot of chest thumping in the near future as people line up to be for/against “porn”/”free speech” depending on their points of view.

I think there are several interesting forces involved in the coming privacy debate war:

First is the basic freedom of speech, which we value highly in America but pretend to value more than we actually do. Money talks loudly in America as the recent D.C. lobby scandals and huge money politics make clear. Simply prohibiting paid speech obviously won’t work, but money threatens the quality of free speech more than any other factor and far more than any Govt in this country ever will.

Another force at play is the battle between right wing and left wing ideologues. Called the “culture wars” by the conservatives, both right and left claim the high ground on freedom issues and speak mostly to those who can’t think for themselves. Meanwhile the polarization dumbs down many of the issues to a state of irrelevance.

Always ironic is how quickly those of any political persuasion are to “shout down” or even violently repress competing speech. We’ve got right wing entertainer-zealots like Anne Coulter [updated scandalous comments on Donny Deutsch Show] and Sean Hannity dispicably making the case that many forms of criticism of the Govt are “treason”, while their left wing counterparts like Michael Moore pander propagandistic nonsense to the gullible. Both deflect from the spirited and intelligent debates we should be having about many polarizing issues like Iraq, massive Govt overspending, and helping save the developing world from itself.

Other challenges to the quality of free speech in America are the rise of the right-wing commercial propaganda arm of the Govt (aka “Fox News”) and the administration’s policy of reporter “embedding” which has cleverly created a system where reporters will tend to report favorably on the American war effort without any censorship at all. You are hardly going to be overly critical of the guys who are protecting you from untimely death. (yes, this is a simplification – a strong counter-argument is the world class reporting of formerly embedded Kevin Sites).

Although it used to be true that there were more “liberals” than “conservatives” in the media they were far, far, far more objective than the media stars of today who are entertainers before patriots and patriots before journalists. It also appears to me FOX may have reversed the trend leading to a net “conservative” voice in overall American journalism, but more importantly has taken greater strides than any liberal ever dreamed in morphing “journalistic objectivity” into “my country, right or wrong”.

Another significant force in play in the privacy debate is the fact few mainstream folks understand how the internet works and how sophisticated an average 15 year old is about finding online material. If every teacher and mother of a teen in America did a handful of image searches for highly objectionable porn terms you’d see a groundswell of new legislation, but few teachers and even fewer parents have any sense of what’s up online.

It won’t be pretty but it sure will be interesting…

Google and all the free speech money can buy


Scott , over at Matt’s blog, writes:

…I am disgusted by some of the comments above. How can anyone who values freedom and privacy not give their full support to Google for doing what amounts to be a courageous thing? …

I’m struck by how myopic most onliners are about this debate and I replied:

Scott – a thoughtful post but one sided – very odd that you seem to think most of the comments support DOJ’s request – onliners all over the web are very much in favor of Google, though I’d guess that most mainsteam folks and the court will wind up supporting DOJ’s position and will say “what specific privacy right is violated here?”.

The world is complex. You seem to fear Govt abuses more than commercial abuses. My view is that we have far more commercial abuses of info than our (inefficient) Govt could ever dream about. The community has created a very open and virtually uncensored online environment and we better get used to Govt and society at large being threatened by this openness.
———— end Joe comment——-

The USS No Privacy is sailing in a harbor near you!


ABC’s coverage at Googleplex was weak tonight and Sergey Brin probably did not sway skeptics with his suggestion that we should support Google’s refusal to comply with DOJ info request because we would not like the Govt sending agents to come and snoop around our house for playboy magazines. “This is Roberto Gonzales – DROP THAT CENTERFOLD and Welcome to Gauntanamo you helper of the Axis of EvilDoers!”

ABC did briefly interview the insightful John Battelle who is also hosting some of the best breaking news and info about this story at his blog. John’s the best Google watcher out there and he really is the guy that seems to know….everybody!

Many are arguing, speciously, that onliners should enjoy total privacy protection.

Does Google have an obligation to turn over info they uncover that clearly indicates a plot to destroy New York? Of course they do – probably even without getting a subpoena.

The USS No-Privacy sailed years ago and we have at best only a modest level of protection. ISPs, Google, NSA, and many related entities are watching.

I’m more concerned with how this is used and establishing legal protections from unreasonable USE of my data rather than worrying about impossible restrictions on COLLECTION of my data.

Google vs Uncle Sam vs Privacy vs YOU


Lots of superficial reporting of the Google vs DOJ subpoena to turn over search information. I think the Gov’t is less interested in the info, which they could obtain elsewhere, than in setting the precedent of making search snooping legal for them to do on a routine basis.

Unlike many onliners, I think the type of online privacy held dear by many is 1) not all that sacred in the first place and 2) an unrealistic expectation in the modern online world. Many don’t realize the extent to which your financial, health, education, political, and other information are already available for review by anyone with enough money or cleverness to dig up the stuff.

For me the concern is less about collecting info than how that information is used. For that reason I’m as concerned about commercial abuses of the info (e.g. a search engine could notice my “digital camera” search and direct me to sponsor camera sites without telling me they’ve manipulated the results)

I think developments at Google and elsewhere have quickly eclipsed the ability of mainstream media to shed much light on the issues at hand.

Build the path where you walk


A design idea I’ve always liked is sometimes used at universites and other large campuses.

Rather than build sidewalks where they think the people will walk, they simply wait until people walking around creates many paths from place to place, and build the sidewalks there.

I think this principle has much broader application than sidewalks. With my new office I’m trying to wait on setting up some things until I can tell from experience the best spot (wait..maybe that’s just PROcrastination in my case, but not a bad idea.

For internet marketing clearly an experimental approach is called for. Try things out, do more of what works and less of what fails. For organic search rankings his approach is challenged by the fact that Google, Yahoo, and MSN take some time to incorporate changes into the results, but generally experimentalism is a good concept in marketing, and vastly underutilized. Google Blogger Matt Cutts has often noted this in his excellent observations about search strategy.

I’ve always been amazed how often marketing managers use intuition and even whimsy rather than math to determine advertising buys. With salespeople pressure this leads to a lot of wasted ad dollars.

Online pay per click advertising offers instant feedback which is one of the reason’s it’s becoming so popular and effective for those who “do the math”.

v7ndotcom elursrebmem


What? You haven’t heard of v7ndotcom elursrebmem?

You soon will if you have anything to do with the internet.
It’s an SEO contest to see who can get the highest Google rank for this nonsense term.

Initially in what appeared to be part contest, part publicity grab a company called V7N.com offered a modest reward for winning. Hearing about this uberSEOmeister Greg Boser, one of the web’s top SEO guys, launched an even larger counter offer that did NOT involve links to his sites. To V7N’s credit they removed the requirement of linking to them, which means the winner can now….take it all…. I think there is now 7,000 at stake.

I initially thought I’d jump into the fray, but I think the time is better spent working on *real* terms and getting better ranks for real sites. The level of competition here is about as high as it gets with people like Greg and Dave Naylor from the UK playing the game.

A clever current ploy is a charity site which currently is near the lead in the ranks – the guy is asking for links and promising to donate all the winnings to charity.

Maybe I’m just too old to get it? NO WAY you snippy little whippersnappers!


With all the hype surrounding DIGG.com these days I decided to post my critical notions of the service at DIGG.com and see what response it got. Not a lot of Diggs but it got a lot of comments – about 8 within hours. Some thoughtful, some flames, but what interested me was the one that said “he can’t get it, he’s too old”.

My first reaction was “hey, maybe he’s RIGHT!” I’m as immersed as most of the young crowd yet I obviously don’t have the same feelings about many of the new “cool” things coming online.

My second and correct reaction was that the comment was actually a microcosm for both the problem with Digg and the problem with many in the new crop of young American tech folks.

I think for many in the tech rank and file, wisdom has been replaced by unhealthy skepticism and social concern by hedonism. Their attention span is getting dangerously short, is often hostile to thoughful discourse and analysis, and most importantly most young people have fallen out of touch with many of the realities of modern productive life and global turmoil.

I searched Digg for Darfur and got 2 articles, while “xbox” returns over 270….PAGES…. of articles.

Hopefully maturity will prevail, as it seems to for those few who make it to the big leagues, because I certainly make an exception to this criticism for most of the folks I’ve met from Google, Yahoo, MSN. They tend to be very globally sophisticated, very sharp, and many have a great sense of world priorities. I’m actually optimistic as the highest levels of the tech corporations – for example the Omidyars of Ebay, Bill Gates of MSN or Larry Page and Sergey Brin at Google – express strong ideas about “changing the world” in very positive ways. But in important ways these folks represent the OLD timers rather than the new folks.

So, are we resigning our future to experts in gaming rather than globalization? Well, sort of. The globalization experts are out there, but they are not watching Digg or MTV very much. They are in China and India, studying their asses off in demanding school environments, and getting ready to take over the world.

Based on the lifestyles and superficial drivel coming out of the mouths of many of our young whippersnappers here in America maybe those guys and gals DESERVE to take over the world.