Davos: Easterly on Poverty


Thanks to Jeff Jarvis’ Davos blogging I learned about William Easterly, an economist who is very critical of his former employer the World Bank. At Davos he appears to be bashing much of what is now considered good poverty reduction strategy by World Bank and large private funds like the Gates Foundation. I’ve been impressed with Gates Foundation and still trying to find out more about whether the World Bank, on balance, is helping or hurting the poor. Digging a little deeper I found this Easterly quote, which certainly seems very reasonable:

William Easterly, a former research economist for World Bank:

The right response is to demand accountability from aid agencies for whether aid money actually reaches the poor. The right response is to demand independent evaluation of aid agencies. The right response is to shift the paradigm and the money away from top-down plans by “experts” to bottom-up searchers—like Nobel Peace Prize winner and microcredit pioneer Mohammad Yunus—who keep experimenting until they find something that works for the poor on the ground. The right response is to get tough on foreign aid, not to eliminate it, but to see that more of the next $2.3 trillion does reach the poor.

Of course few would disagree with the above, so he’s not really addressing the question of how to “get tough” on foreign aid.    I’ve been very impressed with the ability of the Gates foundation to focus laser-like on key health issues like malaria and fund accordingly.  I’m not convinced a bureaucratic or governmental approach can be nearly as effective, especially because it seems many of the poorest countries struggle with the simplest forms of accountability in business and government.      Clearly one of the great challenges is how to *bypass* ineffective and corrupt people and agencies within the poor countries so that aid can flow to the needy.

Whitewater Rafting is very safe, CNN!


James Kim Search Discussion – Click here | Mount Hood Climber Search

David Boone, missing hiker in California

I’ve been looking into missing people, danger, and death for the Danger Database project and noted this CNN headline that screams “Whitewater Deaths surge in US”, noting that recently about 50 people per year die on whitewater trips.

Until I got to the last paragraph they almost had me buying into the idea that rafting is really dangerous. I take my kids rafting and certainly realize there is risk, but I’ve been assuming it’s well worth the educational and recreations value of a raft trip down the Rogue River or other great whitewater rivers here in Oregon or other place. I started to wonder but luckily I read this : “Ten million Americans take whitewater trips each summer”.

OK, let’s do the math: 50 people out of 10,000,000 die while rafting. Assuming you take an “average” rafting trip your chances of death are 50/10,000,000 or 1/200,000. Looking at it in the common death statistic parlance this is .5 deaths per 100,000 people which is a very reasonable degree of risk I think, though I need to bone up on my death stats for other activities. Hmmm – 1987 skydiving killed 1 for every 75,000 jumps and it looks like Hang Gliding is the most dangerous activity but I need to find better stats. Lightning appears to average 90 deaths per year, handily beating out rafting in terms of simple numbers.

Of course your chances are actually much lower than 1/200,000 if you avoid rafting while drunk and taking unneccessary risks, which I understand contribute to a lot of the accidents in rafting and many other human pursuits as well.

Hmm – based on some stats I dug up it looks like an hour of rafting is about 3x more dangerous than an hour of driving (ie based on my wild and quick calculations you are 3x more likely to die rafting for an hour than driving for an hour).   Still, it would appear to be a fairly/very safe activity.   See comments below for details

Little companies get the big talent? Auren says yes, but he’s wrong.


Auren Hoffman of Rapleaf has a provocative post about how startups are sucking up the smartest people, leaving the Yahoos and Googles to fend for the second class talent. Based on my internet aquaintances and conference experiences I’d have to say he’s wrong about this. Google and Yahoo and other big company folks are among the brightest I meet anywhere. Many seem too young to have developed the wisdom that helps see big pictures, but that applies to the startup people I meet as well.

Google is especially agressive about plucking people from PhD programs before they even have a chance to think about alternative work and it looks to me that events like Yahoo’s Hack Day and liberal “start your own company” policies help keep the talent flowing in the direction of the big companies.

I should add that I think a lot of brilliant folks are doing startups, and this is a great thing.  My point is that company choice is based more on individual preferences (entrepreneurial mind vs stable mind … and yes I mean that literally).

I wrote over at Auren’s:

I’ll be more convinced of this when I go to internet conferences and the startup people are more impressive than the big company folks. I’m still *very* impressed with the depth of talent at Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc, especially in the cutting edge areas. Also, many big companies have liberal rules about starting your own project under the company umbrella, which minimizes personal risk but preserves the chance at home run profits (I think you could build an interesting big company around this single notion).

I’m guessing if you did a study you’d find that the company choice for top candidates is more a function of individual preference than company size (e.g. the entrepreneurial-risk-taker vs the stable-income-and-fat-pension person.

Time on Risks


Today there is a great article in the online edition of Time magazine about how irrationally we process risks in our daily lives.   I just wish they’d also point out that the extension of this mathematical ignorance, combined with religious intolerance, can account for most if not virtually all of the most pressing global problems.

We are stupid beings.   The recognition of that fact brings us much closer to a measure of salvation and solutions.

Pubcon – ad optimizing session


Jenstar is giving a great talk about the importance of testing, saying it can impact the publishing bottom line by as much as 10x current earnings. YPN vs Adsense –

Most of her testing uses the custom channels at Adsense.

Sometimes borders work better than borderless. Hyperlink blue” is generally the best link color. Second is the same color as other links on page. Try image ads enabled as test. Mix ads up to avoid “banner blindness”. AVOID right upper corner = low conversion.

I missed lots of good info here her blog is great for this stuff.

Cody Sims from Yahoo – What motivates publishers to publish? 4 things:
Lifestyle, Community Aspect, Technology enthusiastics, The “game” of publishing.

Measure of success = maximizing revenue and increasing traffic = same as Yahoo’s own goals.

Article text on the page is the most important in terms of contextual matching. Robots choke on i frames, flash, etc.

About.com as one of the best optimized environments on the web = high signal to noise ratio.

Do’s: Write the way a user thinks. Creates relevant content and ad matching.
Optimize key areas. Keep tags relevant to content.
LIMIT low content pages.
Don’t use unnecessary code.
Limit page to one or two topics.
Walk in the advertiser’s shoes – “would I want my ad here?”
Integrate keywords into URL structure. Permalinks>using IDs in links.
Strong keywords in anchor text.

www.ypnblog.com

Tom from Google: Shift in Media Consumption= opportunity. Approaching 40% of time online which will shift more ad money online soon.
Adsense: 76% reach via adsense publishers. 110 monthly page views per user
—Missed some of this —

Jay from ContextWeb, now 25th largest ad supported property online. Venture backed by same firm that brought Overture to market. Like Federated, looking to better match ads and publishers than can be done by the big players. Decision making engine works on the fly. Keyword sensing plus category taxonomy disambiguates the search. (got that?).

Google is NOT real time, but Context Web is. Dynamic content is therefore better targeted by Context Web. (the Samsonite Suitcase ad at Suitcase murderer story problem)

Quigo‘s introduced by Yaron Galai as another “cream vs milk” advertising optimizer.  I missed his very interesting slide suggesting how crappy publishers are effectively subsidized by current pricing models – hope to ask about that later.   I met Yaron in Boston I think and was really impressed by Quigo, but soured on it after talking with somebody else at SES San Jose who had a negative sort of pitch.  Probably a case where the founder’s a better salesman than the salesman.

Pubcon – Mega site optimization session


Andrew from Automotive.com / Primedia. Motor Trend magazine. He’s got some case study info about their optimization efforts in the Auto space.

Website Evaluation.
CMS challenges. No”policing” to make sure writers were optimizing content. Structure problems. (missed some here). “Site was not SEO friendly at all”. As an authority in the space, changes in structure helped a lot. Could use the brand and could monetize immediately …

sorry…too much info to capture here..

Shop.com

Aaron:  Shopping.com

Pubcon blog roundup


Here’s a list of sources of Pubcon information (aka the WebmasterWorld Conference) going on *right now* in Las Vegas. If you know of one not here please post it in the comments or email jhunkins@gmail.com

Dan Zarrella

Grey Wolf

Pubcon Blog (not much there)

SEO Roundtable Excellent coverage – how can you type so FAST Barry??

Lee at TopRankBlog

Technorati tagged “pubcon”

Google

Chris

Flickr Pix from me

Compete.com: Use Caution in providing any personal information or downloading software!?


One of the most frustrating things “Verification” sites do is make bogus and ridiculous assumptions about websites and offer pathways to remove them if you pony up cash.

When I read about Compete over at Battelle’s I tried it and noted that one of my 10 year old travel sites with a long history and good contact information had a Compete.com “warning”.   Naturally this pissed me off but I assumed a server change last year may have been the problem. 

I felt better when Matt Cutts , whose name appears on no less than the Google Patent documents, pointed out that Compete is questioning his blog’s veracity (see snapshot below).

Adding opportunistic insult to injury, the Compete explanations imply (indirectly) that a legitimate site can get rid of the warning by subscribing to a website service called GeoTrust.     Prices seem to vary depending on the site, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a relationship here, making compete look somewhat more like an extortion racket than a good new online resource.

SnapShot

Use caution in providing any personal information or downloading software on mattcutts.com.

The slow death of printed media … continues …


Numbers coming in from print media circulation numbers are starting to suggest that print media as we’ve come to know it is in trouble. Despite this Google’s about to start selling newspaper advertising. I suspect this is more to increasingly corner the advertising market than because Google is bullish on the future of newspapers.

Despite John Battelle‘s concerns about Google’s algorithms and print ads, I think mathematical analysis of advertising is a very good thing to do all of the time. I may be taking him a bit out of the broader context since he’s always advocated the value of online ads but here’s what he said today that bugged me:

>>> Ads for a specific, community driven audience need to be part of a conversation, not an algorithm >>>

Sheesh! What “need” is John talking about? Although this may be true from the publisher/sales perspective it’s not at all true for a smart advertiser who will want maximum ROI on the advertising dollar.

Historically, advertisers have been too mathematically incompetent and manipulated by sales BS to make good ad decisions. This is all changing (slower than it should, but changing nonetheless) thanks to PPC efficiency plus superior analytical tools, both provided by Google at low cost.

Newspapers and magazines should be very, very worried, because even dense advertisers will finally start to see that most print ad campaigns have negative ROIs* The print media industry has been built on overpriced ads and low paid authors, and things are going to get much, much worse.

* This has been my view for some time based on some of my own studies, but obviously ROI can depend on your definition of “return”. I’m defining it as direct sales rather than some sort of branding “lift” which is a confusing and questionable method for determination of return on advertising investments, but one that is increasingly used because, IMHO, it tends to support the status quo of massive advertising waste on foolish print advertising campaigns run by expensive advertising agencies.

More on this from Dan Blank