Game Theory could be an application of Analytics, I suppose - apparently there's someone, Bueno de Mesquita, who developed a way to predict the future accurately 90% of the time using Game Theory, according to David Pescovitz at BoingBoing in a post about Game theory and future forecasting - "…game theory, an esoteric branch of mathematics used to analyze interaction. “Game theory is math for how people behave strategically,” Bueno de Mesquita:

"…He's consulted for the CIA, the Department of Defense, and Fortune 500 companies to help generate forecasts using a computerized game theory model. He's recently worked with the US government on the conflict with Iran. However, he says his private consultancy corporate policy bars him from saying, "on a commercial basis," who will be the next president of the United States. From Science News:

The details of his study of negotiation options with Iran are classified, but Bueno de Mesquita says that the broad outline is that there is nothing the United States can do to prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear energy for civilian power generation. The more aggressively the U.S. responds to Iran, he says, the more likely it is that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. The upshot of the study, Bueno de Mesquita argues, is that the international community needs to find out if there is a way to monitor civilian nuclear energy projects in Iran thoroughly enough to ensure that Iran is not developing weapons.

One of his most famous past predictions also concerned Iran. In 1984, the model predicted that when Ayatollah Khomeini died, an ayatollah named Hojatolislam Khameini and a little-known cleric named Hasheimi Rafsanjani would rise to succeed Khomeini as leaders of Iran. At the time, most experts considered that outcome exceedingly unlikely, since Khomeini had designated a different person as his successor. But in fact, when Khomeini died five years later, Rafsanjani and Khameini succeeded him. "

The article on The New Nostradamus for Good Magazine mentions a point that Burno de Mesquita made about accuracy of input:

"…he’ll claim that mathematics can tell you the future. In fact, the professor says that a computer model he built and has perfected over the last 25 years can predict the outcome of virtually any international conflict, provided the basic input is accurate. What’s more, his predictions are alarmingly specific. His fans include at least one current presidential hopeful, a gaggle of Fortune 500 companies, the CIA, and the Department of Defense. Naturally, there is also no shortage of people less fond of his work. “Some people think Bruce is the most brilliant foreign policy analyst there is,” says one colleague. “Others think he’s a quack.”

The CIA is using de Mesquita's approach for quite some time and tested it and it came up over 90% accurate in those tests:

"..To verify the accuracy of his model, the CIA set up a kind of forecasting face-off that pit predictions from his model against those of Langley’s more traditional in-house intelligence analysts and area specialists. “We tested Bueno de Mesquita’s model on scores of issues that were conducted in real time—that is, the forecasts were made before the events actually happened,” says Stanley Feder, a former high-level CIA analyst. “We found the model to be accurate 90 percent of the time,” he wrote. Another study evaluating Bueno de Mesquita’s real-time forecasts of 21 policy decisions in the European community concluded that “the probability that the predicted outcome was what indeed occurred was an astounding 97 percent.” What’s more, Bueno de Mesquita’s forecasts were much more detailed than those of the more traditional analysts. “The real issue is the specificity of the accuracy,” says Feder. “We found that DI (Directorate of National Intelligence) analyses, even when they were right, were vague compared to the model’s forecasts. To use an archery metaphor, if you hit the target, that’s great. But if you hit the bull’s eye—that’s amazing.”

 

Yesterday I heard about the "Do Not Track List" being the First Shot in the Behavioral Targeting Wars from Steve Rubel:

"…Right now, the marketers can really dabble a lot and perhaps even blur the line with what's ethical. I am not saying they are nor am I condoning it. However, since this level of behavioral targeting is relatively new, the unwritten ethics rules - in theory - could be bent since a lot of consumers aren't paying a lot of attention - yet. Plus, of course, they benefit from more relevant ads.

That's all about to change. It's clear the FTC is concerned about user privacy. That's why they're hosting hearings next week."

AOL, being proactive, and also stealing some Thunder from the FTC will allow you To Opt Out Of Behavioral Ads? AOL Says It Is Your Choice. 

"…AOL Will Let Consumers Opt Out of Targeted Ads from the Wall Street Journal reports that AOL will announce today a new tool that will enable AOL users to opt out of targeted or personalized ads. (NOTE: The AOL announcement is now live).

AOL has behavioral ad technology that stores consumer's preferences and then tailors ads based on the sites users visits. AOL is expected to announce a system that will give these users the ability to opt out of those ads. "

The AOL announcement, titled - AOL Launches Innovative Privacy Education Program For Behaviorally Targeted Advertising claims it can get it's educational message about opting out of behavioral targeting to up to 91% of the US online audience:

"…the program will deliver millions of public service banner ads across AOL's owned-and-operated and third-party networks, which together reach more than 91% of the U.S. online audience. AOL also announced a substantial improvement to the current opt-out process by expanding the use of patent-pending technology developed by TACODA, a leading behavioral targeting solutions company that AOL acquired earlier this year.

“Our goal with this program is to engender greater trust for targeted advertising by communicating with consumers in a more visible way, and by providing them more information about their choices,” said Curt Viebranz, President of Platform-A. “AOL believes that doing more to explain to users the choices they have over the way their data is used, and helping them exercise those preferences will help them feel more in control.”

I'm told that now, if you opt out of any behavioral targeting your being monitored for, your opt-out is often lost and tracking is reapplied at a later date; that won;t be as likely with the new AOL system:

"…Today, users who opt-out of behavioral targeting by using an opt-out cookie risk having their preference lost if they later delete their cookies.  TACODA leverages a Web cache technique to preserve a consumers' opt-out choice even if they delete their browser cookies, something other opt-out systems cannot currently do. AOL is also exploring opportunities to license this technology on a royalty-free basis for use exclusively in consumer privacy protection programs. "

When I write a post that I hope will be read a lot, about the last thing I want is to have it appear on the bottom of the first page of Google, for that search term, as a blog result.  I've noticed that sometimes this happens and sometimes, it doesn't - but more likely, if the query I'm writing a post about is about a popular current event, then I'll end you having my post appear briefly at the bottom of the first page as a blog.

Yet at other times, my post will appear as a static page, often near the top of the search results - which is much, much better, as far as I'm concerned.   I realize what Google is trying to do by including blogs in current events, but the problem is a page that's treated by Google as a blog post doesn't stay around in Google's Search Results very long, (it drops quickly) while a static page, doesen't (there must be a different criteria being applied against content).

Today, Matthew Hurst is also saying that what Google is doing by treating the same content as blog in one moment/context, and a static page, at another moment/context is bad interface design - and Matthew Hurst calls Google's Universal Search - Confused? in today's post.

"…One of the maxims of interface design is predictability. An interface shouldn't change from under you. A search now for 'Santiago Fire' doesn't produce blog results. A search for 'Gordon Brown' produces, at the top of the list, first images of the man himself, then news articles then organic results. Actually - it does if I do the search on IE6, but not if I do the search on Firefox (Japanese). "

"..In addition to the lack of predictability in the results page, one can't page through the mixed results. The first page offers the interlaced results, but going to the next page only offers organic results.

I think it is great that Google is addressing the interface problem - the web is so much more than a bland list of pages. However, the current approach seems more confusing than, say, Ask's 3D layout (though I notice that that is shifting over time too…)".

Sometimes, people "overreach" and so do companies, even Google.  In trying to solve one problem, the created others.   Now you have a lot more content you can optimize, not just textual, but other other hand, the way the results stream out on the first page are often "unpredictable".   Is that a good thing?

Apparently not - at least, not according to Matthew Hurst; and not according to me, either, since I'd rather not have my content be classified as a static web page, not a blog post - but that's just me.

I got news about OpenSocial last night (or early this morning, depending on where your located) but decided not to write about as I dosed off to sleep - I knew the blogosphere would be full of information (and mis-information plus a lot of duplicate information that adds no value) by this afternoon (when I'm writing this).

A number of people, including John Battelle, have already weighed in on this with a press release (where he got it from I can only guess) that OpenSocial is Google's attempt to dominate Social Networks by proposing a standard set of API's.  The reason why we need a set of common API's is:

"….The proliferation of unique APIs across dozens of social websites is forcing developers to choose which ones to write applications for – and then spend their time writing separately for each. OpenSocial gives developers of social applications a single set of APIs to learn for their application to run on any OpenSocial-enabled website. By providing these simple, standards-based technologies, OpenSocial will speed innovation and bring more social features to more places across the web. Users win too: they get more interesting, engaging, or useful features faster. "

Here's the OpenSocial API's that will be offered - starting tomarrow or next week:

APIs available now include:

"…The OpenSocial APIs give developers access to the data needed to build social applications: access to a user's profile, their friends, and the ability to let their friends know that activities have taken place. OpenSocial resources for developers and websites are available now at code.google.com/apis/opensocial.

Developers will have access to:
- Three JavaScript and Gdata APIs to access social functions
- A live developer sandbox on Orkut at sandbox.orkut.com

Websites will have access to:
- A tool to help OpenSocial-enable their websites
- A support forum for communicating with Google and other websites

All of these resources and the live developer sandbox are available now.

Developers already at work

Dozens of developers have helped test early iterations of the OpenSocial APIs and Google is grateful for the extensive feedback they have provided.

[List of all gadget developers]

Links to these gadgets are available at http://code.google.com/apis/opensocial.

There's also coverage in Search Engine Watch by  Danny Sullivan that has some nice diagrams:

I think one of the logical outcomes of OpenSocial is customized clients that can create social networks of the fly (peer-to-peer); maybe that's not that apparent now, but eventually, I think that's what we'll end up with.

Instead of joining social networks, we'll be creating our own - as needed, asynchronously - "networks" will form based on how people are interacting - not so much from deliberate design.  However, developing dynamic, personalized social networks for everyone are probably years away.

The New York Times also has a story on OpenSocial today - Google and Friends to Gang Up on Facebook where a party is mentioned that will take place on Thursday, November 1st - wish it were taking place in New York City - I'd ask to go and cover OpenSocial for Webmetricsguru.com.

According to Steve Rubel, new technology is more important in how it affects society than in and of itself.  I sort of agree - but I don't know if it's fund managers and investors that are stuck on new technology for it's own sake - or have become dependant on it for any profits they make.

"…The endless dot-com parties are back. So are the countless trade shows/conferences that regurgitate the same "new paradigms" the last 10 events did - with no end in sight. And yes, the ridiculous BS press releases are flying into my Gmail box. This is why I don't speak at or attend very many Web 2.0 conferences anymore. I don't have the heart for it. I would be stirring the big pot of Kool-Aid.

Let's face it, we're skunk drunk and it's because of money. It's almost like we all need to enter Betty Ford Clinic 2.0 together. This time, it's not stock market money but private equity, M&A, VCs and to some degree the reckless abandonment of logic by some advertisers who are perpetuating what is sure to end badly when the economy turns. Hubris is back my friends."

I guess Steve Rubel would know about the endless trade show conferences - he used to go to many of them, but lately has been attending less and less conferences.   I suppose I can't blame him - most of the value of conferences are networking anyway, there's not much new information that's shared in any conference I've gone to - and I go to my share as well - but nothing compared to the numbers of conferences that Steve gets invited to.

Skype Cell Phones are coming on the market now and that is a big deal, especially for international calls according to Last 100, but the first offerings are skimpy in must have features like WiFi and a full keyboard:

"..The handset itself won’t win any prizes on the style-front. It’s a bog standard candy-bar design, with a slightly cheap looking trim. This isn’t a phone for the tech-savvy early adopter crowd to rival the iPhone, but is squarely aimed at younger, more general, price conscious consumers.

• Despite offering first-of-its-kind native Skype functionality, the phone doesn’t feature WiFi. Duh!
• Sending Skype-to-Skype IMs maybe free, but there is, sadly, no QWERTY keyboard.
• Presence — the ability to see who is “online” and ready to receive a call — is a great feature on a cell phone.

A major announcement about the G-Phone or Google Phone will be coming within the next two weeks according to an article published today in the Wall Street Journal titled: Can Google-Powered Phones Connect With Carriers?

"..Within the next two weeks, Google is expected to announce advanced software and services that would allow handset makers to bring Google-powered phones to market by the middle of next year, people familiar with the situation say. In recent months Google has approached several U.S. and foreign handset manufacturers about the idea of building phones tailored to Google software, with Taiwan's HTC Corp. and South Korea's LG Electronics Inc. mentioned in the industry as potential contenders. Google is also seeking partnerships with wireless operators. In the U.S., it has the most traction with Deutsche Telekom AG's T-Mobile USA, while in Europe it is pursuing relationships with France Télécom's Orange SA and Hutchison Whampoa Ltd.'s 3 U.K., people familiar with the matter say. A Google spokeswoman declined to comment.

Of course, Google is "god of the Internet" and I've painted about the Google Phone, or G-Phone before in

Branded Searches lead to more engaged visitors, and possibly, more conversions according to findings from Eric T. Peterson's examples uses of the visitor engagement metric published today at www.WebAnalyticsDemystified.com.

".. At the top of this report you can see the pronounced difference in visitor engagement (and traditional metrics) for “branded” and unbranded searches (”None”) bringing visitors to my site. Now, because branded searches are a component of the calculation (Brand Index), you definitely expect to see a difference between the two engagement scores. What is interesting is that while other metrics (duration, sessions per visitor, page views per session) show a slight difference, visitor engagement and conversion are all three times higher for branded searches. I think this difference observed in all the metrics is further evidence that brand-driven searches are bringing more engaged visitors — what do you think?

There's been a lot to support that Branded Searches are more effective, the first being a study published in 2006 titled "Giving Clicks Credit Where They re Due: What You Need to Know When Allocating Your Search Budget" is available as a PDF download:

"…Fully 25% of conversions occurred from users who clicked more than one ad. The highest conversion rate (9.30%) occurred when a user's first and last click were both on brand terms. However, when the first click was on a non-brand term and the last click was on a brand term, the conversion rate was almost as high (8.73%).

Notably, for searchers who began their search process on a non-brand term and then switched to a brand term, conversion rates were seven times higher than when a searcher used only non-brand terms."

However, some Search Marketers have successfully pointed Branded Terms to competitor sites; in fact, in a study about how Branded Searches Lead To Non Company Site 15% Off The Time:

"…After searchers type in a brand-name query on a search engine, only 85 percent end up at that brand's Web site, while the rest are diverted to competitor's sites, comparison shopping engines and affiliates. That's according to a new study released by Hitwise, which undertook the research after determining that 75 of the most popular 100 searches in February involved trademarked brand names. "

"Every time we pull a search term report…we notice almost all of the highest [search terms] are brand related," said Leeann Prescott, a senior research analyst at Hitwise. "This is something that companies need to be aware of and monitoring."

Eric Peterson didn't find anything new when he tied Branded Terms to higher User Engagement levels - yet using adding Web Analytics with his visitor engagement formula that was recently unveiled at Emetrics, he proved it using Web Analytics.

However, we might as well go on and take the findings one step beyond and claim that Branded Terms are more engaging to begin with (probably because people who search on a branded term know what they're searching for - therefore, more engaged and invested in the results of the search to begin with).

Word comes from IBM that a fully functional web browser for Second Life has been betat tested - http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2007/10/viewing-induali.html:

"..According to Pelican CEO Clive Jackson, inDuality transmits about 95% of the SL experience from the world to the web."

We'll see once I can beta test - There's a form to sign up for the inDuality Beta test at this link.

Gary Angel and Semphonic came up with an opinion of what the acquisition of Visual Sciences means to users of HBX of even of Visual Sciences; the acquisition was announced last Thursday and I wrote about it in Omniture buys Visual Sciences for 394 Million Bucks.

Gary knows more about the nuts and bolts of all the major analytics platforms than anyone I've met - here's a summary of what he said as I understand it.

1. If your company was evaluating HBX - forget it - go to Omniture.
2. If your company was evaluating Visual Site you might just want to build your own data warehouse (hope I got this right - Gary)
3. If your a light HBX user - move over to Google Analytics
4. If your a medium HBX user - move over to Omniture Site Catalyst
5. If your a heavy HBX user - move over to Omniture Site Catalyst with Discover 2.0 and the Data Warehouse.
6. If your a Visual Site customer and unhappy with it - move to Site Catalyst with Discover and Data Warehouse.
7. If your a Visual Site customer and happy with it - take a wait and see attitude (developments aren't that clear yet on how Visual Site will progress now that Omniture owns it).

Hope I summarized this information by Gary Angel correctly.