While viewing the NYC Marathon in Williamsburg, yesterday, and listening to Nikki Shannon and her band play, while waves of runners past, I had a glimpse of an idea, not sure if this has been done yet, but parts of it already exist.

To begin, many artists, of all types, have lousy websites that aren’t found easily in search engines. Even worse, manyof those same sites have lousy usability issues, and, there’s little if any web analytics tracking.

There are a few web services such as Pandora, Genius from Apple, I believe, iLike; these services a built to figure out music you like, play more if it, and hope you buy some of it.

Also, services like Upcoming, Yelp, to some extent Facebook, MySpace and other Social networks connecting events and friends. Social Networks like Going.com and Meetup.com want to figure out what you like and match you up with a group or event, Going is more focused on event promoters than on you while Meetup is becoming annoying in it’s attempts to sell me on every new meetup that meets what it thinks I’m interested in.

But what connects up a group like Nikki Shannon, who a friend of mine said sounded to her like Sheryl Crow, and a Pandora preference for that kind of music?

Maybe I missed it, but I don’t see anything that does that.

So, let’s say that I have Pandora (if it doesn’t go out of business, first), it knows what I like, knows where I live or am at the moment, knows what I am prepared to pay, has clips of the artists and information about the venue.

Most of this stuff exists, but it lives all over the web, not in one service, and even if it did, not well.

My point is, in this era of economic contraction, innovation may come not so much, from inventing new things, as much as making what we already have done, work well ….. Connecting the Dots.

Jetpack Dreams Trailer from Mac Montandon on Vimeo.

I always wanted one …. darn….
Just wondering how much more there is to say in a book that came out this week that is not actually in this video.

Maybe I’ll look for the Jetpack Dream book and find out -Jetpack Dreams: One Man’s Up and Down (But Mostly Down) Search for the Greatest Invention That Never Was.

I’m excited Eric T. Peterson and Web Analytics Demystified, along with ComScore and Josh Chasin, figured out a way to overlay Web Analytics Demystified Visitor Engagement Score; this is big news.

I’m on my way to Emetrics Marketing Optimization Summit DC and writing this from my 3G IPhone using WordPress; I don’t have the ability to link to Eric T.Peterson’s post today, just now, but you can check it out for yourself at webanalyticsdemystified.com, if your interested.

Here’s the thing, I work with Web Analytics and ComScore Media Metrix, quite a lot, and have read Eric’s paper recently, so I have a seasoned opinion.

I think Engagement Scoring is going to be a big improvement for ComScore, though I hope it will be provided as part of ComScore’s core reports rather than being a new product that you have to pay extra for. Based on what information I can pull out of Eric’s post, today, I am inclined think the result will be the latter rather than the former.

Why?

Look, 4 of the 7 measures in his formula are used because the other 3 can’t be pulled out of ComScore’s Audience data, and of those the formula used, the base data is already present in any core report ComScore produces.

In his post, Peterson shows the caculated percentages for each engagement index, not the raw data and an example of how he applied his calculation. That’s what leads me to think the Engagement Score will be. Paid addition to standard reports once it’s offered, if it ever is offered (hope I am wrong on this one).

However, I do understand giving away everything valuable is also, not desirable. And, honestly,Engagement Scoring does add value, so thereis some justification for adding additional cost. Clearly, this is a philosophical issue, and I don’t know what the final form of this service will be, anyway.

But, I still think it would be unfair to tack on additional charges for calculations on data to arrive at an Engagement Score based on published and paid for data the subscriber already has.

Think of it this way, some Web Analytics Platforms, as of today, don’t give you “Bounce Rate” but it’s easy to calculate Bounce Rate based on a standard report, so why charge extra for it?

The 4 Engagement Percentages being presented in Eric Petetson’s post, that make up a property’s score aren’t much more complicated to calculate than Bounce rate is.

I think the Web Analytics Demystified Engagement Scoring of ComScore Reports, is a major advance for ComScore, but it needs to be free and offered as soon as possible.

As Eric Peterson noted, there are some features of Audience Measurement that confer a distinct advantage over Web Analytics, such as the Catogorization of web properties.

Peterson quickly came up with a loyal score for any ComScore site by dividing visits to a web property by the total visits to all web properties in the same category; it’s simple, but effective, and draws on data the Subscriber already has in a standard ComScore report, which means a subscriber can do the Loyalty Calculation for themselves, if they want.

I’m looking forward to speaking with Eric Peterson, and hopefully, Josh Chasin about the resarch being presented today, in person, at Emerrics Marketing Optimization Summit.

I want to add one more point, and this is directed more at ComScore; Data that a subscriber already gets in one format (or report) should be made freely available to a ComScore data subscriber in other forms, for no additional charge.

However, if data a ComScore Subscriber already gets is manipulated with additional data the Subscriber doesn’t have (hasn’t paid for) then ComScore, I feel, is well within their rights to repackage the data as a new product.

Examples where ComScore does not appear to be following my advice is their Cross Visiting reports, these are simply a recalulation of data a customer already paid for in the Core Reports.

On the other hand ComScore Segment Metrix adds considerable extra data to Core Reports, improving them; ComScore is entited to market Segment Metrix as an additional product because of all the additional information contained (unlocked, would be a better term).

So, from that point of view, Web Analytics Demystified Engagement scoring ought to be a free enhancement, a gift to ComScore Subscribers, who pay hand over fist for the ComScore offerings, in the first place.

What does Eric Peterson and his brand get out of it? More people know who he is, his brand spreads, which is, by all measures, a good thing.

And now my fingers tire and I’m almost in Washington DC now.

Hope there’s not too many typos and misspellings here, tried my best to avoid that.

Just got back to New York from an invigorating and slightly unsettling weekend near Boston that was proceeded by 2 days in LA at VirtualWorldsHollywood.

My mind and emotions are all scrambled up even as I head over to Bridgewaters in Fulton Mall for the PMA Digital Conference where I am due to speak, on a metrics panel, at 11 AM.

But here’s what I want talk about.

Sometimes we can only go so far with our work and deliverables because of the organization and situations one is in. This is particularly true for Social Media, but it also applies to many other things, including Web Analytics and even Search Engine work.

Here’s what I observed and what I make of it.

When I have produced reports for stakeholders I have noticed the closer my report became to what they originally specified, usually in writing, word for word, the less it was what they actually wanted and needed.

The process of producing, almost word for word, what they asked for let to new requirements which led to a report that morphed into something different.

A lot of Social Media and Web Analytics is like that; we’re not really dealing with a set of deliverables as much as a set of processes that lead to conversations and where reports are just milestones in that process.

When we fund projects, I think what we are really funding is conversations that lead to some deliverables, of not, and should be re evaluated periodically. But we need to look more at the conversation and what it leads to and less at specific reports and deliverables that was funded, initially.

It gets really interesting when we look at Social Media. Most organizations aren’t too sure what it is, what it’s value is, and where it belongs in the scheme of things. They don’t know how to measure success of Social Media either.

It’s probably too early for most organizations to benefit that much from Social Media because they are not structured to, and for one other reason.

The reason is the evolution of social networks and identity. We need to get to a point, as Forrester Research mentioned (Groundswell, Charlene Li) where Social Networks are “air”. You go to a site and your friends and the social graph are pulled in from a Cloud of data.

Not Facebook, not MySpace, but the Cloud, where your digital Social Graph resides.

We will then evaluate experience with the Social Graph in mind, for all enabled sites we visit and spend time on.

And the Social Graph measurement will also, only then, start showing up in what we now call Site Analytics.

New tools will evolve to measure the social graph activity across sites and business entities.

And then, Social Media will get funded, much as Search and Web Analytics are now being funded and have a place in most medium to large businesses.

But before all that happens it’s hard to see how Social Media will get that far no matter what anyone does now.

Because we are talking process and conversations, not results or large ROI.

It’s too early.

Same thing happened this weekend with Social Media and and an organization; deliverables and where an organization is at, need to be in sync.

And now I am standing before BridgeWaters.

Online reputation and identity are getting harder to define - to say what they really are at any one moment.  Just as in quantum physics, when particles display both a Wave-Particle duality at the same moment , an online identity or biography, in some notable cases, such as with Sarah Palin, becomes much more “fluid”.

For details, take the New York Times article  titled - Don’t Like Palin’s Wikipedia Story? Change It that tells a story of how a Wikipedia Editor named “YoungTrigg” subtly changed several details listed on Sarah Palin’s Wikipedia page.

But here’s the thing - after reading the NYT article and hearing others around me discuss this situation - I wondered if what I was looking at here is really really something else than “online reputation management” on steroids (according to the NYT article, Henrik Abelsson, who tracks the traffic of Wikipedia pages, said that on Friday (August 29th) there were 2.4 million page views for Gov. Palin’s Wikipedia article while for the entire month of June 2008 the John McCain article had 645,000 page views while the Barack Obama page had 1.35 million page views).

Actually, a few days ago, I wrote two posts about this phenomena at The Analytics Guru - Being Uncritically your own best friend and More on our own nariation where I  described a process which I called “self narration“.   In “self narration” the story we tell about ourselves (to our selves) defines what we end up displaying to the world.   To take my two posts a little further - I’d say the process of is really more like “metadata” that surrounds events that are, in themselves, unmeasurable (similar to “Rich Media” files, Flash and AJAX parts of websites).

What if we could take self narration to a point where critical events of online identity are subtlety changed by editing the “metadata” around them?  Is that really just online reputation management or a “fluid definition” of identity akin to Wave-Particle duality?

It’s not even clear if “YoungTrigg” did anything wrong - yet, the traceable fact (30 edits that happend on the night before the announcement, by YoungTrigg) - suggests a need to morph Sarah Palin’s online identity to fit a sudden political need (I won’t say, by who, since it’s obvious).

In other words, and according to my definition of self narration, someone decided to describe Sarah Palin differently (than how she was described before) - as if the story of one’s life can be molded like  silly puddy.  According to the New York Times article:

“… In total, YoungTrigg — whose user name is a reference to Ms. Palin’s infant son, Trig — made 30 “edits” to the article, all positive and largely unnoticed, since they came at a time when few were discussing her as a possible running mate of Senator John McCain’s.

The coincidence of the user’s name, and the sudden spurt of activity just before news broke of Mr. McCain’s choice, has raised suspicions that YoungTrigg was a campaign operative tasked to make sure that her Wikipedia article was ready for prime time, much as handlers have been assigned to do the same for the candidate.”

“…. Also, YoungTrigg reached out to an anonymous editor who had changed the Palin article on Thursday night, without any evidence, to say that she was Mr. McCain’s choice. In a public note to the anonymous editor, YoungTrigg wrote: “Where did you hear that Palin was the VP nominee? I can’t find anything online.”

Whether this pokes a hole in the idea that YoungTrigg had inside information, or rather confirms that the user had an unusually acute interest in whether the news had leaked out, is hard to tell.”

The NYT article goes on to explain how taking charge of the self narration process has become a necessary part of politics:

“…In modern politics, where the struggle is to “define” yourself before your opponent “defines” you, Wikipedia has become an important part of political strategy. When news breaks, and people plug a name into a search engine to find out more, invariably Wikipedia is the first result they click through to; it is where first impressions are made.”

But I’d like to suggest this whole process, which I call “self narration”, has much wider applications beyond the political sphere (unless you want to call everything, politics - which some people do).

I like to think the way we describe ourselves, becomes our reality - as much as the way others describe us - or an event - also becomes, to a large extent, our reality of it.

For example, the famous Hindenburg disaster, according to Wikipedia, displays some of the same qualities as

“… the Hindenburg caught fire and quickly became engulfed in flames. Where the fire started is controversial; witnesses on the port side saw yellow, red flames first just forward of the top fin, around the vent of cell 4. One, with views of the starboard side, saw flames beginning lower and farther aft, near cell 1. No. 2 Helmsman Helmut Lau also testified seeing the flames spreading from cell 4 into starboard. (Although there were four newsreel cameramen and at least one spectator known to be filming the landing, they were all recording the actions of the ground crew when the fire started and therefore there is no motion picture record of where it first broke out at the instant of ignition.)

Wherever it started, the flames quickly spread forward. Almost instantly, a water tank and a fuel tank burst out of the hull. At the same time, a crack appeared behind the passenger decks. The airship’s back broke, and the section from the nose to the aft engine cars lurched upwards, while the stern stayed in trim.”

No one really knows for sure what the caused the Hindenburg to explode, weather it was sabotage, electric sparks, lightening, engine exhaust, incendiary paint, hydrogen fuel exploding for some unknown reason, or any other reasons - because it’s not really important what the real reason was - because we’ll never know for sure.  What is clear to me, however, that our understanding of an event like the Hindenburg disaster or the Sarah Palin (…disaster - if so, for who?) is more than just manipulating facts for online reputation management - it’s more like Wave-Particle duality applied to self indentity.

I suppose you can say  9/11 is the same thing - the facts are somewhat “fluid” and leading to multiple interpretations of what actually happened;for example,  9/11 conspiracy theories abound, and some of them are quite plausible.

What I tried to say in my original The Analytics Guru post More on our own narration - is that as we have evolved our means of communications to be much more complex and widespread, we’ve become more self aware - to the extent that, up to a point, we are what we describe ourselves to be - and what other people describe us to be - and that becomes reality - our reality.

If that’s the case, as I believe it is, “self narration” might actually be a positive thing - it may give us all a way out of some very difficult circumstances (but with everything - there are limits to how much one can “shape shift” events .

Lately, I have known several people in my life that are having difficult times - and honestly, some of it is almost beyond an ability for me to see a way out for them - but I’ve also noticed, as I listen to one my friends, as I did today, that they harp back on their story of why life is so difficult for them.

And then I go back and think about “self narration”, or as someone else said once  - “you are what you think you are” (or did they say, “as a man thinkith, so be he” or something like that).

While self narration, as I called it, might not be such a great thing for politicians to do, especially those running for Presidential office, suddenly, it very well may be a good thing for people, in general, to do when they’re stuck in a part of their lives where they can’t see a solution.

Perhaps, in difficult life situations, how we describe our stories, to ourselves, primarily, leads to the perception of reality by ourselves and others.

And as far as the Sarah Palin thing - well, it was obvious that YoungTrigg probably knew an announcement would be made shortly - and edited, or prettied up, aspects of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin’s life, so that we, the readers of Wikipedia, would see her in a more favorable light.

But the whole thing that got me started into “self narration” was painting - because in nature, there really is not light and shadow - these sensations are interpreted by the mind, by our brains.

I think I’ve said enough here - my point was that we can alter our lives by how we describe ourselves - and are somewhat circumscribed by how others describe us (but we can influence how others describe us by how we describe ourselves).

Will it help my friends?  I don’t know - but you have to start somewhere.

I mentioned that I went to the 3D Television Breakfast the other day 3D HD Stereoscopic Television over at The Analytics Guru - but I didn't get a chance till this morning to upload the Video to WAASocial - here it is, and at the end, I give my comments on what I think of this "medium".

Is there some possibility for "engagement" and "metrics" -  I suppose - but what I saw was mostly post production technology improvements that didn't really have much to do with me.

Having said that, I'm not sorry I went - I just wish I saw more than the technology - because it's hard to be excited about technology for long - and anyone can copy technology.

Here's the video:

Funny, small world - just a few days ago I was asked for my opinion from The Atlantic - which I freely gave (but can't discuss) and then I read this article in the New York Times today about A Venerable Magazine Energizes Its Web Site:

"…Today, with big-name bloggers and video, it barely resembles the same site, having evolved into one of the livelier places on the Web for public policy debate and news analysis. And the number of readers going to the site has quadrupled.

Readership will get another boost starting Tuesday, when TheAtlantic.com will abolish the fire wall that has allowed only subscribers to the print magazine to see most of its articles online. It will make its archive accessible, too.

Executives hope that a rise in traffic brings to The Atlantic, one of the nation’s oldest publications, something it hasn’t had in many years: a profit.

The Web site “functioned for too long as just a marketing arm for the print magazine, rather than publication in its own right,” said James Bennet, the editor in chief. For years, he said, “it was a very small number of people, working very hard, who kept it alive.”

I guess I haven't really read TheAtlantic much, if at all, but I will be taking a closer look from now on - now that I know I can read their articles without having to pay for the content.  

Darn, wish I was one of the "big name" bloggers invited to write for TheAtlantic - Hint, Hint. 

While my Google Traffic is in the dumps - essentially Google stopped sending traffic to our entire blog network (not sure why - must be some Google Algorithm change) my mood is being lifted with the Samsung Turbo Xi 3000, a phone that "does everything" literally!

According to B.L.Ochman …. in - Move Over iPhone - Sumsing Turbo Xi3000 is Here

"…Phone has nothing on the new Samsung Turbo Xi 3000, according to the Groen Brothers. It even has a built in toaster. And you can take your temperature with it too."

And with everything moving to the mobile device - well ………..who knows - maybe we'll even up having a Samsung Turbo Xi 3000 toaster sooner than we think.

I don't know about this idea - I think it's weird, but it might work - still, it's weird - The ocean as watercooler: floating data centers stay cool in ars technica:

"…A new Silicon Valley startup called International Data Security (IDS) has sent some big waves through the data storage industry by announcing (PDF) its intent to set up a fleet of data-serving cargo ships. These floating data centers will come equipped not only with standard storage services like SAN (Storage Area Network) and NAS (Network Attached Storage), but also with amenities such as private offices, overnight accommodations, and galley services."

"…To save money, IDS is purchasing decommissioned ships that were scheduled to go to the scrapyard, then refurbishing them in drydock. According to founder Ken Choi, the first ship—which will also house the new IDS headquarters—is scheduled to come online in April, and it will be parked at San Francisco's Pier 50 along with its sister ships. Each ship has approximately 200,000 square feet of usable space. The company plans to deploy as many as 22 ships in North America and 50 ships worldwide.

IDS Floating data center mockups

 

Get a kick out of reading Eclectic Commons - lately a post about Krypton’s Karma has me tickled pink (no, glowing green); I also like the picture of an exploding Krypton.  Where does doc Jon Percepto come up with this stuff? 

Krypton’s Karma

Actually, I used to like reading some comics, but when it came to comics about Krypton, they always had an element of science within them; infact, comic books and science aren't that far apart - as in Comic Book Science in the Classroom featured on NPR.com:

"..new experiment in Maryland has students and teachers using comic books as learning tools. The program illustrates an ongoing debate: do teachers give students a challenge, or offer less difficult material that is more likely to spark their interest?"

One of my favorite comics when I was a kid was the Metal Men (I think it was published by DC Comics); there has been a website for some time about the Periodic Table of Comic Books (would Krypton be in there)?  Yes (see below)

If  we look for Krypton in all the comic books we'd see it's appearance using the search function on this site and we can find all about Krypton (in comic books) here.

While we're at it, Dogbert also talks about Executive Dashboards in this comic :

05.17.07 Dilbert

 "…Dilbert is about the trials and tribulations of life in the corporate world. This cartoon is meant to bring a chuckle to our members each day with office humor you can share with your friends and coworkers."