I’ve slowly become a big fan of Quora. I’ve learned quite a few things which I’ve actually applied in my day job or excerpted for blog posts at work from various questions being answered on Quora. I can see why Robert Scoble asks Is Quora the biggest blogging innovation in 10 years? because this is the same way I felt when I first discovered knowledgeable technical people sharing insights about building software or just historical context on blogs several years ago.

Quora has smart people with significant pedigrees freely sharing information about how and why things work in various parts of the software industry. It is a thing of beauty to log-in and get gems like Steve Case answering questions the history of AOL, Ian McAllister sharing product management tips from the bowels of Amazon or Andrew Bosworth [and others at Facebook] giving explanations for why and how they built key features like Messages, Chat and the News Feed at Facebook.

I’m not the only one that has been impressed by their experience on Quora and specifically there has been a lot of hype about Quora  on TechCrunch. Today TechCrunch published a contrasting opinion by Vivek Wadwha titled Why I Don’t Buy the Quora Hype where he calls interest in Quora a fad and pooh poohs the sites chances of becoming mainstream.

Although I like Quora, I do agree that the site faces key challenges if it is to ever break out of its niche. The primary challenge the site faces is that since it is more of a community like Reddit or MetaFilter not a networked communication tool like Facebook and Twitter, is that the user experience is likely to get worse as it grows more popular not better.

A few weeks ago I found a description of one of their attempts to solve the problem in a post by Charlie Cheever titled Commitment to Keeping Quora High Quality where he wrote

One thing we're trying to do a better job ASAP on is educating the new users that join the site and getting them up to speed on the policies, guidelines, and conventions as quickly as possible. Yesterday, we added a quick tutorial quiz before a user posts his/her first question.

So far, we've found that the quiz has helped make more of the questions that new users post conform to the site guidelines and require less editing from experienced users. We also made changes to the way the homepage feed works and when notifications are sent yesterday.
Over the next few months, we're going to be heavily investing engineering effort in:

• Educating new users about site policies and guidelines
• Improving the feed and voting ranking mechanisms
• Changing the core product to accomodate a Quora with many more users and many more questions and answers and topics
• Building special tools to support the efforts of reviewers and admins to improve the site and maintain civility and generally make it more fun to make Quora better

What I found odd about all of the above efforts is that none of them seems to try to keep the magic of what makes Quora more interesting than Yahoo! Answers, Facebook Questions or Stack Overflow. Quora is interesting because the quality of the answers is amazing due to the fact that questions are often answered by the some of the most knowledgeable people on the topic. So the key problems to solve the preserve the Quora experience is really “how do you encourage subject matter experts to flock to the site and answer questions?”

The folks at Quora have already posted a follow up to the aforementioned post titled Scaling Up where some of the approaches above are already being called into question and there is a nod towards highlighting the high quality users. That post is excerpted below

Up until a few days ago, new questions and answers from new Quora users were all being reviewed by users (reviewers and admins) who had demonstrated over a period of time an understanding of the spirit, policies, and guidelines of Quora.  There is now too much new content being posted on Quora to handle this in the same way.
… 
Concretely, some of the projects we are working on in this area are:

(1) Getting many more people to participate in the evaluation of new content on the site.  For people who want to see the newest content on Quora that might be good or might be bad, we want to let you opt in to evaluating the new stuff in mostly the same way that you browse the site.  Most of the people who use Quora have pretty good judgement, and we believe there is some wisdom in crowds.  Preliminarily, this approach is very promising

(2) We're developing an algorithm to determine user quality.  The algorithm is somewhat similar to PageRank but since people are different from pages on the web and the signals that are available on Quora are different from those on the web, it's not exactly the same problem.  We'll use this to help decide what to show in feeds, when to send notifications, and how to rank answers.

(3) Explaining Quora better to new users before they add content to the site.  We added a very short tutorial quiz before new users add new questions and it made a big difference in reducing the number of questions that don't meet guidelines or policies.

The thing I still don’t see clearly here is a focus on catering to the high quality answerers that have made Quora more buzzworthy than innovative competitors like the StackExchange family of sites or mainstream Q&A sites like Yahoo! Answers. The question the folks at Quora should be asking themselves is what are they doing to not only have Steve Case continue to answer questions on the site but perhaps get similar quality answerers from other industries (e.g. Jack Welch or Russell Simmons).

Here I believe there is something Quora can learn from Q&A sites like StackOverflow and from sites that have attracted celebrity users like Twitter. Some things that I think would be useful to see implemented on the site to retain and attract quality answerers would include

1. Democratize voting on quality of questions. Although Quora has started quizzing users before they ask a question as a way to keep quality high. It would be even better if users could vote on the quality of questions so that the more interesting ones got a wider audience. Similarly, being able to mark questions as duplicates so answerers don’t keep seeing the same questions all the time which is a particular pain point with various answer forums would be valuable.

2. Better recognition of valuable users. The ability for people to provide topic-specific descriptions of their qualifications per topic area is a great idea. Of course, it does encourage to appeal to authority when judging their answers such as the case with someone posting a super long answer that doesn't answer the question but has "screen writer" in their qualifications being voted highly. Despite that, it is still useful to be able to look at a set of answers on movies and be able to tell which of the answerers is more qualified than others. Democratizing this by visibly showing which users have been judged by the community as being more valuable than others would be a useful addition. Whether it is copying StackOverflow badges or karma on reddit there is value both to readers of answers in determining which answerers are more trustworthy and to answerers in being able to get intangible value for the service they are providing to the Quora community. It is amazing how digital points systems like reputation scores, badges and achievements can motivate people and Quora can do more to harness this.

3. A better connection between people and their followers. People like Jack Welch and Russell Simmons are on Twitter communicating with hundreds of thousands of followers who’d like to learn from them and be inspired by their words. Twitter isn’t really great for conversations or lengthy answers to insightful questions. I believe Quora can fill the gap for such celebrities in the same way Twitter filled the original need of giving celebrities a direct channel to their fans without the media acting as intermediaries. Right now I have followers and people I follow on Quora but they are treated equivalent to “topics” in my feed and I there aren’t good facilities for us to communicate with each other on the site. Can you imagine if Twitter treated hashtags you’ve expressed an interest in and people you followed the same way in your stream? What Quora does is similar.

Now Playing: Chris Brown - Deuces (Remix) (featuring Drake, T.I., Kanye West, Fabolous, Rick Ross & André 3000)

An interesting discussion broke out in the comments to my last post about whether location based services like FourSquare are about sharing one’s location with friends or an evolution of the loyalty cards where users get deals for advertising a store to their friends. You can also see members of the tech press asking themselves this question with articles like Dear Foursquare, Gowalla: Please Let’s Stop Pretending This Is Fun appearing on TechCrunch. The following excerpt from that article strikes at the heart of the matter

Pew Research reported that, despite all the hype, the use of location-based services is actually declining in America, from 5% of the online population in May to 4% last month. Forget the fabled hockey stick; that’s more like a broken pencil.

Why? Because they’re not giving us any good reason to use them. Look at their web sites. Gowalla proclaims, “Discover the extraordinary in the world around you.” Foursquare says, “Unlock your city.” To which I say: “Oh, come on“ — and it seems I speak for approximately 96% (formerly 95%) of the population. I have no interest in enlisting in a virtual scavenger hunt, or unlocking merit badges — what is this, the Cub Scouts? — or becoming the narcissistic “Mayor” of my local coffee shop. Thanks for the offer, but I’m afraid I already have some semblance of a life.

I do want to keep up with my friends, and (sometimes) let them know where I am. But if you’re competing with Facebook in social networking and your name isn’t Twitter or Google, I’m sorry, but I don’t like your chances.

The challenge for FourSquare is that being the best service for getting local deals is a very different product from being the best service for keeping up to date with my friends are. FourSquare is trying to be both when either one faces significant challenges as a standalone product given the competitiveness of the marketplace.

The main innovation with location based services like FourSquare is that they are so easy for the consumer to get into that you could make it similar to frequent flier miles where the model is “if I’m already going to be doing something regularly anyway why not get perks for doing so?”. The problem that FourSquare faces is that they have to compete with GroupOn, JungleCents, Restaurant.com and various other services that have a more proven model for delivering customers to local businesses. The ideal place for FourSquare to be is where they can pitch to customers like me that every 10th check-in to my local health club gives me a perk even if it’s a free beverage or breakfast pastry instead of offering me a Gym Rate badge which I acquired after my first month using the service and now have no reason to check-in from there anymore. FourSquare has been primarily focused on getting discounts for "mayors" of local businesses which seems backwards given that they are basically saying only one person per store can get a discount (and in the case of Starbucks it was just a $1 discount). Can you imagine American Airways saying only the passenger who flies the most from Seattle<->San Francisco that year can use the frequent flier program? Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?

If FourSquare wants to make a difference as a way for people to get local deals, they’ll need to refocus the company and not fall into the trap of paying too much attention to their game mechanics.

FourSquare faces a different set of challenges as a way to share location with friends and this isn’t just because of the social graph problem of competing with Facebook which I discussed in my previous post. I’m personally very bullish that location based services will be an integral part of our lives in the future. When I originally read Robert Scoble’s Location 2012 which aimed to predict where we’d be in 2 years given location trends today I couldn’t help but nod my head in agreement. However as I’ve started seeing some of these features show up in apps like Loopt and Facebook Places I’ve realized that some of these scenarios sound better in theory than in practice.

Constantly checking-in to share your location is a chore than you get nothing out of 99% of the time. This is why FourSquare uses game mechanics such as badges and mayorships to try to get people to regularly check-in. The problem is that game mechanics only get you so far and will not appeal to a significant chunk of the user population. On the other hand, automatically checking-in by sharing your location in real-time such as Loopt does brings with it a raft of privacy issues and can just come off as downright creepy. Although I’ve found real-time location sharing to be useful at times when I need to meet up with my wife at a crowded 5K race, it seemed a little creepy to have each other’s locations permanently shared even though it sounded convenient in theory. We no longer use Loopt and try as I might I couldn’t figure out how to pitch it to other people without it sounding creepy.

Striking the right balance between the tediousness of check-ins and the creepiness of constant location sharing will take a lot of trial and error as well as a careful sense of design. Again, I’d it would take refocusing the company to really cross the chasm here from the Silicon Valley early adopter to being the sort of mass market success that my non-technical friends who use Facebook and play Farmville but don’t read TechCrunch would be familiar with.

Right now FourSquare and other services that have cloned its model are between a rock and a hard place. It will be interesting to see how they transform themselves in the coming months to address these challenges.

Now Playing: Cali Swag District - Teach Me How To Dougie [Remix] (featuring Red Cafe, Jermaine Dupri, B.o.B. and Bow Wow)

Two months ago Nelson Minar wrote a post entitled Stop making social networks, Facebook won where he argues that websites should just treat Facebook as the one true social graph instead of trying to build their own. I agree a lot with what Nelson wrote which some people tell me conflicts with my argument that There will be many social graphs. I thought that the best way to illustrate this seeming contradictory thinking is by comparing two sites that the media considers competitors to Facebook in different ways; Twitter and FourSquare.

How Twitter and FourSquare position themselves against Facebook

Recently, Twitter’s VP of business and corporate development spoke at Nokia World 2010 where he proclaimed that Twitter is NOT a social network. Below are some excerpts from ReadWriteWeb’s coverage of his talk.

says Thau: Twitter is for news. Twitter is for content. Twitter is for information.
…
So Twitter Is "News"?

Yes, says Thau. Twitter is changing the very nature of news today. Journalists are sending their stories to Twitter and some are even publishing directly to Twitter. It's also allowing everyday users to become journalists themselves by providing them with a simple mechanism to break news.

"The guy who saw a plane land on the Hudson River right in front of him didn't think to send an email," says Thau. "He tweeted it."

Thau also wanted to assure Twitter users it's OK if you think you're not interesting enough to have your own Twitter account. Don't apologize if you don't tweet - just come to Twitter and consume content instead. After all, plenty of people already do just that.

The key thing here is that Twitter is arguing that the primary relationships on the site are not “social”. They are producer<->consumer where the product is news and other information content.

Dennis Crowley of FourSquare made more direct comparisons between his service and Facebook in an interview with TechCrunch.

On why the world needs more than one social graph

Our social graph is more representative of the people that you meet in the real world. I am starting to believe, if you asked me a year ago, Why would you ever need more than one social graph? You need representation of a couple of them. Between the three, Facebook is literally everyone I’ve ever shaken hands with at a conference or kissed on the cheek at Easter. Twitter seems to be everyone I am entertained by or I wish to meet some day. Foursquare seems to be everyone I run into on a regular basis. All three of those social graphs are powerful in their own.

The FourSquare argument is that services that create new social graphs that are tied to a specific social context can continue to exist and grow in a world where social networking is dominated by Facebook’s website and Facebook Connect.

Facebook’s trajectory: Adding a social element to every online activity

Before analyzing the wisdom of the approaches that FourSquare and Twitter have taken to differentiate their offerings from Facebook, it is a good idea to have an idea of Facebook’s ultimate strategy. This isn’t hard since Zuckerberg and other Facebook regularly share this with TechCrunch. Below is an excerpt from an article titled Zuckerberg: Facebook Photos Used 5 Or 6 Times More Than Competitors — Combined which describes their long term strategy

He noted that when they launched the product, they didn’t have all of the features that their competitors did. For example, they didn’t have high-resolution photos and you couldn’t print them. But one thing they did have was the social element — and this changed everything.

“Those features by themselves were more important than anything else combined,” Zuckerberg said of the social elements of Facebook Photos. He then dropped the competitor bomb. “The photo product that we have is maybe five or six times more used than every other product on the web — combined,” Zuckerberg stated.
…
And it was clear from both Zuckerberg and CTO Bret Taylor’s talk at the event that photos to them was the harbinger of things that eventually came — and will still come.

Taylor noted that he had been “brainwashed by Silicon Valley” before he saw and understood the power of Facebook Photos (he was likely working at Google at the time). He had been thinking like an engineer about the best way to organize photos on the web. But he quickly realized that “the best possible organization of photos is around people,” Taylor said.

“There are ten other industries waiting to have this type of disruption,” Taylor said noting the travel industry, e-commerce, and music as a few of them. Earlier, Zuckerberg agreed. Because of the social element, “every single vertical will be transformed.“

Facebook’s social graph is a graph of people I know or have met. Facebook’s fundamental strategy is to build a product and platform where key online activities are improved by adding the social element of people you know. Where Facebook has been dominant is when the activity is one that already related to interacting with people you know. Facebook has beaten geek favorites like Gmail, Flickr and Delicious as the way regular people share private messages, photos and links online. This is both due to the powerful network effects of a social networking product and the fact that their graph maps 100% to the people one typically wants to indulge in those activities with.

Facebook has had less success with products where their graph doesn’t correspond well with the target activity. The best examples of this are Facebook Marketplace versus eBay/Craig's List or Facebook Questions versus Yahoo! Answers. In both of these comparisons, Facebook isn’t even on the radar of the market leader. This is because activities such as buying someone’s old junk really need a wider net than just your friends, family and coworkers.

This is where the positioning and focus of Twitter as a news service as opposed to a social network puts them in a good place in comparison to Facebook. Twitter is where I go to get entertainment and news about the topics I’m interested in from subject matter experts. These subject matter experts (in many cases bloggers, minor & major celebrities) are not people I know nor  have I met. This is distinct from my Facebook social graph but has some overlap depending on how much of a subject matter expert I am myself. On the other hand, FourSquare is a place where I go to share my location with people I know or have met. This set of people is almost always a subset of the people in my Facebook social graph. The only value additions you get from FourSquare are the game mechanics and deals (not anymore). FourSquare has unfortunately reached the point where the only practical difference between using it versus Facebook Places is that I get to be mayor of my local Gymboree and collect two dozen video game style achievements. Personally I’ve already grown bored with the game mechanics and suspect that targeting the console gaming demographic guarantees it will be a niche service at best.

The bottom line is that if the primary focus of your product is that it connects people with their friends, family and others they know around a particular activity then you need to be able to answer the question as to how your product can compete in a world where your service is a feature of Facebook or of an app on its platform.

Now Playing: Far East Movement - Like a G6

Earlier this morning, Jeff Kunins posted the announcement that Messenger Connect is out of beta and available worldwide. Key excerpts from his post include

Today, we are pleased to announce that Messenger Connect is out of beta and available worldwide. We’ve gotten a great response so far: leading sharing syndicators ShareThis, AddThis, Gigya, and AddToThis have already made the Windows Live sharing badge available on more than 1 million websites (check it out now on Bing).
…
Over 2500 developers gave us great feedback during the beta, helping us to refine and improve this release of Messenger Connect. Below is a quick summary, but for all the details check out this post from Angus on the Windows Live for Developers blog. Our focus with the release of Messenger Connect was to make it easier for partners to adopt, without compromising user privacy.

• Easier to check out –We made it faster and simpler for partners to try out Messenger Connect and determine if it would be useful for their sites. For example: you can try out the real time chat control without needing to write any code.
  
• Easier to adopt and integrate– We reduced the effort needed for sites to implement Messenger Connect usefully and powerfully by providing new tools and sample code for ActivityStrea.ms template selectors and more.
  

A number of folks worked really hard behind the scenes to get us to this point and I’m glad to see what we’ve shipped today. I haven’t announced this on my blog yet but I recently took over as the Lead Program Manager responsible for our Messenger Connect and related platform efforts in Windows Live. If you’ve been a regular reader of my blog it shouldn’t be a surprise that I’ve decided to make working on building open web platforms my day job and not just a hobby I was interested in.

As Angus Logan says in his follow up blog post on the Windows Live for Developers blog; this is just the beginning. We’d love to get feedback from the community of developers on what we’ve released and the feedback we’ve gotten thus far has been immensely helpful. You can find us at http://dev.live.com/forums

PS: Since someone asked on Twitter, you can find out more about Messenger Connect by reading What is Messenger Connect?

Now Playing: Waka Flocka Flame - No Hands (featuring Roscoe Dash and Wale)

Earlier this week Facebook announced the revamp of Facebook Groups. At first I planned to avoid commenting on this release since there is significant overlap between it’s functionality and that of Windows Live Groups so it is hard for me to have an objective perspective. However this morning I saw the following tweet from a designer at Facebook

I found this a little intriguing since I was sure I'd seen the presentation from the Google UX researcher he was referencing and I couldn't see how Facebook Groups addresses the problem he pointed out. If you haven't seen the presentation there is a brief description and link to it in the VentureBeat article Google researcher says friend groups may give it a window to best Facebook. Below are key excerpts from the article which capture the key point from the presentation

Through studying the nuances of social interaction both off- and online, Google researchers found that people typically have between four and six friend groups and only between two and six “close” friends, he said. College friends don’t necessarily mix with work friends, who don’t necessarily mix with a person’s family.
…
Adams pointed out all of the different problem scenarios Facebook users run into if the different parts of their identities end up blurring. One teacher the company interviewed, for example, realized that photos of her with her close friends at a gay bar were being exposed to her 10-year-old students.

Personally, I’d always assumed this collision of friend groups would be the main challenge that would prevent Facebook from being as successful as it could be back in 2008. What I didn’t expect is that people would decide that the benefit of having access to all their friends in one place was worth the cost of having to censor themselves a little bit in their online sharing since what may be appropriate for one group of friends (e.g. your friends from the gay bar scene) may not be for another (e.g. parents of students in your middle school class). Today has grown to having 500 million users based on that fact.

The reasons for self-censorship are sometimes not so controversial. Simply posting a bunch of kid pictures can get annoying for your coworkers even though your family on Facebook loves every single one of them. For the people who find this need to censor how they share online for various reasons, the argument is that Facebook Groups solves this problem. There’s only one catch which Mark Zuckerburg brought up himself a while ago which is mentioned in the TechCrunch article Facebook Overhauls Groups, A Social Solution To Create “A Pristine Graph”

“The naive solution is to do something like Friend Lists,” Zuckerberg says. ”Almost no one wants to make lists,” he continues. He’s noted this before. “The most we’ve ever gotten is 5 percent of people to make a list. It’s pretty brutal to have to do this every single time.” He then went into the algorithmic solutions. These are helpful, Zuckerberg says, but it’s also really easy to get these wrong, he notes. There needs to be a social solution, Zuckerberg says.

Facebook Groups faces all the problems with Friend Lists that Zuckerburg mentions above. In real life, I don’t manage my different social circles at the same time. I go to work and have work friends, I have school friends I still call every once in a while and when I go to my regular poker game there I interact with my poker friends. Every once in a blue moon like at my wedding, all of these worlds collide and it is actually a little stressful to manage them in real time. In addition, when the members of these groups change I don’t have to actively manage them (i.e. when a coworker becomes friendly enough for me to hang out with them outside of work, when a poker friend stops attending the regular poker game or when a coworker switches jobs and we no longer work on related technologies). Friend Lists on Facebook make people work to keep track of changes in their social relationships which is just not how most humans work. I still have phone numbers in my cell phone for people who I was supposed to meet up with for dinner at a conference almost four years ago who’ve since left Microsoft.

Facebook Groups cranks the awkwardness of dealing with this up to 11. Let’s say I create a group for “People who work on social at Microsoft who regularly have lunch” and after a few months to years some of these people leave the company, get promoted or switch roles. As the owner of the group what do I do? Do I kick them out? Do I keep blathering on in private discussions that I know are no longer relevant for half of the recipients and in some cases actually violates work ethics since some of these people have left the company? What happens when I stop working on social at Microsoft?

Facebook Groups may solve some problems users have with Facebook but I suspect it is not the silver bullet that addresses the problem of people having friend groups that they’d like to keep separate on Facebook especially since it introduces a new set of problems for users. Time will tell if I’m right or wrong on this suspicion.

Now Playing: Yo Gotti - Women Lie, Men Lie (featuring Lil Wayne)

Software companies love hiring people that like solving hard technical problems. On the surface this seems like a good idea, unfortunately it can lead to situations where you have people building a product where they focus more on the interesting technical challenges they can solve as opposed to whether their product is actually solving problems for their customers.

I started being reminded of this after reading an answer to a question on Quora about the difference between working at Google versus Facebook where Edmond Lau David Braginsky wrote

Culture:
Google is like grad-school. People value working on hard problems, and doing them right. Things are pretty polished, the code is usually solid, and the systems are designed for scale from the very beginning. There are many experts around and review processes set up for systems designs.

Facebook is more like undergrad. Something needs to be done, and people do it. Most of the time they don't read the literature on the subject, or consult experts about the "right way" to do it, they just sit down, write the code, and make things work. Sometimes the way they do it is naive, and a lot of time it may cause bugs or break as it goes into production. And when that happens, they fix their problems, replace bottlenecks with scalable components, and (in most cases) move on to the next thing.

Google tends to value technology. Things are often done because they are technically hard or impressive. On most projects, the engineers make the calls.

Facebook values products and user experience, and designers tend to have a much larger impact. Zuck spends a lot of time looking at product mocks, and is involved pretty deeply with the site's look and feel.

It should be noted that Google deserves credit for succeeding where other large software have mostly failed in putting a bunch of throwing a bunch of Ph.Ds at a problem at actually having them create products that impacts hundreds of millions people as opposed to research papers that impress hundreds of their colleagues. That said, it is easy to see the impact of complexophiles (props to Addy Santo) in recent products like Google Wave.

If you go back and read the Google Wave announcement blog post it is interesting to note the focus on combining features from disparate use cases and the diversity of all of the technical challenges involved at once including

• “Google Wave is just as well suited for quick messages as for persistent content — it allows for both collaboration and communication”
• “It's an HTML 5 app, built on Google Web Toolkit. It includes a rich text editor and other functions like desktop drag-and-drop”
• “The Google Wave protocol is the underlying format for storing and the means of sharing waves, and includes the ‘live’ concurrency control, which allows edits to be reflected instantly across users and services”
• “The protocol is designed for open federation, such that anyone's Wave services can interoperate with each other and with the Google Wave service”
• “Google Wave can also be considered a platform with a rich set of open APIs that allow developers to embed waves in other web services”

The product announcement read more like a technology showcase than an announcement for a product that is actually meant to help people communicate, collaborate or make their lives better in any way. This is an example of a product where smart people spent a lot of time working on hard problems but at the end of the day they didn't see the adoption they would have liked because they they spent more time focusing on technical challenges than ensuring they were building the right product.

It is interesting to think about all the internal discussions and time spent implementing features like character-by-character typing without anyone bothering to ask whether that feature actually makes sense for a product that is billed as a replacement to email. I often write emails where I write a snarky comment then edit it out when I reconsider the wisdom of sending that out to a broad audience. It’s not a feature that anyone wants for people to actually see that authoring process.

Some of you may remember that there was a time when I was literally the face of XML at Microsoft (i.e. going to http://www.microsoft.com/xml took you to a page with my face on it ). In those days I spent a lot of time using phrases like the XML<-> objects impedance mismatch to describe the fact that the dominate type system for the dominant protocol for web services at the time (aka SOAP) actually had lots of constructs that you don’t map well to a traditional object oriented programming language like C# or Java. This was caused by the fact that XML had grown to serve conflicting masters. There were people who used it as a basis for document formats such as DocBook and XHTML. Then there were the people who saw it as a replacement to for the binary protocols used in interoperable remote procedure call technologies such as CORBA and Java RMI. The W3C decided to solve this problem by getting a bunch of really smart people in a room and asking them to create some amalgam type system that would solve both sets of completely different requirements. The output of this activity was XML Schema which became the type system for SOAP, WSDL and the WS-* family of technologies. This meant that people who simply wanted a way to define how to serialize a C# object in a way that it could be consumed by a Java method call ended up with a type system that was also meant to be able to describe the structural rules of the HTML in this blog post.

Thousands of man years of effort was spent across companies like Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Microsoft, IBM and BEA to develop toolkits on top of a protocol stack that had this fundamental technical challenge baked into it. Of course, everyone had a different way of trying to address this “XML<->object impedance mismatch which led to interoperability issues in what was meant to be a protocol stack that guaranteed interoperability. Eventually customers started telling their horror stories in actually using these technologies to interoperate such as Nelson Minar’s ETech 2005 Talk - Building a New Web Service at Google and movement around the usage of building web services using Representational State Transfer (REST) was born. In tandem, web developers realized that if your problem is moving programming language objects around, then perhaps a data format that was designed for that is the preferred choice. Today, it is hard to find any recently broadly deployed web service that doesn’t utilize on Javascript Object Notation (JSON) as opposed to SOAP.

The moral of both of these stories is that a lot of the time in software it is easy to get lost in the weeds solving hard technical problems that are due to complexity we’ve imposed on ourselves due to some well meaning design decision instead of actually solving customer problems. The trick is being able to detect when you’re in that situation and seeing if altering some of your base assumptions doesn’t lead to a lot of simplification of your problem space then frees you up to actually spend time solving real customer problems and delighting your users. More people need to ask themselves questions like do I really need to use the same type system and data format for business documents AND serialized objects from programming languages?

Now Playing: Travie McCoy - Billionaire (featuring Bruno Mars)

This morning I stumbled on a great post by Dave Winer titled Why didn't Google Wave boot up? where he writes

So why didn't Google Wave happen?

Here's the problem -- when I signed on to Wave, I didn't see anything interesting. It was up to me, the user, to figure out how to sell it. But I didn't understand what it was, or what its capabilities were, and I was busy, always. Even so I would have put the time in if it looked interesting, but it didn't. 

However, it had another problem. Even if there were incentives to put time into it, and even if I understood how it worked or even what it did, it still wouldn't have booted up because of the invite-only thing. It's the same problem every Twitter-would-be or Facebook-like thing has. My friends aren't here, so who do I communicate with? But with Wave it was even worse because even if I loved Wave and wanted everyone to use it, it was invite-only. So the best evangelist would still have to plead with Google to add all of his workgroup members to the invite list. The larger your workgroup the more begging you have to do. This is exactly the opposite of how you want it to work if you're in Google's shoes. 

This is an important lesson on the value of network effects on social software applications. A service that exhibits network effects is more useful the more of my friends use it (e.g. having SMS on my cell phone is only useful if I have friends who can send & receive text messages). By definition, a social software application is dependent on network effects and needs to do everything in its power to promote them. Placing artificial barriers that prevent me from actually using the product as a communication tool with my social network works against the entire premise of being social in the first place.

Google definitely learned the wrong lesson from the success of Gmail as an invite only service. Being invite-only worked for Gmail at launch because my friends don’t have to use Gmail to receive or send messages to me. So word off mouth could spread because the people who used it would sing it’s praises which caused anticipation amongst those that couldn’t. On the other hand with Wave, the people who got invites couldn’t get to the point where they could sing its praises (if there were any to be sung) because it was too difficult to get their friends on there. By the time they made the service open to all, it was too late due to what Joel Spolsky called The Segway Phenomenon

PR grows faster than the quality of your code. Result: everybody checks out your code, and it's not good yet. These people will be permanently convinced that your code is simple and inadequate, even if you improve it drastically later. I call this the Marimba phenomenon . Or, you get PR before there's a product people can buy, then when the product really comes out the news outlets don't want to do the story again. We'll call this the Segway phenomenon.

Some may point to Facebook as an example of a network that was invite-only but still managed to have network effects but there is a crucial difference in how Facebook regulated growth before opening up to all. Facebook opened its doors to entire networks of people at a time (i.e. everyone in a particular college, all college students, people from select employers, etc) not to arbitrary swaths of people on a first come, first served basis.

Hopefully more startups will keep this in mind before jumping on the invite-only bandwagon.

Now Playing: Eminem - Hell Breaks Loose (featuring Dr. Dre)

I've spent the past week going over the ideas in Chris Dixon's excellent post titled graphs and thought the ideas were powerful enough that they are worth reiterating. The thesis is simple, in recent years many have been focused on social graphs (i.e. graphs bidirectional or one-way “friend” relationships between users) but there are other ways in which users can be connected to each other besides whether they are friends or not. The key points from Chris’s post are excerpted below

Facebook’s social graph is symmetric (if I am friends with you then you are friends with me) but not transitive (I can be friends with you without being friends with your friend).  You could say friendship is probabilistically transitive in the sense that I am more likely to like someone who is a friend’s friend then I am a user chosen at random. This is basis of Facebook’s friend recommendations.

Twitter’s graph is probably best thought of as an interest graph. One of Twitter’s central innovations was to discard symmetry: you can follow someone without them following you. This allowed Twitter to evolve into an extremely useful publishing platform, replacing RSS for many people. The Twitter graph isn’t transitive but one of its most powerful uses is retweeting, which gives the Twitter graph what might be called curated transitivity.
...
Over the next few years we’ll see the rising importance of other types of graphs. Some examples:

Taste: At Hunch we’ve created what we call the taste graph. We created this implicitly from questions answered by users and other data sources. Our thesis is that for many activities – for example deciding what movie to see or blouse to buy – it’s more useful to have the neighbors on your graph be people with similar tastes versus people who are your friends.

Financial Trust: Social payment startups like Square and Venmo are creating financial graphs – the nodes are people and institutions and the relations are financial trust. These graphs are useful for preventing fraud, streamlining transactions, and lowering the barrier to accepting non-cash payments.

Endorsement: An endorsement graph is one in which people endorse institutions, products, services or other people for a particular skill or activity. LinkedIn created a successful professional graph and a less successful endorsement graph.

Local: Location-based startups like Foursquare let users create social graphs (which might evolve into better social graphs than what Facebook has since users seem to be more selective friending people in local apps). But probably more interesting are the people and venue graphs created by the check-in patterns. These local graphs could be useful for, among other things, recommendations, coupons, and advertising.

One of the things that has been interesting to watch is how many services have tried to build this other sorts of relationship graphs on top of Facebook Connect. Quora has tried to build an endorsement graph from Facebook Connect as a basis while Yelp has tried to build a location graph using Facebook's Instant Personalization and Facebook Connect as the foundation. As more of these sorts of relationships graphs between people and other entities are created it is slowly becoming clear to me that there are many scenarios where Facebook’s graph is not the best starting point.

Take this screenshot of the Facebook Friend’s Activity plugin on Engadget as an example.

What this plugin does is show which of my Facebook friends (i.e. mostly family, coworkers and high school friends) have found interesting on Engadget. I couldn’t help but think back to what Chris Dixon mentioned about Twitter being an “interest graph”. I realized that this feature would actually be more useful if it showed me what Engadget articles people I follow on Twitter found interesting rather than what my Facebook friends did.

As the utility of the social graph grows beyond providing a stream of updates from people in that graph to being reused in other contexts, the lack of universal appeal in some of these relationships will grow more obvious. Using Twitter as an example, I suspect if asked to chose between a widget on TechCrunch that shows what articles are interesting among your Facebook friends versus who you follow on Twitter a non-trivial amount of people would pick the latter.

Similarly I wonder how soon till we start seeing some of the endorsement graphs being built on services like LinkedIn and Quora being leveraged in other places where you need to vet the opinions of strangers such as Amazon or even Monster.com.

There are times I’ve debated with others whether there will be one social graph to rule them all and whether that graph will Facebook’s. Now I ‘m convinced that although their graph is likely to be the largest and most generally applicable in the long term, there is a market for social graphs based on relationship types other than whether someone is a “friend” or not which can still significantly improve the user experience on the Web.

Now Playing: Eminem - Untitled

One of the challenging things about working on large scale services that lots of people use every day is that they get attached to their experience with the site and enjoy the familiarity. A consequence of this is that there is a large population of users for whom any change whether good or bad is met with resistance. 

One of the things that you end up learning when building a product is that if you’re afraid that a lot of people may complain about the changes you’ve made to the product they use every day then you’ll end up never making any changes.

Now Playing: 50 Cent - It Is What It Is

I was reading Pandas and Lobsters: Why Google Cannot Build Social Applications... and came across the following statements

Now, consider the Four Horsemen of Hotness in 2010: Facebook, Quora, Foursquare, and Twitter. Think deeply about why none of these four could have been developed inside Google.
...
Quora is restaurant that serves huge quantities of bacn and toast. Quora is a dozen people running dozens of experiments in how to optimally use bacn to get people to return to Quora, and how to use toast to keep them there. Bacn is email you want but not right now, and Quora has 40 flavors of it that you can order. Quora's main use of Bacn is to sizzle with something delicious (a new answer to a question you follow, a new Facebook friend has been caught in the Quora lobster trap, etc.) to entice you to come back to Quora. Then, once you're there, the toast starts popping. Quora shifts the content to things you care about and hides things you don't care about in real-time, and subtly pops up notifications while you're playing, to entice you to keep sticking around and clicking around.

Although I’m a regular user of Foursquare, Twitter and Facebook and consider myself to be fairly up on what’s going on in the social media space, I’d never used Quora when I read the article. Given that I’ve seen hype about it in various corners I decided to create an account and give the service a try. Below are some of my impressions

What is Quora?

The easiest way to think about Quora is that Quora is to Yahoo! Answers as Facebook is to MySpace. It is a Q&A site where users utilize their real names often linked to Facebook profiles as opposed to pseudonyms. It avoids game mechanics such as high score leaderboards and user badges that services like Stackoverflow and Windows Live QnA instead relying on people getting kudos from their peers in the form of endorsements and votes on their answers to motivate users to answer questions.

Why is Quora is so Hot

Quora seems to have started off as an invitation-only service which allowed them to cherry pick the original users to meet a particular demographic (i.e. Silicon Valley geek) and also carefully manage the initial culture of the site. What they’ve created is a place where members of the Silicon Valley technorati and wannabes can post questions and expect them to be answered by members of the tech elite including insiders at various tech companies. Quora is the kind of place where questions like What are the scaling issues to keep in mind while developing a social network feed? is answered by one of the people who built the original Facebook news feed and a random opinion like Should Mark Zuckerberg step down as CEO of Facebook and find a more seasoned replacement? gets a response from Blake Ross. There aren’t many places online where a question like What were the 4 or 5 key decisions that Larry Page and Sergey Brin made in the early days of Google? can get a serious answer let alone a well researched history lesson as well as some actual insights.

This site is pure gold for technology bloggers, journalists and Web startup geeks. It is unsurprising that these sorts of people would consider Quora to be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Quora is a Community Site not a Communications Tool

One of the things I find weird about lumping Quora into the same grouping as Facebook, Foursquare and Twitter is that unlike those sites it is not a communication tool. Facebook created a new communication channel between friends, acquaintances and family members that sits somewhere between brings together the functionality of email and IM along with the feed. Twitter created a lighter weight way to consume and create content for brands and people you find interesting as compared to blogging. Foursquare is about broadcasting your location to interested parties.

Quora on the other hand seems to have more in common with mail lists and discussion forums. Specifically, it is more like Metafilter, Digg and Reddit than it is like the aforementioned sites. This is a service that will live and die based on the culture of its community and is very dependent on "power users” who altruistically provide lots of value to the site in exchange for respect from their peers. The challenge for Quora is that it will be difficult to keep its current culture as it grows bigger. Will Facebook and Google insiders still be showing up in various question threads if the site grows to be as big as Yahoo! Answers with the same breadth of audience and volume of content? I can’t imagine that happening.

I also can’t imagine being able to segregate audiences like you can on communications services. Twitter has communities of mommy bloggers, tech bloggers, fans of various celebrities, sports fans, etc which operate independently of each other and really only are noticed by others every once in a while due to the trending topics feature. The same goes for Facebook and Foursquare. Quora will not be able isolate the various demographics from each other without changing the nature of the site. However they will have to figure that out once the current crop of users start logging in and seeing "how is babby formed" style questions because the site has taken off.

Then again, we might get lucky and the site never take off with the masses which may not be good for the VCs that have invested in it but would be for the community that has formed there.

Now Playing: Young Buck - Welcome to the South (featuring Lil Flip & David Banner)