The thing about cool ideas....

You know, I sincerely believe that if google announced that you could upload any image you wanted and have it used as the background for Google Maps, people would go apesh*t. They would call it innovative, they would say it was a great way to make use of an effective technology for everyday folks. They would talk about it in glowing terms and use it with zeal.

So why not the same reaction to SoarPort? SoarPort is Google Maps for everyday folks.

Perhaps I am just impatient. But it would be nice to know that when (not if) Google opens its doors to allow anyone to upload large images for use in conjunction with Google Maps, it will at least be noted that SoarPort came first. And even better, it would be nice if SoarPort were used extensively in the meantime! Its tough not to be frustrated when you really believe something is worthwhile!!!!!

Great ideas?

So I'm amazed to find the world is spinning out of control, specifically now regarding Powerset. Where to begin? I'll start with the fact that I've tried the service. Powerset is supposed to be able to handle "natural language processing" or NLP. So, I typed in "what is the best way to make money on the internet?". The response? Independent music.

Moving right along....

My experience is very similar to that of a wide range of other users. The overwhelming response appears to be that the site sucks. So how did it ever get to this point?

First off, I blame us - anyone who uses the internet. We go nuts for the idea that someone might knock off the big bad category leader...which is in this case Google. We love the David v. Goliath story so much we just keep stepping up to the plate to listen to this garbage over and over again. Folks, it's 2008....its time to stop talking about search engines for crying out loud.

Next, I blame the Venture Captialists who dumped $12.5M into this project. Now relative to the average joe, $12.5M is a lot of money. But relative to Google, $12.5M is their daily cafeteria budget. How far exactly did you expect to go on $12.5M when you are competing against a company with a market capitalization of $182.55B. That's B for "Billion". If you take away the VC money for Powerset, the difference is $170B. That is so ridiculous, its almost beyond comprehension. Seriously...that is a stupid, stupid investment - but you know sure as shooting there will be another VC firm to pony up money for the next would-be Google-killer. Guaranteed.

Finally, I blame the Powerset people. Natural Language? I've spent the past 10 years mastering the art of finding what I want through the use of keywords. Even if Powerset was the worlds best NLP search engine, what kind of victory is that? No one uses internet search that way, and there is a really, really good reason why we don't: its not easier. Why would the next big thing be harder to use than Google? Its just senseless. These people need some more cynical friends.

So if you, a blog you own(i.e. TechCrunch), or your media distribution network (i.e. Reuters) could be so kind, please stop spinning helplessly out of control over an idea that was dead before it even started. Let's start getting hyped up about really cool ideas, and let the junk fall into the bin where it belongs.

What the Jyte?

So I take it Jyte.com has figured out a thing or two about search engine optimization. I've been trying to have soarport hit the top of google's search results for the phrase "big image hosting". It is a phrase that returns about 2.5M results. I couldn't get on the list.

As a lark, I added soarport to Jyte, and my "claim" was that it was the best way to show a big image. Next day I performed another search for "big image hosting" and my Jyte claim was the number 2 result. #2! Out of 2.5 million possible pages! Are you kidding me? I guarantee there are sites out there who want that position. Badly. And here's Jyte - and they have absolutely nothing to do with Image hosting - and they get the #2 spot!! I had to look twice because I just could not believe my eyes. And too boot, Jyte actually helped SoarPort as well. Currently, in a search for "big image hosting", SoarPort is number 7! Can you believe that? I did everything I could to try to optimize my site, and nothing had the effect listing it on Jyte did. And too boot (again) it's not like my claim is lighting up the Jyte community. It is just one of many claims on that site. But somehow Jyte has Google's ear. So....how exactly?

In viewing the Jyte source, the first thing I notice is they are XHTML compliant. OK, so this must have a significant effect of search results. So there is a goal for me with SoarPort right there: get it XHTML compliant.
Next, I noticed their entry page is 21K. SoarPort is 26K. Does size make that much of a difference? Maybe it does? Another goal: trim at least 5K out of the main page. That shouldn't be too tough, considering:
Jyte does use tables, but sparingly. I've heard a lot of discussion on this topic. Most of it I have dismissed. But how can you argue with Jyte's results? If a site like Jyte relies on other means beyond tables to render output, and they can seemingly hit Google's #2 search results at will, why tempt fate? Figure out how to work without tables, and perhaps favorable search results will follow(?) At a minimum, removing (some) tables should help reduce the page size.
Jyte uses OpenID. I know this is a feature of authentication Google supports. Is it possible that openid sites get better Google rankings? Google ranking aside, I think Openid is a good idea and a goal of SoarPort is to include it (its a bit less trivial than I had hoped). But if there is any chance there is also a seo benefit....why not add it?
Jyte also has an interesting tag I've never seen before:

<link title="Jyte" rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://jyte.com/jyte_search.xml"/>

. So...what exactly is this badboy? Navigating to the jyte_search.xml file, I see it is essentially a meta tag replacement. Could it be that this file is a major clue? Well, ask me in about a week. SoarPort - if nothing else - is about to get an "opensearchdescription"!!!!!

Lessons Learned

I've come to realize the importance of goals. To this point, "success" has meant making money. To a degree, I think that's still true. But it is somewhat like a professional sports team defining success as winning a championship. There is also truth in that, but there's more truth to the fact pro sports teams can succeed without a championship. Just ask the Toronto Maple Leafs.

So the difference is, I've begun to think in terms of goals, and what needs to happen in order to achieve those goals. Each goal will ultimately map to the "winning a championship" style goal. That goal would be to have SoarPort earn $100K per year. If SoarPort ever somehow did that, obviously it would be a tremendous success. Prior to that point, however, there are probably 100K goals to achieve. Therefore, the financial goal is pretty abstract at this point. Instead, more immediate goals need to be set and achieved.

SoarPort has been up for 1 calendar month. In that time 975 people have visited the site. By June 8, a goal for SoarPort is to have 1500 people visit the site. And so, to achieve that goal, we must test, test, test different strategies to get there. I love to look back at Archive.org. If you look at the first 3 months of YouTube's history, they radically revamped the front page of that site 3 times!! 3 major re-writes in 3 months...clearly YouTube followed the test,test,test strategy. And even in the early going, YouTube was one of those rare success stories. So if a site which is generating a lot of visits feels the need to test new entry pages, then the rest of us should as well.


Both 10GoldenRules and the article at http://www.gamedev.net/reference/business/features/shareprof/ also talked about the importance of using resources such as Google Trends. In the case of 10GoldenRules, Google Trends is considered valuable because it can assist in keyword selection. In the article, Google Trends is not really a direct area of focus, but the idea here is you would follow the trends first, and then come up with an idea second: a professional responds to a market need. And this is a challenge for someone like me: just because you have the skill to do it, should you? That is a question I do not use to scrutinize my ideas (enough). Having said that, the can/should question also ties into testing: perhaps SoarPort falls more into the "can" category than the "should" category, but by testing SoarPort with some currently hot trends -such as Facebook, MySpace, and Google Gadgets, we can move more into the "should" category, while at the same time testing and driving toward a goal of increasing our audience. So, to achieve my goal of 1500 people in June, I will review current trends, and aim to align what SoarPort offers with what is in demand due to the trend.

Success via goal setting

I definitely struggle with the concept of success online. Do you need to make a million dollars? 100? How many hits should you get? Are 10 hits that yield $500 worse than 1000 hits that yield $0.02? Is money even part of the equation?

One of the changes I am in the process of making at SoarPort is to begin to define success in terms of goals. If I set out a goal and I achieve it, then that is success. I can question the merit of pursuing that goal, but that does not impact the success of achieving it.

Some goals I think I must have:
- identify the overall list of "web" things which need to be present in a site and then shoot for those goals: things like meta tags, and XHTML compliance. Again, the merit may be questionable, and this may not be a high priority goal. But it is a goal nonetheless.
- Respond to feedback from test users
- Increase exposure to the site by creating a marketing plan (then the next goal would be to follow the plan...but what is important is a marketing plan is a goal).

More to follow....

Will the idea spawn copy-cats?

There is a big difference between being the only game in town, and having a virtual lock on the target audience. By that I mean YouTube.com has a virtual lock on video hosting. But imagine how insanely huge they might be without Google Video, Yahoo Video, DailyMotion.com, Veoh, Youku.com, Tuduo.com and the millions of other YouTube wannabes that have emerged over the past 2 years since Youtube first came on the scene. The fact youtube has so many copy-cats is not a bad thing. In fact, a good idea will encourage copy-catting (if that is a word).

And for website originators, what do you think is easier: being the only guy in the world preaching about how awesome it can be to host videos online? Or being the first of 15 sites preaching the same message? And how much more likely do you think you have to succeed as the originator vs. being a late entrant? The fact is, if you are a late entrant and have an email address that ends in something other than google.com or microsoft.com, all you are going to accomplish is to further the business of those who came before you. In the video battle, even Google could not overcome the second to market stigma and finally gave up - opting to acquire YouTube.com in spite of the fact they already had a video brand.

Being the first to market, then having your idea copied...well you simply cannot script it better than that.

How much of the internet is automatic?

So SoarPort.com was profiled on Mashable, which was very kind of them. Less than a week later, and about 80% of the hits on Googleare basically regurgitations of the Mashable article. Say what? Only on the internet could such a thing even be considered quasi-legal. I can't reprint an article from my local newspaper for free...why should I be able to do so online?

Which begs the question, why are people doing it? And I'm not talking about people who got the idea from Mashable, then wrote their own article: I am talking about sites that have taken the Mashable article verbatim and put it on their site. I would imagine a site like Mashable puts a great deal of effort into crafting their content to attract search hits, so not only does the material get jacked, but the same mechanics that led people to their site will lead them to the leeches. So obviously, there is advertising money to be earned through this practice.

And you know, as the reviewee, it doesn't really work for me either. Yes, there are a few more sites linking to mine, but they are really hollow links. Unless someone goes to Mashable, they are going to get a lesser experience reading the reprint, because it will be slathered in ads and other disconnected content. I guess there is no real way around it...it's too bad Google couldn't figure out a way to reward sites that create content, but banish those who just steal it.