virtualstartup

Cloud Thoughts

2012-01-22T07:55:00.000-08:00

Funny, prior to reading "In the plex", a book about the breif history of Google, I really didn't "get" the concept of the cloud. It wasn't a technical thing...that part I understand. In fact, my argument was that the cloud didn't really exist as a separate entity from the internet itself. After all, Hotmail is a premium example of cloud computing and its been around since the internet was powered by kerosene.

But the eureka moment I got from In the plex was that because Google's revenue is based on ads, everything they do must get people both online (point #1), more on line (point #2) and get them to process stuff faster (point #3).

Point #1

Here's where I see Google taking down pure play communication providers. What is to stop Google from offering WiMax? Money and political clout (to get Governments to sell them spectrum). So, like done and done. Well, perhaps it will take time, but its a given Google will get there. With no obstacle to getting online (in Canada the obstacle is huge - minimum of $50/month for internet alone. They just rules out a huge swath of people.) people will get online.

Point #2

Building on point #1 (i.e. my laptop goes online the second WiMax is introduced, but my other devices follow in about a nanosecond), there is a need to move more business processing to the cloud. The reality is that an office worker will spend more time on line than a truck driver. Can we get that truck driver to work out of an office somehow? And for those already online, can more of what they do be done via the cloud? Google has its equivalent of Microsoft Word, Excel and Powerpoint. Those are a good start, but what about everything else? Can you do CAD/CAM? HMI? ATMs? Where is the line drawn where one could realistically say that everything is now on the cloud?

Point #3

I used Google spreadsheets back in ye olden days and it was slow. And honestly, it still kinda sucks relative to Excel (my opinion). Google's spreadsheet application can't just be as fast as Excel. It has to beat Excel in every category. Moving your cursor needs to be faster. Copy/paste - faster. Creating formulas, way faster. In fact, if there were simply technology limits of cloud computing relative to cursor movement and copy/paste, then the creating formulas thing becomes 'the key' - what can Google do to make creating formulas either more intuitive, or a thing of the past. Can I enter a value in a cell and instantly get suggested spreadsheets I might otherwise want to create? I know everyone thinks they have a highly specific need they are trying to fulfill, but the reality is that's not true. An office worker in Stockholm who needs to manage training rooms has the exact problem that an office worker in New York has. Why do both have to go through the same pains? Why can't Google interject and see that the second guy is trying to do what the first guy did and say - "Are you trying to do this?". Bingo...I just typed a few pieces of info into my spreadsheet, and its already done. We have something like that today with the concept of templates, but that is part of a dinosaur era. Templates are a human's interpretation of how to get tasks accomplished. We need a machine interpreted way of doing it. When Google asks "Are you trying to do this" it is not necessarily taking the existing spreadsheet and letting the second guy edit it. Instead, Google is interpreting the original spreadsheet and determining the best way to implement it for the second guy, knowing what Google knows about the second guy. Maybe Google can't figure out 100% of the business processes of the second guy, but Google can surely format the header and footer to look exactly as the second guy would make them. Not necessarily a big deal, but time saved nonetheless. And what if Google could figure out how to follow the second guy's business practices. Maybe that's not possible in the first spreadsheet, but after a while, when the second guy always shows a subtotal then a final total multiplied by 14%, Google could do that automatically.

And that's the trivial part. The tough part is getting all the other forms of computer software on the cloud. Music. Videos (well, done I guess), Games, Chat, etc. Of all of those, Games deserve special mention. They are addicitive and require huge system resources. The top-of-the-heap problem. There is a belief that HTML5 will save the day. I'm none-too-sure about that. I think this is a bigger problem than people think. But it is being done, so...hopefully. And when I say "game" I mean the real stuff, like Call of Duty, not Angry Birds. Angry Birds is a pacman moment in our history. A game where we'll look back and say remember when it was so easy to make games for computers? Them days are going away.

21 Ways to make a successful web (site/presence/project) (aka. the Web 2.0 contract)

2010-01-11T04:56:00.000-08:00

I starting to think the idea really doesn't matter. I'm seeing "big" looking sites for time tracking and project management. These aren't new ideas. What is new-ish is the formula used to build the site.

1. A title/entry page. Google kinda started this, but Facebook and Linkedin were the ones I thought really did this big time. Facebook let you do exactly nothing before logging in. Surprisingly, this is true today for Twitter, but even more surprisingly for Brizzly, the twitter client. I say surprisingly, because Brizzly must lose a ton of traffic due to the requirement to sign up first. I could be wrong (hence this list of observations).

2. The title page contains an embedded video explaining how to use the site. If a picture speaks a thousand words, then it gets tricky to count how many words a thousand pictures speak (I guess 1000x1000).

3. The video is slick. There are no "ums" or "ahs" in the spoken text. And the video is invariably a screencast of the site in use. These is often background music looping at a much lower volume than the speaker.

4. Fun colors: by this I mean people are not using harsh green and purple combo's anymore. Sites now look like either a "colorist" helped out, or they picked a color then went to a site like Color Scheme Designer 3to find complimentary colors.

5. Rounded corners - they still exist, and they are not going anywhere. This appears to be a standard.

6. Signin/support of OAuth, OpenID, etc. Its an effective (and free) way to communicate that the site is on the up and up. Being an OAuth provider is also a service a site provides to its users (albeit a pretty minor one).

7. An API - Flickr is a great example of this. An API for a site that hosts pictures. Seriously. If they can add an API, anyone can. Twitter's API is fantastically intricate for 140 char messages.

8. Takes an existing simple idea and adds a new whistle. Brizzly is a great example. Its not much of a site to be honest. But the naysayers will have a difficult time bringing it down given it does so much of the items on this list well. Praized is a great example as well.

9. The title page makes three key points. I've seen this pattern a few times. The point of the "points" is less standard than the fact they exist. Photobucket, 88miles, etc.

10. There is a noticable lack of advertising. On the title page, ads are not shown. Within the site, ads are usually not shown. I have still no idea how these sites pay for themselves.

11. There is precious little time devoted to the kind of SEO stuff I've seen work in the past. Not sure if that is a path to success or an oversite, but you rarely see things like keywords in a site's title, or a meta-description used as the alt tag of a prominent image in the site.

12. Cute graphics. See Twitter, Brizzly, Fire eagle...all oh so cute. The point is that the cuteness is an icebreaker. Spend a couple days on "friendly-ing-up" the site, and people will respond.

13. It doesn't hurt to have visitors see that there are already people using the API via an applications gallery. In other words "See? We're so successful, look at how many people are using our service!" Of course, the "gallery" contains apps that were either developed internally, or by very close friends. Again, I cite Twitter and Brizzly. Do a reference check on those respective site owners and see how far back their relationship extends.

14. Full width title area and footer, and two columns centered for the content. This is very consistent. Occassionally the center is three mini-columns to show the "three points".

15. The footer mini-sitemap. This is still very common. You see this on big sites like Youtube.com and Digg.com. Its also on Meetup.com.

16. Still with Meetup, the point of the site should make people look and say, "well this is an obvious idea". Because if it is obvious, then you should obviously use it.

17. Testamonials don't hurt. This isn't consistent across the board, but often sites will refer to popsitive press they've received from majors news orgs like Wall St. Journal, CNN, etc. I guarantee you could reproduce this effect either by managing 3 websites yourself (and providing cross-testamonials) or getting three friends to "testify" to the greatness of your site.

18. Gradients are still everywhere. As are drop shadows. Agree2 is a good example. Subtle, but shadows and graidents are there. Actually, Agree2 fails on a couple of other fronts: they show 4 points instead of 3, and they have a link to their video instead of embedding it in the title page. Huge flaws....

19. Web 1.0 carry-overs still exist. Sites still have the privacy and terms pages. There is still about, contact us, we're hiring.

20. Somebody with skills made the logo. This is fairly consistent. The logo would be good on a business card or hat. Only Smugmug really, really deviates from this idea.

21. Many (if not all) have a search facility on the main site. Quite a few are not powered by Google, which I find odd.

Suitener

2009-12-06T18:04:00.001-08:00

Time to shift gears.

Suitener is a project I've been working on for a few weeks. The idea is pretty simple: you have an audience of people trying to build backlinks to their articles to increase exposure. Suitener helps the community do just that, and build momentum via search engines as well. Its an SEO no-brainer.

As well, it ties in nicely with Boostpost. Suitener has an EVB, which allows site owners to link to their Suite101.com articles with a "resweet" button. Tres cool.

Suitener

I'm becoming a huge Pligg Fan

2009-11-22T15:31:00.000-08:00

(And in an unrelated note, a huge NOT fan of IE8 and Windows7...but that can be for another post)

Pligg.com is an open source Digg clone software package that is super easy to set up, and lets you get a Digg clone running quickly. About the only real challenge is working on your own template, which is something I have to do yet myself.

But here's why I'm such a fan:

Remember radio? It was cool and you could listen to all kinds of things on it, from news, to music, to live hockey games, etc. What made it so accepted was the range of options you had. You could listen to a station you liked, and if it was playing something you didn't like, you could change the station.

Well, Digg.com is a kind of radio. Or more accurately, its a radio station. The concept Digg introduced is the radio. But the problem that Pligg fixes is that a radio is kinda useless if there's only one radio station. What Pligg enables is a world of opportunities where Digg clone sites can sprout up for specific niches. For example, Squidoo.com is a place where people write how-to articles. SquidUp.org is the Pligg-based site which allows Squidoo readers to know more about which articles are popular, and to participate in determining that popularity. I see this type of model applied to things like geographic locale, newspapers, and even smaller groups like band fans, or - my classic example - zombie fans. Digg for zombie fans...its such a natural fit. I'm kind-of joking, but the point is, there are many ways to interpret an internet posting. Digg asks readers "Do you like (dig) this?". The Zombie site might ask "How appealing would this post be for a dead person who has risen from the grave?" Niche sites could ask:

"How cold is this?"
"How hot is this?"
"How picturesque is this?"
"How does this sound?"
"Do you think the article accurately supports the xzy political agenda?"

And on and on.

Already, Pligg sites have surfaced which have begun this process of reaching out to serve a niche audience. SquidUp is a great example of this. But so too is BizSugar, a site devoted to small and mid-sized businesses. And there are many, many more.

At Boostpost, the aim is to help publishers increase the readership of their work by giving audiences a chance to spread the post across those vertical lines - or radio stations. The benefit of an extra Digg vote may pale in comparsion to being added to BlogEngage. And for Pligg site owners, Boostpost offers a tremendous opportunity to expand their audiences. You never know how many zombie fans there are out there!

Reference Material:

http://www.boostpost.com/createaservice.php
http://www.pligg.com/gallery/
http://pligg2u.com/
http://digg.com/
http://www.squidoo.com/
http://squidup.org/
http://blogengage.com/
http://www.bizsugar.com

Defects and growth

2009-11-18T17:45:00.000-08:00

So far the site has grown (incrementally) every day. About 280 people viewed Boostpost today, which is up from 200 yesterday. I'm looking at it as a good sign...it is not being totally ignored.

A couple of things changed today: now the link to See a Boostpage takes you to an entry screen where you can type any URL (or choose one of the 2 pre-fill urls) to see the boostpage.

And a minor defect in the Contact form prevented the form input from being saved properly. Fortunately, in reviewing the page stats, there has not been any activity in the contact form so far.

Another minor development was that I submitted Boostpost to DMOZ.org. Hirtorically, DMOZ has been good for a few (~50) visitors a day. The category was link popularity. I have this sneaking suspicion there will be a reluctance to include Boostpost...but if you think about it, link popularity is exactly what Boostpost shows. Its the perfect category for Boostpost. I only make this suggestion because there are no other services like addthis, sharethis, or addtoany in DMOZ. Maybe they never tried to get added, but I doubt it. DMOZ is fantastic...virtually every SEO reference on the web recommends you at least try to get listed there. And from my experience, I can definitely vouch for it.

Next project for Boostpost is a firefox addon. No promises on when (if?) it will be complete. But without question, that's another gimme in terms of perfect fit. And you know, the overwhelming traffic I'm seeing is from firefox browsers....maybe I'm out of the loop, but that is very different from any other work I've done in the past. Maybe Boostpost has some horrible defect with IE? Geez, I hope not...

Squidoo and a brave new world

2009-11-15T17:25:00.000-08:00

(Well, for me anyways...)

Its funny how when you don't pay close attention to the world unfolding in the internet, you quickly lose track of things. For example, Squidoo is a site that never made it onto my radar. But I have now used Squidoo, and I tend to think its a pretty decent site. I like it both for the fact that it can be a useful respoitory for how-to documentation, but also for its promotional capabilities. Ig uess that's basically the point of it.

Another juggernaut is twitter. I tend to resist new ideas as being crap, and long felt twitter fell into this category. But I've tried twitter, and although I'll never be a wild and crazy twitterer, I can see how it is beneficial to those who use it. To a lot of people, that will mean things like keeping in touch with loved ones, or friends...but the real thrust of the site is that it is a quick and painless way in which to build backlinks. Really, the internet tends to boil down to that. Offer an ability to build backlinks, and people will use your service. Just ask Digg. Or Delicious.

Back in the Saddle

2009-11-10T17:28:00.000-08:00

And I can't figure out why I ever got off the horse in the first place!!! Look, the internet is fun! And since I don't play golf - or at least not well, and also I don't enjoy it - creating sites is my hobby... my golf.

SoarPort sadly died a lonely death. It is sad, because it wasn't that bad an idea. At least it did have some good technical content. And it also worked. But I do now see how more slick developers have introduced ways to out-soar Soarport. And I suppose there is also the reality that the idea was never equal to its inspiration: Mapquest and Google Maps.

In any event, I plan to return to the fold for more fun and excitement. I've learned and fermented my ideas and I believe there are some improvements I can make this time around. Also, time off has provided some much needed room to save up some $$ to pay for the initial startup costs.

So look out world!

The thing about cool ideas....

2008-05-14T15:44:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-05-13T18:04:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-05-11T12:56:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-10T04:45:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-07T05:24:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-05-04T14:12:00.001-07:00

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?

2008-05-01T17:09:00.000-07:00

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.

Land of the living

2008-04-27T18:34:00.000-07:00

So I was driving around town the other day and contemplating why I would be interested in creating a site like SoarPort.com. I don`t really spend much time using Google Maps, drawing class diagrams, making org charts, and, too boot, I am not a real estate agent. So most of the principle drivers for a site like SoarPort are kind of absent. Except, of course, the reason I settled on: appreciation. I reasoned that I have the same basic make up internally that sees technological applications as would an art buff see paintings. And further, I felt this was a differentiator - that I was special in this world of emptiness, because I was able to pick out and appreciate engineering feats, where others took them for granted.

Then I parked next to a Mercedes ML350.

So I pretty quickly came to the realization that the line which separates engineering and watercolor painting is absolutely razor thin. People all over the place are not only capable of appreciation of engineering art, they crave it. They will line up to pay huge sums of cash to get their hands on a technologically advanced, yet artistic, item.

And it quickly dawned on me that driving these innovations are people. People who are proud to see their efforts appreciated by those who see the art in their creations. And it kind of hit me that its about time I joined the land of the living, so to speak. Like, `wake up man...if you have the talent to make something people might appreciate, then on with it!!`

And so, in a roundabout way, I think I now have a greater understanding of why I put SoarPort together. Its about seeing something worthwhile, and putting it out there so that if someone can enjoy it, well, mission accomplished. That`s it.

That`s the whole goal.

And yet, that`s also all it needs to be.

HTML Validation

2008-04-27T04:32:00.000-07:00

Well, SoarPort does not come up clean on an HTML validator. At first, I was quite disappointed. Then I ran Google, Microsoft, YouTube, and Yahoo. They all failed. Google had 62 errors...62! So what's the point is the websites that drive the internet don't validate?

Well, no one can be positive they can parse your site. OK. Who cares? I'd only want someone parsing my site to get it to be more easily placed into search engines, right? I mean if I want to expose a part of my data, the correct method to use there is something like RSS, or an API which more carefully governs that communication. I mean, it seems to me that if I spent as much time blogging as it would take to make my site valid, I would have achieved a better net result via blogging. I would do more to promote my site; for a longer term; and I would be able to provide some meaningful context....not just ease the parsing. And to be frank, I believe there is value in making parsing difficult. Like many sites, mine is set up to communicate with a human eyeball...not some text parsing engine. Since I already know that won't impact my ability to be included in Google (whereas blogging will most certainly help in that regard), I'm done wasting my time with it.

Audience Building

2008-04-24T17:47:00.000-07:00

When it comes to drawing attention to my ideas, I really struggle. I'm sure the way most people achieve success on the net starts with a large network of friends from who website owners build momentum. But for people who lack a large network of friends, or who are operating in stealth-mode (or both), gaining an audience on the web is particularly challenging. Certainly the stealth-mode aspect of my web efforts is very challenging. I want to engagae my co-workers, but I feel such as thing is inappropriate. I wouldn't ask co-workers to purchase tupperware, or sponsor my kids soccer team...so asking them to essentially either test my website or click on my ads is just plain wrong. I suppose if I were creating a website that directly benefitted them in a professional way, then fine; however, I tend to think that would also create a dilhemma for me as it would likely represent a conflict of interest between me and my employer. For example, if I felt a co-worker was unhappy at work and I recommended he check out my cool job posting site, that might bode well for me and him, but not very well for my employer. Even if it all worked out in the end for all parties, employers are very focused on retention, so an inside source of headhunting is really counter-productive.

Anyways...I'm trying to walk the fine line between avoidingg a conflict of interest and gaining an audience for my site. I'm trying to follow the path of patience - letting Google do its thing, blogging about my experiences, resisting quick-fix ideas like email spam or wedging my content onto digg/netscape, etc, etc. Having said that, I did make an effort to get my site on Digg, and it really felt like pandering, so I kind of gave up. I mean, that kind of shameless self-promotion...that's really not what I am about here. This is my "beads", my "candles"...you know? My hobby which will never really make any money, but the fantasy that it just might is what makes it fun. If you have ever watched The Office, you know what I'm talking about - Jan has her candle business, which is just an absurd business model. In much the same way, a website is a pretty absurd business model, which is why I do this because I enjoy it. I've already stated that I also enjoy the fantasy that it might make money...but I will not be investing much myself, nor will I be accepting investment money from family/friends.

So the path to audience building for me is "slow-burn". I've put out some notes to heavily read bloggers, like TechCrunchand Mashable, and although it is perhaps a fine line, I consider my efforts to be grass-roots, as opposed to big bang. Its not like I'm making TV ads, or having wrestlers tattoo SoarPort.com on their face.

One other point I will make here is that about advertising; and don't think it weighs lightly for me. My preference would be to not have advertising on my site. It cheapens it - big time. But the fact of the matter is that advertising is the only way in which I believe it is possible to make money on this site - not a huge amount, but enough to cover costs - at least for the short to mid term. There are some features which could be categorized as premium services which could be added to the existing SoarPort concept, and a fee could be associated with those improvements. But the core idea would always have to be free for anyone to use. I think most surfers agree that google ads are a fair price to pay for viewing/using content online. In fact, people are so used to them, it is debatable if they have much merit. I suppose it is a bit of a chicken and an egg thing - you need a large audience to make ads worthwhile; but by then you probably have other revenue options you can consider that would be more lucritive. And to get that audience, you have to hope you don't ostracize the early adopters with ad-overkill. So, a fine line...and hopefully I haven't ham-fisted my way over it.

The Nonsense Factory

2008-04-22T20:29:00.000-07:00

I would say it is by the grace of God I still have a functioning laptop right now...that I have not thrown it across the room is evidence of divine intervention. I'm trying to create a Gadget to use with SoarPort, and the developer interface sucks like no other.

So let me back up. I decided a good way to get exposure to my site was to get onto Digg.com. I thought I would just go ahead and brute force my way on to that site and see where it got me. But while on Digg, I noticed they had created a Google Gadget for their content. Given as how one of the Top 10 Search Engine Optimization Tips is to link to other popular sites, I figured this might be a good idea for my site as well.

I guess the folks at iGoogle either really want to prevent people from using gadgets, or they have a cement fortress around their walnut sized brain that would remain unbroken even if hit dead center by the hoof of a donkey. What a pain in the ass. The instructions are terrible. Thee code editor they have is incredibly terrible. Some genius actually took the time to code into the "save as" window some hack which prevents the cursor from showing. So if you ever try to place your cursor mid word, it is not possible to tell your location...not without randomly deleting, then reading characters. Logic? And if you save, then publish your gadget - get this - you might actually try to use it to, like see if your changes worked. By, again, the monsters of intelligence at google decided it would be a really good idea to keep the saving and publishing ou of synch....so when you publish, the content you are seeing is not only not your most recent save, it may be a save you made 20 minutes ago. The only way you can be sure the published content is accurate is if you rename your file each and every save. Which brings us full circle to the save as window, and at about this point, I'm thinking iGoogle ain't all that worthwhile after all....

It's Alive!!!

2008-04-22T05:17:00.000-07:00

So my site is now up and running. The site is called SoarPort.com and the idea is that it allows you to easily publish large dimension images online. This is different than Flickr or Picassa because once you publish the image at SoarPort, you can embed the SoarPort viewer, which is similar in its behavior to Google Maps or MapPoint. You "Soar" across the large dimension image through a "port" right within your blog or webpage.

Legend has it that YouTube was founded on the basis that publishing video content to the web "sucks". Well, one of the few remaining objects that is still a pain to publish to the web is(are) large dimension images. I've tried to make this process much easier. Near as I can tell, if you wanted to publish a large dimension image pre-SoarPort, you actually had to publish it twice: once as a squished version to display on your main page, then once in full zoom to be published in an alternate location to which your main page could link.

I look forward to hearing what people think of SoarPort. The site is in an early beta right now. Of course, it is a free service (and will remain so), so there's really no cost to using it. Enjoy.

Here is an example:

Oh how I hate facebook

2008-04-20T10:04:00.000-07:00

So a significant part of my idea is to allow people to embed content they have uploaded to my site within their own web pages. So for example, using blogger, this is no problem. For Facebook, however, it would appear its not possble....not without jumping through a series of hoops.

You know, that's really my beef with Facebook. Its whole layout. The social networking thing, as much as it is about the most hype-driven concept I've ever seen - including the original dot com bubble - well, social networking has its place (let's leave it at that). But the layout of that site. Je-sus. If facebook was a car, there would be 2 steering wheels (both in the trunk), an accelerator inside the right wheel well, and 15 rear-view mirrors which were not adjustable. But the real killer for me is how many people must think I'm dead wrong and that Facebook has it all arranged properly. For me, a site like Eventful is what social networking is supposed to look like. Same for YouTube. Facebook is not like any of those....things are really buried, and interfaces to do things change depending on the application you are using. And terms like "FunWall" may seem cutsie-poo, but they don't actually make sense. Especially given as how at best this is a guestbook, and at worst is overpromoted to have functionality it doesn't (i.e. what the hell is "embed-code" that doesn't accept video content from sites other than YouTube?)

Anyhoo, for now it appears my idea will simply not work with Facebook, and you know, as much as I'll pay for that in terms of publicity, I'm o.k. with it. In a perverse kind of what, I'd be more proud that my work didn't work with Facebook, than I would if it did. If my code worked natively with Facebook, then I too must have put the steering wheel in the trunk. Get it?

A couple of plan items

2008-04-16T04:30:00.000-07:00

I devled into my plan a little more and thought about the "idea". I once read a marketing book called "Origin of the Brand". The gyst was that in nature things don't combine, they split. In business, the same was true, although people tended not to pursue these types of opportunities. And I think there is something to that. After all, some of the biggest sites on the net today weren't started by existing big players. YouTube wasn't part of a conglomerate when it started up - whereas Google Video was. When people think of the worlds best search engine, they think about Google. But when they think about the worlds best video site? They think YouTube. And even though a littany of video sites entered the market after YouTube, the way it works is there is 1 big player, and another nipping at their heels. Everyone else gets to fight over 3rd.

The point with an idea is to think about smaller markets which are not yet exploited and to create a new "category". For YouTube it was the short video market. Granted, the video market was nothing new, but they bit off a piece of the market which they could be the dominant player. As luck would have it, that was the piece everyone actually wanted. And they really hammered the point home by letting people upload their videos, then seamlessly integrating them with their existing webpages. In other words, they wanted to the short video market, and nothing else. Naturally, they got more, but people start by accepting ideas truly intended to serve. Micrsoft could never make a site like YouTube, because the original business plan would have looked like such a disaster. But had they...accepted an idea that they knew was small fish and taken it on the chin for a while, they would have reaped big rewards in the long run.

So I've reevaluated my idea, and the good news is I think it does fit with the above sentiment. It is a subset of a larger market, and the specific area I'm targeting appears to be unexploited. My idea is also quite youtube-ish in that you can use it sealessly in your own webpages.

So there is a little refinement having considered the above info, but more or less, its business as usual. I'm right now evaluating my SEO options, because for this idea to work on the web, search positionn optimization will be a big deal. Later!

Getting Started

2008-04-14T17:29:00.000-07:00

I've set up a few websites in the past, but they haven't really worked out well. So I must have something wrong with my execution. I know that I have a real problem in terms of my planning. To be more precise, I have no plan. So the subsequent lack of success can't be considered much of a surprise, I guess. So I've decided to take a moment, pause and try to proceed according to some form of planning.

I've done the technical portion of the project. And I believe it has merit on its own. But the idea is intended to serve the people who use it...so how do I let them know it exists, without appearing to pander for attention? That is a major dilhemma for me...I've never really gone beyond that hurdle. What I probably need is a smaller group of people to use this thing, then have them either let me know what to improve, or encourage others to use it. Obviously, that's the idea situation....it's a good enough service that people will ask others to use it.

I think I'm going to step into a plan here. With some kind of plan, I can tell if I am meeting the goals I have for this project. Like most projects, it will be a plan which has milestones that map to tasks, not revenue. I suppose there are some milestones in some projects that map to revenue, so maybe I will have to think about that.

I'm going to get started on my plan. Hopefully, if I have completed the steps I feel are required to proceed, I will be able to share my plan in my next post.

Introduction

2008-04-13T19:38:00.000-07:00

The idea here is to document my path as I attempt a startup. I'm going from kelvin (absolute zero) with a hope of someday taking the site to a point where it can actually make money. I guess even that is still a fairly short term vision. After all, you can have an amazing idea and not make money at it. So what I'm getting at is that I'd like to achieve "success" and my initial instinct is (or perhaps more accurately "was") that success = money.

I'll probably go back and forth on this one a few times in this blog. I'll think of my idea as "serving" folks on the internet, which is a noble/good thing, and then in the same breath wonder about how much money I can make with this idea. Given as how I think I'm basically wedged into a business model of advertising or bust, the revenue opportunities - as relucant as I am to admit it - are slim. To actually make money, I would eventually have to get creative with what I could sell; whether that was direct to the web community or to companies who could use the technology.

Ok, so lets maybe get back on track here a little bit. The startup - all started with an idea. Since it is still in the final stages of inclubation, I can't actually disclose the idea just yet. I have some small financial "adjustments" (i.e. I'm selling some crap in my basement to fund this thing) but once they are complete I will be registering the domain name and getting hosting sorted out. This much I think I know: I am going to go with GoDaddy. That may even be one of the very first big decisions I or any startup has to make. Maybe I need to establish what even constitutes a big decsion. I think something which cannot realistically be undone should be considered a big decision. The idea I select is a big decision. The name I choose is a pretty big decision. Where I get my hosting is - by my definition - not a big decision, since I could change web hosting companies in a weekend, without a disruption. In fact, I'm sure it happens all the time. So perhaps it should be noted only as an anecdote - I'm going to sign up with GoDaddy. I set up a friend's site there, and added a promo code of WALK2, and I got something like 20% off my order, which meant I "saved" $10. I suppose that's not bad, considering Godaddy gives you 10GB of space and a whole heck of a lot of bandwidth to burn.

So I mentioned the name as a big decision. I always shudder at that thought. Marketing types would nod in agreement (big time) that the name of the site is vital. I'm kind of saying it is as well, but not really for the same reasons. True, you want a name that doesn't suck, but so long as you can go with it, talk about it, write about it, etc, then chances are its about as good a name as "YouTube" or "MySpace". I mean seriously, they have marketing people involved in these decisions? As I understand it, a couple of kids came up with "YouTube" and it is one of the most important sites on the net. What more could a marketing person add to the conversation. I came up with a name that I think is fairly savvy, and it also relates to the site itself - the service the site provides. Kind of like "Facebook", if the name "Facebook" were savvy. The final comment I have on the name is this: it has to be something you can live with. Once it is rolling, you can't tell people "Oh gee, remember how I used to call it www.digg.com? Well, I decided www.yipperyapper.com was better...so can you please update your bookmarks?" It doesn't work that way...people may be able to accept the pace of change on the internet, but that kind of change has virtually no audience. In the "biz" they call it "rebranding" and it sucks big time for everyone involved. The only reasonable reason to rebrand is because someone is suing you over the name.

I guess the name is still not at the root of the matter. To get to that, you really need to consider the idea. It startles me that I hear Venture Capitalists won't sign non-disclosure agreements with entrepreneurs because ideas themselves have so little value. It kind of flies in the face of the whole patent thing, doesn't it? At least most patents carry a significant barrier to entry - I might have a great idea for the web, and Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, you name the big fish - they could probably whip it up in a weekend. The web is kind of the anti-barrier, and efforts are made all the time to lower the bar again. Programming languages don't get harder to use, that much is for sure. I cut my teeth on C++ with some assistence from ATL. To get an app truly ready for prime time involved a QA effort that was otherworldly. Just some of the garbage we went thru that you don't even think about with C# - releasing pointers, GDI objects that suck because you didn't select the old object before you deleted it; the mess that is the char array; IDispatch interfaces (using the IWebBrowser...trust me it sucks like there is no tomorrow)...no question, things have come a long way. So why are ideas so worthless? Well, the answer is, they're not. Not if the intent of the idea is to serve. If the intent of the idea is to make money, then yes, it probably is worthless. I think Microsoft Word is worthless. But I think Microsoft Virtual Server is valuable, even though I am not so naive as to think Microsoft put VM software on the market in an effort to "serve" its customers. Making Windows a system that can concurrently run Linux helps gray the line between the two...thus helping maintain or increase Windows market share. And obviously, if you can reduce the IT spending on hardware while having little to no impact on IT Windows spending, that's pretty much a huge win for Microsoft.

Anyhow, back to the idea. Mine was going to be an idea that served. I have had too many ideas whose sole function is to make money, and it has been painful watching them die. Its not so much that the ideas themselves were so bad, but in hindsight, it seemed very arrogant to ask for money for the types of things I was offering. One was a text to speech instant messaging system, which was pretty savvy back in 1999. Although the core idea there was a free service, the idea ultimately was to set up kiosks all over the place and tie into the normal phone line. All still sounds good, but if you think about it, even $0.25 per use is just ridiculous, because all the system really did was read email on the receiver's end. And free is all that service could ever hope to be. The next idea was a button users could put on their site where if visitors clicked on it, they site owner would be notified and they could call the customer at the customer's leisure. The idea being this way the customer doesn't have to wait on the phone, they can be called directly. A good idea, but I started ouot by trying to charge a monthly fee....and unless the service had taken off like a mad cat when it was free, there was absolutely no chance it was going to take off if there was a cost associated with it. And that really is the fundamental connundrum: everyone - myself included - fully expects the web to be 100% free. So how do you set out to do something noble, and turn it into enough of a money making venture to pay your bills and a little something for your efforts?

As I continue to explore my latest startup, I will post my findings in this regard. I feel a name and an idea must have something to do with making money, and I also believe you have to work to deliver something which serves people first and foremost. As it stands right now, I have a name and an idea that "serves", and I have absolutely no clue how it will make money. My initial guess is through advertising, but at this stage, I really don't know how successful that will be. In upcoming posts, I will aim to narrow this down and produce from my experiences a map that can be used to repeat the success I hope to have. I look at it like this: website development, regardless of how silly this may sound, is my hobby. I recently came to this realization when it dawned on me how much time I spend not only working on my web projects, but how long in a historical sense. I mean, I have been at the web for 10 years. Granted, it has help yield a great career in the software field, but the internet itself has remained very elusive for me. Perhaps the challenge is the thing itself. We'll see.