More than 30% made at least one error when filling out the web form. Only 7% recovered.

Below is a copy of my note to Yahoo, with my two cents about their decision to sunset the unique and useful bookmarking service.

Map of signers for Yahoo! : Can you please open source Delicious?

Dear Yahoo:

I would have:

• paid a premium to keep this service, as I do with Flickr; or
• purchased your service as software/app, if only to host my own bookmarks in the manner to which I´ve become accustomed.

But you didn´t give me the option. Yahoo has both passionate users and market penetration — with Del.icio.us and Flickr — not in spite of them. Those are not easy to come by, and you´ve seemingly just tossed them aside.  Whatever you think users want from Yahoo, this move shows that Yahoo leadership is misguided about your core competencies, and best bets.

I will never want the following “core” services from Yahoo:

“… email, homepage, search, mobile, advertising, content and more…” (again, as  itemized by Carol Bartz, who continues in her letter:) “…The changes are meant to get us into a position so we can invest more in the kind of products and technology we know we need to be successful.”

There are far better services out there for these aforementioned functions, and I have already made my choice. Besides,  Yahoo has just proven, definitively, that the company and its services are unstable and unwise.

/END email.

From the FAKE Twitter account for Carol Bartz, Yahoo´s CEO

What´s with the murmuring and complaining?

Yes, I realize that:

• Del.icio.us was a free service;
• That companies must restructure and adjust product portfolios from time to time, especially in a recession.

And I agree with Stephen Hay´s post “Death to webservices. Long live webservices” in which he writes:

But what are we complaining about? It’s all free. Having to move our bookmarks is not really a huge problem … Our data is our own, and it’s up to us to look after it. …What if we flipped this all on its head? What if we hosted our own data, and provided APIs for all these webapps so that they can use our data?

But know this: if you mess around with the freemium business model—stress on business—you are messing with customer loyalty, and there will be consequences.

These are the some of my ahah conclusions as 2009 winds down:

1. 6 is no good
   Representative committees are no good. Of late, truly useful interaction and progress has occurred only when there are 5 or fewer participants in the room.
2. Buck the futility of meetings and the tyranny of the email onslaught
   More gets accomplished through MSN and before/after meetings, than in meetings or through emails. One can save a lot of time by cutting out 90% of emails, and all meetings with more than 6 participants. Show up once in a while, bail on the rest?  (Additional inspiration: HBR – Manage your Time Like Jim Collins)
3. Lay low – Full stop on the meta-discussion
   Leaders across the organization are supposed to care about the how/who/why, but given their every-day they could really not care less. The results should be the focus, and I am sure that good results will win any argument. I should stop trying to get consensus/understanding on the “why” and “how”. Consensus has rarely been achieved, and when it has, it hasn´t gotten us anywhere really. ROI on time invested = .01.
4. A good model seems like a good goal – but it really just looks good on a slide
   What I bring to the table (and the same can be said of my most effective colleagues) probably doesn´t fit nicely into any role, in ANY organizational model that might solve what ails us.  The university is decentralized, and lets not kid ourselves, future centralization efforts won´t be plucking people from among the existing rank and file.  So you are outside of the box, far removed from the politics, you might want to take a second look around.And if one is already outside the box, why try and hop inside it? Maybe misguided craziness?
5. Geeks and nerds will always be a bit rogue
   It is often the uniqueness, the oddities and special talents of those in some of the best teams, not sameness that yields great results. Increasingly  the “odd-man-out ” in every single org model discussed lately, my gut feeling is that maybe I should just stick to participating in the virtual teams and ad-hoc collaborations.  It is even possible to further self-organize without getting anyone´s blessing.  This might also be more fun, in addition to being more effective.

   All we need now  is a secret handshake or a code word, maybe even a lair.
   

6. Fun shouldn´t be tabled for later
   Maslow was right.  Money is not what drives everyone. After my basic needs are met, I work because I want to achieve something more, and I like much of what I do.  We are not all characters in The Office, and it is possible to be too focused sometimes. One´s job can NOT be 150% about the organizations goals. (This can burn people out and that helps no one). Plan for a bit more fun, and few other bits from the top of old Maslow´s hierarchy.
7. If you build it, they won´t necessarily come, but maybe.
   Compelling is: finished products that can be demonstrated; processes that have achieved some results, and systems that are up and running. These are way more compelling that any plan or description.  Example: Installed WordPress and  Joomla, then people started using them. Propose adoption of WordPress MU and we got a institutional skepticism, budget concerns and a report. Propose a video and you get a long discussion. Make a video and you get a video. Develop an interaction yourself an you please your users; request a developer to develop it, and you get a place on their massive todo list.  Choose what is fastest.

It´s not worth blaming anyone, it´s not ideal. It´s not how we want things to be. It´s just how it is. (Unless you are lucky enough to work at Ben & Jerry´s or Google. Lucky, talented, ducks.)

* Translations:

julebord = corporate Christmas party in Norway
ribbe = traditional Norwegian Christmas pork ribs

What I found was a well written post from a student entitled: it’s:learning™ is crap! The post’s author, clearly an informed thoughtful user is both thorough and structured in their critique. But that is not all. This engaged user shares a bit about their attempt to help the developers, only to be rebuffed:

I was contacted 2005-12-15 by it:solutions support personnel, and mailed back and forth a number of times. I lobbied for a separate interface that’s designed for efficient use, but they did not appear to grasp concepts such as usability vs usefulness, and had no distinction between presentation and business logic.

Needless to say, the post’s author is now a passionate detractor.

That this should be the case would surprise me, if I hadn’t experienced it myself, and often. Constructive criticism is increasingly lumped with general whining, treated with halfhearted “thanks for your suggestion” platitudes, even condescending arrogance. The host of new media interactivity options (blogs, forums, social networking, etc.) has raised the noise level for developers, and it isn’t surprising that they should want to listen only to compliments and conciliatory suggestions, while dismissing instances of emphatic criticism.

Of course, there is better way to look at it. It’s far better to have critics that not, and way better for business. Kathy Sierra, co-creator of the Head First book series cleverly called it the Kool-Aid point.

The Kool-Aid Point: “You don’t really have passionate users until someone starts accusing them of ‘drinking the Kool-Aid.’ If you create passionate users, you have to expect passionate detractors. You should welcome their appearance in blogs, forums, and user groups. It means you’ve arrived. (Posted on headrush.typepad.com)

If you are a smart developer, a smart inventor, or a smart start-up, you will use this feedback and recognize it for what it is: a potential road map to success or an opportunity to create customer loyalty. (Did you just hear: blah, blah, blah? Well, maybe you just need a cup of coffee. ) Focus groups are useful. But I contend that they are not nearly as valuable as engaged user feedback. Questionnaires are limiting. Yes-men are useless.

If you haven’t already, check out Get Satisfaction and the products and services that participate there. The site provides an effective forum for customers to communicating directly with the companies behind the products and services they use, a mechanism for prioritizing feedback, and customers communicating and supporting each other.

… Oh yeah, and I dare say, ItsSolutions is not very smart. (And, if you are interested in my opinion, when it comes to ItsLearning I agree with the passionate detractor mentioned earlier.)

And I do mean sensationalize. Even here in this far northern corner of Europe, Norwegian reporters are getting more and more masterful at whipping up controversy and creating crisis. Rather than turn their backs on folly and those practices so evident on pseudo-journalistic shows like Bill O´Reilley´s No-Spin Zone, Norwegian media seems keen to embrace these questionable hype creation practices.

Kjersti Thorbjørnsrud, studying political debates in conjunction with her doctoral thesis, stated recently in an NRK interview that debate programmes in Norway are staged and sometimes even misleading.

Political debate programs in Norway today, are characteristically very popularized and pretty tabloid. Producers want politicians who step it up a little, without too many reservations, who don´t refer too often to dry resolutions, numbers and statistics. It should be very simple, concrete, and it should pertain to the public.

We get a debate that is often more constructed than it is possible [for us] to be aware of. Journalists want a debate with high temperatures, and politicians know what journalists want, and ensure that their message is formulated in such a way as to get into the studio. — Kjersti Thorbjørnsrud. [ » Read the original interview Debatter kan lure seerne, 30.10.08, NRK.no]

In a speech many years ago, delivered to a crowd of California university students, Michael Crichton went so far as to say that there is no value in following the media coverage of today:

We need to start seeing the media as a bearded nut on the sidewalk, shouting out false fears. — Michael Crichton [Speech entitled: Why Speculate, April 26, 2002]

Crichton’s speculative intellectual excercise is entertaining and witty (as his writing often was; and we can agree to disagree with him about the lack of evidence for global warming). While President Elect Obama’s honeymoon phase has provided a respite from the biting form of media speculation that reigned for the last decade, but not a reprieve from speculation entirely. As the world anticipates the Obama administration’s installation in January, the speculation is simply of a different character: upbeat and hopeful, like the man himself. (Actually, it is seldom one reads European news coverage and commentary concerning America’s roll and responsibility in the world, that is so harmonious and propitious as that of this last month.)

No one but McCain really envies President Elect Obama the challenges he is facing. The honeymoon will end —as they inevitably do—and when it ends the media climate will be a deciding factor in whether the new administration makes headway or not. Polarization, or the lack of it, will matter a great deal. Crichton put it this way:

Endless presentation of conflict may interfere with genuine issue resolution. There is evidence that the television foodfights not only don’t represent the views of most people-who are not so polarized-but may tend to make resolution of actual disputes more difficult in the real world. At the very least, they obscure the recognition that we resolve disputes every day. Compromise is much easier from relatively central positions than it is from extreme and hostile, conflicting positions.

Bergen actually chose to donate a set of satellite imagery to Google Maps over two years ago. Trend-setters historically, Bergen realized the importance of geodata administration as early as 1687. Today, Bergen’s citizens, its geeks, school children, and firms are using the satellite imagery on Google maps as a backdrop to build a 3D Bergen, to present tourist information, to enhance their personal home pages, to promote their businesses and organizations, and much much more. Oslo is enjoying similar benefits.

Wouldn’t it be a service to Trondheim’s citizens if Trondheim followed suit? A one-time gift of satellite data, even slightly outdated, would be a great start. It matters not if the imagery doesn’t get updated for a number of years—as long as we can see the ground at the street level and no longer have to contend with:

This “error” message throws an unwelcome, unsightly wrench in many otherwise excellent uses of the Google API for downtown Trondheim.

The issue actually goes far beyond that of providing a bit of satellite imagery through easy-to-use, easy-to-find channels. Data collected on behalf of the public should be open source, to borrow the phrase from IT. Grass roots movements such as that of “Free Our Data” in the UK are making an impact in some parts of the world, encouraging some responsive goverment agencies to publish data sets from crime reports to pothole complaints (see also interactive crime mash-up from Berlingske Tidende, Denmark).

On both sides of the Atlantic there have been increasing calls for national and local government to open up data. The experience of Web 2.0 suggests that if governments allow free access to the reams of data that is collected on the public’s behalf then the public will combine and mash-up that data in new and revealing ways. Google Maps Mania

There is, at least, one sensible soul working at Trondheim Kommune who gets it: P. Sommerseth. In a recent concurring e-mail, Sommerseth, an editor at Trondheim.no, urged Trondheim Kommune to consider the opportunities, citing trends and the potential cost benefits of supporting both nerds and commercial actors in the creation og “mash-ups” and other related data presentations. The response from the Kart og oppmålingskontoret was to stress that it is for our own good that map data be made available only to those who can pay for it through their membership in Norge Digital, reiterating that Trondheim was fully justified to insist on payment given the established “national precedence” (most regions don’t donate imagery or data) and their mandate found in Stortingsmelding nr. 30(2002-2003). The contention is that the consortium “Norge Digitalt” is the best way to go, a “foundation for value creation”.

I disagree. We are not served by making said data proprietary. I think the stortingsmelding was a fine start early this decade, but is now slightly outdated and perhaps a little narrow minded. Norge Digitalt is surely useful for the larger actors in the market, but much has happened since 2003, and I don’t believe the stortingsmelding in question envisioned the opportunities of today.

The Google Map has become the interface.

Is the Trondheim Kommune map website what you think of when tasked with showing the location of your business? Your school? Your upcoming conference? Your last hike? Google allows individuals to use their code, to manipulate it, to build on it (Read this helpful introduction by Rune Andersen). Trondheim’s NorKart map application has one or two nice features, but doesn’t come close to Google maps in terms of usefulness and flexibility.

Trondheim Kommune apparently thinks that Google will eventually pay, though It seems far-fetched to imagine that little Trondheim (166 thousand) is on Google’s list of places likely to see a return on investment given a purchase of satellite imagery; and equally obvious that Trondheim’s citizens and business community would benefit from being able to utilize Google’s open source options to present themselves and their activities.

So come on Trondheim Kommune: Give a little, get a lot.

More reading:

• Public Data – Power in our hands (David Stephenson)
• Let our data go free (Neal Pierce, Denver Post)
• Google Maps Mania
• Eksempler – Googles tjenester Maps og Earth
• Norsk eiendomsinformasjon AS / Norge Digitalt
• Googles tjenester Maps og Earth

I am certain the imagery exists somewhere. It would have been odd for those areas of the city most interesting to visitors and tourists to have been omitted from the same processes that provided the detailed satellite imagery of the outying areas (the burbs)? Most of the hotels in town can’t be seen. The cathedral (Nidarosdomen) can’t be seen. The main university campus (NTNU Gløshaugen) with thousands of students is absent; but Lade and Leangen we have. An Adressa article mentioned the issues in April under the banner “Google Fog Over Downtown“, and I waited patiently for a change. But no. The article got no more of a response than the one can find online.

Google map help: Information is added as it becomes available from our data providers”. The Norwegian version states that data in Norway is delivered by NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas. Satellte images are from DigitalGlobe and MDA Federal.

All fine and good. But it has been a long time. The issues isn’t out-dated imagery, it is missing imagery.

While interesting developments on the 3D map front are underway in Oslo with Googles blessing, nothing is happening in Trondheim, Google Norway headquarters. Unable to contact Google directly (thwarted by Google’s notorious but undersandable loop of FAQ and contact forms) I shot off a Get Satisfaction posting. Google participates, but we shall see. I suspect that Trondheim’s local government may themselves be the culprits, perhaps holding onto the existing data to inhibit the competition with the locally produced map service or simply hoping to make a profit?

Maps Related:

• Overview of Google Maps and Google Earth (Norwegian – from IME – Faculty)
• Where is downtown (Hvor er sentrum – Adressa.no 21.04.08)