Last night over dinner, an interesting conversation about how MapQuest worked emerged - don’t ask how. My buddy mentioned that the company which provides Yahoo! with maps was going public soon (we all assumed it to be MapQuest and were corrected). What was amazing about this topic was two-fold. First, we spent a good deal of time dissecting how we would design the database and queries to retrieve the information we needed (we’re still figuring). The second part is the more important part. My friend informed us that the company going public is actually comprised of a bunch of two-person teams, one driver and one cartographer of sorts that records physical traits and directions. Naturally, we didn’t believe him that the process was so manual.

I got up and went to the restroom. For some reason, as I was heading there it came to my mind that the world at large is moving towards a database economy, one fundamentally supported and nurtured by the existence of massive public and private interwoven data warehouses. Being the constant entrepreneur, it is clear to me that there are still lots of opportunities available to us.

Consider this. Right now, our government processes are largely still paper-based, though they are rapidly changing. More and more savvy businesses are putting their business information and offerings online in public storefronts. In many ways, social software has heralded a new era in online identity and reputation as well. So where’s that money? Well, it’s still possible, for us at least, to compile and build databases of any of the myriads of facts that we really need to have. Think about some of the companies that have done well with this (InfoUSA, MapQuest, CarFax). These databases are largely composed of public information but their coherence as a searchable index has brought them tremendous value. For now, if you can find a topic that’s not easy to get at digitally and can bring it online in such a manner, you’ve possibly got a profitable venture.

I should emphasize the “for now”, though. Why? Consider data and information. A mass of facts and figures is nothing more than data. Information is that which is gleaned from that data once it has been collected and collated. Put another way, the opportunity is in the collection and collation phase, at which point you can charge a toll to access your “information”.

In the future, the question will largely shift from “Should I archive this information” to “Should I query this information”. When everything is moved to the point that it is searchable, getting “new” information from a system is more a function of programming than brute force. Whoever has the biggest, fastest algorithm wins.

So where’s the long-term value then? Fortunately for us, these things always repeat themselves. As one force fades to the background a new one emerges. In my eyes, that new force is opinion, which I’d wrap in a Reputation bow. When there are millions upon millions of points of data to consider, knowing which the best is becomes far more important.

Consider that for a moment. What drives the value of Amazon, for example? In the beginning, it was simply enough to have the database of books since no one else had it. What pushes me back to Amazon, more often than not, however, is not the database (I assume everyone has it now). I am drawn in by things like the User Reviews and Ratings, not to mention, the Recommended Reading lists and other hooks like that. Given too many choices, I often find myself polling constantly for external benchmarks to evaluate with. Despite the best efforts of the AI community, I still have little faith that I would outsource my opinions to a server farm or that I would trust the wisdom of a crowd of robots in personal matters.

One last point to this discussion is that participation in the new Database Mesh will be an absolute requirement. Playing Devil’s Advocate, my friends questioned if every little Mom & Pop out there would participate in this. I defended my case. I noted that I see almost no possibility that the paper phone book would survive another 20 years. This alone would leave most people compelled to list themselves online. However, add to this potential regulation and government efforts (from registering the business to renting property to paying utilities) that would also provide a more generalized shadow profile for every business entity. Lastly, businesses need revenues and to get them they need to ensure customers can find them when they want them. I pointed out that something as simple as Google SMS illustrates this.

Can you think of a pizza shop that doesn’t want to show up in an SMS from Google when someone searches for “pizza 10011″? Even if they don’t get it now, they surely will and that’s going to be very soon, relatively speaking.

Last night, I promised myself that I would blog this.. and now I have. I know you see the change coming, how’s it look from your vantage point?

I have to admit I’ve never really liked Wiki technology, but I’m not opposed to it. For some time I have been observing and commenting on the merits of different collabication (collaboration-communication) mediums including blogs, wikis, IM, e-mail and the like. The changing face of wiki has me changing my mind as well.

Between yesterday and today, it seems I’ve had no option BUT to consider a new startup with a very flexible application, JotSpot. As Christopher Allen describes it, “From what I’ve seen so far, JotSpot looks like it may the first of a third-generation of wikis, the first being the very simple wikis such as Ward Cunningham’s C2 Wiki, and second generation being database-backed wikis such as Wikipedia and SocialText.”, though I prefer Peter’s estimation, “Pure genius” (there’s more too Software Only, Scott Rosenberg, GetReal, Social Software Weblog).

So what makes this Wiki engine so powerful? Some of the things are amazing obvious, but simply lacking from Wiki:

• WYSIWYG Editor - Why no one ever did this before in a meaningful way is mind-boggler.

• E-mail Integration - You can make use of e-mail to update your wiki, “every page has an inbox”

• Smart Attachments - Files can be associated with pages, and, for some types, a preview HTML is generated.

JotSpot goes beyond this as well and provides some interesting new possibilities such as:

• Structured Data - Ever used Wiki and forced yourself to a set “template” so that your data looked consistent? Well the idea that the data should be searchable has crossed many a mind and JotSpot makes it possible.

• Data Importing - JotSpot will read in both RSS and web pages, utilizing some apparent XSL filters, to style the output.

• Applications - JotSpot supports some interesting “applications” that allow you to have more structured workflow added to your use of the system. These applications are invoked by some straightforward wiki scripting.

In light of the Relevanta product we recently released, it’s interesting to note that we have spawned a new generation “wiki” of sorts as well. Recently, one of my partners commented on these two applications. Here are his thoughts:

(more…)

For anyone that’s watched the Vice Presidential debate between John Edwards and Dick Cheney, please feel free to cast your vote on politics.relevanta.com.

Continuing with my series of questions, I am now trying to get a grasp on how we are using technology to spread our ideas and, more importantly, which ones we find the most reliable.

In the “old” days, when something urgent or exciting occurred, you might write a letter or make a phone call to get the word out. Today, we’re far more connected and we have access to a suite of mediums to choose from:

• Instant Messenging
• E-mail
• Mobile Phone
• Blogging
• SMS

I’ve arranged those in the order that seems to make the most sense to me. Here’s how that happens for me. If something comes along that I want to spread, I will adjust my starting point based on the information. If I get some hilarious link, I am most likely to launch a multitude of IM windows and send the link along to everyone that’s online. From there, I might e-mail everyone else. If it’s really worth mentioning, I might call people or blog about it. I never have been a big fan of SMS, but it’s possible as a last resort (for me).

Which technologies are you using the most? How would you order this list in terms of ability to reach people? What kind of content is most appropriate for each medium?

Inquiring minds want to know.

There’s been a lot of talk lately about the validity of documents found online. A lot of this has spread from the “Rathergate” incident where bloggers rose to challenge the assertions of CBS Reporter Dan Rather. On other fronts, Wikis are growing in visibility and, for many, they are increasingly becoming a source of information. Your average search on Google returns up tens of thousands of results, which one do you visit first (is it always the first one?).

The thorn that’s stuck in my mind, really, is what process people are using for determining what is right and what is wrong. Do we validate information based on the content, the source, or something in between. Can a reliable source spew lies? Can good content come from an otherwise crackpot?

I don’t have a definitve answer to this question (nor do I believe there is one), but I am interested in uncovering the patterns that might exist in how we resolve information issues.

On that same note, are there certain mediums that are more “trustworthy” than others. Do you prefer blogs to forums, news sites to blogs, newspapers to news sites? I’ll reserve my thoughts on how I think this works for a later date.

For now, the world is your stage.

Sorry for the off-topic post, but I am eager to find a reliable, talented FlashComm Guru here in NYC for a project I wish to undertake in October. New York City is not a requirement, but certainly desirable.

If you fit the bill, send an e-mail to greg at sparkcard dot com or comment below.

I’ll have to admit I am a sucker for VOIP. Having an always-on personality, many things that would seem bizarre to most excite me. This also creates lots of opportunities for the creative application of technology.

For anyone that doesn’t use Skype, it is an Internet-enabled phone service much like Vonage, Packet 8, and the like. The main difference is that out of the box, Skype does not route through traditional phone lines. Instead, both parties install the software and then talk to their heart’s content - FOR FREE.

That alone would not be very impressive. Skype also adds in a simple contact manager / IM client that lets you see who’s online, place calls, and conference people in as you desire. That’s a nice trick. Another great trick is the Skype Out feature. With Skype Out, you can use your Internet-enabled computer to make calls to regular phone numbers, for a relatively small per minute charge.

Skype has now released their newest feature, a Pocket PC version of their application. The marvel of this is that now, with a handheld and WiFi, your PDA has become your cell phone, at least in part.

Truth be told, this is a different form of convergence. We’ve grown accustomed to the talk of the consolidation of devices and roles. In general, most of that talk focuses on how our cameras will eat our MP3 players will eat our cell phones. Products like Skype, and VOIP technology as a whole, are really demonstrating how software will contribute to that unification.

I’ll be heading out of town for the next 5 days to get a little break from all this Blogging ;). We were originally supposed to be in West Palm Beach already, but Frances had different plans for us.

Over the next couple of days, my best friend Jimmie, and loyal SocialTwister.com reader, will be posting a couple of things from me and from him. Everyone encourage him so he’ll write more.

See you soon.

danah boyd points to yet another body of research that looks at the increasing use of technology as a bullying mechanism for young teenagers. I’ve covered this on several occassions (1,2,3), but this offers some new insights.

The whole article focuses on the psychology of teen bullying, about how it’s so much easier to engage in such cruel behavior from a distance. […] One thing that caught my eye was the gender differences in bullying: “Online bullying had a particular appeal for girls, who specialize in emotional rather than physical harassment and strive to avoid direct confrontation.”

Source: apophenia, “teens bullying via IM and blogs”

I wonder when we will start to see more research into the adult version of this game, blackmail.

Personal ads have long been used as a “reliable” method of meeting people with similar romantic, and sometimes social, interests. In many ways, the online dating industry flourished by moving that access online and improving on the searchability for everyone involved.

Regardless of the medium, however, the manner in which we portray ourselves is critical. The need to “sell” oneself in the most compelling manner is undeniable, be it while looking for a car, a job, or a date. For years, there have been a number of different forms of “coaching” available, from style consultants to “success” trainers. It only seems natural that something should exist for your profile — and it does.

These services are not new, andPersonalTrainers.com, as spotlighted in the WSJ today, is definitely not the last. What is interesting about PT.com, though is the “all-star” lineup they’re recruited to their forces.

As noted in the WSJ article:

First impression? “Definitely needs some work,” says the team of Emma Taylor, 31 years old, and Lorelei Sharkey, 32, co-authors (as Em & Lo) of a sex manual called “The Big Bang.” They’re coaches at PersonalsTrainer, a New York personal-ad tuneup shop whose advisers include a former writer from HBO’s “Sex and the City” and radio relationship therapist Dr. Judy Kuriansky. For $59.99, Em & Lo smooth out their clients’ faux pas by e-mail.

[…]

While dating advisers have been around for years, the recent uptick in the cottage industry of dating-ad counseling is a reaction to the explosion of online profiles pouring into services such as Match, Yahoo and Nerve. Last year, Web sites accounted for about 43% of the $991 million U.S. dating-services sector — which also includes off-line operations, independent matchmakers and print and radio personal ads — according to Marketdata Enterprises Inc. That’s up from 34% in 2002.

Source: WSJ.com, “Get Me Rewrite! Personal Ads Are Big; Big on Clichés, Too” (subscription required)