links for 2007-12-19

December 19th, 2007

links for 2007-12-17

December 17th, 2007

links for 2007-12-04

December 4th, 2007

links for 2007-11-30

November 30th, 2007

links for 2007-11-28

November 28th, 2007

links for 2007-11-21

November 21st, 2007

links for 2007-11-20

November 20th, 2007

Non-ambient findability

October 18th, 2007

This:

GoogleMySlippers

Reminded my of Bruce Sterling’s 2006 ETech talk, which you can read here (I tried to find it on one of Bruce’s properties but couldn’t), and hear here.

“I no longer hunt anxiously for my missing shoes in the morning. I just Google them.”

Peter Kim, I just don’t get it, either

October 18th, 2007

 Peter Kim of Forrester reports on Twitter usage amongst US adults

Our data shows that 6% of US online adults use Twitter regularly. (from Being Peter Kim: “I just don’t get it.” [i.e. Twitter])

That is patently insane.  I suppose it depends on how you define “online adults,” but even with a very restrictive definition (like, say “adults between 20 and 30 who own a web-capable cell phone, pay for unlimited SMS messages, and have a broadband connection at home”) there is utterly no way you can convince me that 6% of online US adults use Twitter regularly.

To top it off, Kim refers us to statistics in a client-access only report to support his claims.  So essentially most of us are supposed to take that statement at face value.  I mean, what kind of stunt is that?  It makes Kim’s assertions basically completely unsubstantiated.  At least link to a pared-down version of the data and analysis so we can do a basic sanity check.

Useless.

Update:

Peter Kim, and Cynthia Pflaum pull back the curtains on the data Peter based his commentary on, and things make a lot more sense now.

As I see it, Peter got carried away and misinterptreted the data. It seem clear from what Cynthia says that 6% of a highly self-selecting population that’s interested in the technology sphere have “used” Twitter (which, given the openness of the question asked, per Peter, could be interpreted as “having viewed a blog with a Twitter widget on it”) in the last month. That’s a completely believable statistic. And one that can validly be used to support Peter’s real thesis: “If you want to reach an affluent, well educated, and early adopter audience, there might not be a better communication channel out there.” But as pointed out in the comments, Twitter is intended to be used frequently and as such in my view, “monthly” doesn’t mean “regularly.” Perhaps I was a bit strong in my language in my initial post, but I stand by my view that it was an outlandish claim made with no supporting data.

Interestingly, the corresponding post on Forrester’s Marketing Blog has not been updated.

links for 2007-10-18

October 18th, 2007