My ebay purchase experience is an N of one; I am hardly an expert. I purchased a ladder from a vendor who clearly had a regular eBay business going.
I initially had some customer service issues with him, but he then bent over backward to make sure my order was completed to my satisfaction. In doing so, he indirectly suggested to me that there was an implied social contract that if he provides good customer service I would turn around and give him a positive review.
While I recognize that his rating is extremely important to his business, the trading of service for rating seemed a little seamly to me.
I early voted last week in Chicago. I was offered a Sequoia machine - this is the first time I've done touch screen voting; my previous polling place in Chicago used a chaddish punchcard system.
The actual voting process - touching a big box next to the candidate's name - was very easy. However, I didn't find the navigation process all that intuitive. It was the sort of thing that after you do it several times it is obvious, but there is a bit of a learning curve for navigation.
The voting process had me go through the full list of candidates (there were lots of yes/no judge retention items) three times. The first time through I actually touched the screen to vote. I think there were a total of 13 or so screens I had to traverse. The second time through I was shown my vote result and had to confirm or change. Then a paper ballot was generated - it was on a paper roll that was shown but was retained inside the machine like the store copy of the cash register tape at a supermarket - and I had to confirm the text on the paper roll was correct. Then I was done.
My sense (though I did not clock it) is that voting took me two to three times as long as it used to take using the punch card method.
I have zero sense of any errors in my voting process; I can say I feel confident my vote was recorded correctly.
The whole process required a higher cognitive load than voting previously required.
Mike, I disagree with this assertion: It's unlikely that anyone arriving at the typosquatted domain will be "confused" into believing they're at the correct site.
I've stepped into a harvested squatting site on several occasions before noticing it was not the real site. This happens to me more when I am going to a site unknown to me - so I have no expectations of what it will look like. I figure it out one or two keystrokes in on most occassions. Sometimes I go far enough to click on an external (advertising?) link.
And I am an academic who teaches this stuff.
When I think about my mother surfing the web (or almost anyone's mother surfing the web), I am confident it is possible for the naive surfer to not realize she has reached a rogue site. She would not pick up on the cues that you and I do - she would just trust she is in the right place and keep on clicking.
The Tribune's announcement will likely be a tipping point, bringing other papers along and forcing the AP to react in some way (likely by changing the financial model.)
Given the two year notice required, it would be stupid for any paper NOT to file notice they are leaving in two years. The AP will almost certainly take papers back - and notice provides a two year window for negotiation while preparing for alternative news sources.
So, now I am thinking of starting a company that will send someone over and slap you on the forehead every time you think of something dead obvious. I am sure people will pay for this, given all the trouble it is to slap one's self in the forehead.
I have no opinion about the UK govt (as I am writing from the US), but do have opinion about Phorm.
I agree with the gov't ruling that as long as Phorm is upfront and clear about what they are doing, this business model should be considered legal. I wrote as such in a TechDirt comment a month or two back.
But to Mike's question up top as to whether enough people will opt-in...
I am not sure; perhaps not. I might choose to sign up, but only if I perceived the value I got back from them tracking me to be sufficient enough. Phorm has not yet made their case to me. Google, on the other hand, I have tremendous leeway to.
But, as Mike as pointed out many times, it is not the role of the government legislate business models. I see this UK decision not as a victory for Phorm but as a victory for the separation of business model and state.
OK, the ads (I only saw the shoe store ad; didn't see the suburban home one) may have been lame. I am guessing they were ramping up a narrative and perhaps would have made more sense had we seen the whole thing.
Remember, Seinfeld is all about comedy about nothing - and I thought the shoe store was very Seinfeldian. I can see how this might have morphed into something relevant to MS given enough time.
THE MAIN ISSUE HERE is that by changing the ad campaing, MS appears to lack a rudder. And that message is coming through way more than any moist and chewy computer message.
What I've never understood in this "degrees of separation" thing is: what constitutes a contact?
Is it someone in my address book?
Is it someone who, if asked, would say, "yeah, I know him"?
Does it have to be present tense? What about a co-worker from 19 years ago I haven't been in touch with? Is he still a first degree contact?
Eric Zorn, a columnist at the Chicago Tribune, has been using this process of developing story ideas in this blog for a couple of years now. Not only does he likely produce better columns, but those of us regular bloggers feel like we are part of the creative process.
On the post: Sued For Libel Over eBay Feedback
N of one
I initially had some customer service issues with him, but he then bent over backward to make sure my order was completed to my satisfaction. In doing so, he indirectly suggested to me that there was an implied social contract that if he provides good customer service I would turn around and give him a positive review.
While I recognize that his rating is extremely important to his business, the trading of service for rating seemed a little seamly to me.
On the post: Surprise, Surprise: E-Voting Glitches Found In Early Voting
one voter's experience in Chicago
The actual voting process - touching a big box next to the candidate's name - was very easy. However, I didn't find the navigation process all that intuitive. It was the sort of thing that after you do it several times it is obvious, but there is a bit of a learning curve for navigation.
The voting process had me go through the full list of candidates (there were lots of yes/no judge retention items) three times. The first time through I actually touched the screen to vote. I think there were a total of 13 or so screens I had to traverse. The second time through I was shown my vote result and had to confirm or change. Then a paper ballot was generated - it was on a paper roll that was shown but was retained inside the machine like the store copy of the cash register tape at a supermarket - and I had to confirm the text on the paper roll was correct. Then I was done.
My sense (though I did not clock it) is that voting took me two to three times as long as it used to take using the punch card method.
I have zero sense of any errors in my voting process; I can say I feel confident my vote was recorded correctly.
The whole process required a higher cognitive load than voting previously required.
On the post: Is Google Liable For Typosquatting Domains That Use AdSense?
squatting site sometimes not all that obvious
On the post: Tribune Company The Latest (And Biggest) In A Growing List To Drop Associated Press
AP has dug itself into a hole
Given the two year notice required, it would be stupid for any paper NOT to file notice they are leaving in two years. The AP will almost certainly take papers back - and notice provides a two year window for negotiation while preparing for alternative news sources.
On the post: Would You Pay To Make Sure People Couldn't Call You While Driving?
Why didn't I think of that? [slap]
So, now I am thinking of starting a company that will send someone over and slap you on the forehead every time you think of something dead obvious. I am sure people will pay for this, given all the trouble it is to slap one's self in the forehead.
In fact... I can probably get this idea patented!
On the post: UK Says Phorm Clickstream Tracking Is Okay... If Clearly Explained To Customers
Re:
I agree with the gov't ruling that as long as Phorm is upfront and clear about what they are doing, this business model should be considered legal. I wrote as such in a TechDirt comment a month or two back.
But to Mike's question up top as to whether enough people will opt-in...
I am not sure; perhaps not. I might choose to sign up, but only if I perceived the value I got back from them tracking me to be sufficient enough. Phorm has not yet made their case to me. Google, on the other hand, I have tremendous leeway to.
But, as Mike as pointed out many times, it is not the role of the government legislate business models. I see this UK decision not as a victory for Phorm but as a victory for the separation of business model and state.
On the post: Microsoft Gives In To Online Critics: Fires Seinfeld
caving is lame
Remember, Seinfeld is all about comedy about nothing - and I thought the shoe store was very Seinfeldian. I can see how this might have morphed into something relevant to MS given enough time.
THE MAIN ISSUE HERE is that by changing the ad campaing, MS appears to lack a rudder. And that message is coming through way more than any moist and chewy computer message.
Not staying the course was their big mistake.
On the post: If You Had The 'Secret' To Winning The Lottery, Would You Patent It?
mentalism
On the post: Six Degrees Of Separation Already Cut To Three? Not Really...
what is a contact?
Is it someone in my address book?
Is it someone who, if asked, would say, "yeah, I know him"?
Does it have to be present tense? What about a co-worker from 19 years ago I haven't been in touch with? Is he still a first degree contact?
On the post: Philadelphia Inquirer Tells Staff Bloggers Not To Use Blogs To Test Story Ideas
Eric Zorn in Tribune
On the post: Time For Another Technology Moral Panic? Digital Drugs! Be Afraid!
"rim shot!"
Next >>