The Engine

If you stare at the lines in the road, you’ll never see where you’re going.

While the Devil might be in the details, if you want to know where he’ll be you need to look for the pattern. Pattern-recognition is one of the trickiest pieces of programming, partially because we know very little about how our brains work, and partially because humans make it look so damned easy. Our brains are designed to spot and record patterns.

Sure, it takes a long time. Evenutally, enough memories gel to enable us to look back and assign confidence of some correlation (if not causation.)

Red sky at night, sailor’s delight. Red sky at morning, sailor take warning.

That won’t hold up against the very best prediction engines we have, but it got us down that path. You go back and examine what happened before an event to determine what contributed.

Meanwhile, 200,000 people died at the end of 2005 because no one made the correlation that a big underwater earthquake might pose a problem. There was no warning for the tourists who were trapped by the wall of water. There was a warning for the Indonesian natives who knew that a sudden and unexpected ebb tide was a sign of a huge wave coming in. Many of the animals knew it, too.

It always seems far simpler when you know what the trigger is, instead of drowning yourself in a myriad of probably inconsequential details.

Mapping Ourselves

This post is more straightforward than I wanted it to be. It was originally envisioned as a short story describing the greatest effort in the fictional history of programming. Only I am not so sure it is fictional. It is too possible to not be probably, and world domination is potentially at stake.

I rush this essay into publication because of a fractured discussion with Steve Rubel, who tracks all things technology. Google has announced it is shutting down several of its free webservices, and Rubel mentioned in passing that Google Reader might not survive the next round without showing some value.

Reader is an RSS feed reading application. You ‘subscribe’ to blogs and content that you like online, and Reader ‘delivers’ it to you. Instead of clicking links and folders and bookmarks, the Web you like comes to you in one quick and tidy place. You can also subscribe to feeds of news searches, or mix and match your own sources.

Google Reader offers a couple of very useful features. One, all the feeds I subscribe to are searchable using the Google indexing and algorithm. I don’t have to ‘file’ things in my Reader, I can always find them later. If I choose, I can add whatever tags and descriptors I deem relevant. Second, I can share links with people I know. Real-life friends, business acquaintances, or those I network with online. I actually get ‘feeds’ of what my network of people found interesting, and we can add notes to each other pointing out key facts or summaries.

Soup to Nuts

What makes this interesting is Google’s role throughout. In the course of the content, Google plays several key roles. Not a monopoly, but it is a player in:

  • Content creation (Blogger, YouTube)
  • Content delivery (Feedburner)
  • Content aggregation (Reader)
  • Content discovery (Search)
  • Content sharing (Shared links in Reader)

No one else is a significant-enough player in all these aspects of the Information Age to track what is said to whom, and when it happens.

If you’re Google, you have Willy Wonka’s Golden Ticket: the map to the influencers. There’s a huge debate raging among the marketers and the public relations people and the politicos over just who has influence, and how you locate them.

Finding Influencers is important, because it allows you to target your message or your plea to only those people that really matter for a given function or moment. Those Influencers can change over time or given a different objective, but locating them is the key.

From the instant someone creates a video or a blog post, Google knows what is in it. (Again, there are other services, but Google gets enough of the video and blog business to make this scale.) Google also knows:

  • when it arrives in your Reader
  • when you read it
  • how you mark it
  • when you share it
  • when your friends read it
  • when they act on it…

…and the cycle continues. From Soup to Nuts, Google can know which people start the online tremors that lead to popularity of content. ‘Viral’ is no longer a marketing mystery – Google has the data to find the epidemiology.

The Ticket is the Beginning

Willy Wonka’s Golden Ticket wasn’t the prize itself – it was the step you had to clear to get to the prize.

Sure, Google could sell some of those results. It could offer up premium information to advertisers, or even offer direct targeted ads at the highest of most high Influencers. We’re not talking about the Pete Cashmores or Steve Rubels of the world – we want the people who are more likely to seed them with inspiration and information.

But even that isn’t the prize. Stay with me here.

Get several million people on Blogger, a large contingent of content producers. Get a couple of million more on Google Reader, and then sit back for about five years while they share data like no one’s business.

Except it is your business. You need to understand who the Nodes are, and how much time elapses between certain events. You need to learn how to look beyond the tiny pieces of data as individual bits, and instead look at the whole. Big picture, a bunch of water droplets becomes a cloud. And under certain atmospheric conditions, that cloud looks red.

Google isn’t going to drop Reader, because it needs us to keep feeding the data beast. It will take a good five years of collection (and maybe a couple of more concentrating on the data visualization to make it feasible, but isn’t that why Google hired all those engineers and algorithm people?)

Once you know what a ripple looks like, and the content of that ripple, you can track it. And you start to see the others. And eventually, you start to identify the ripples that preceded a discrete event instead of the ones that followed.

Making Waves

Google is building the world’s largest prediction engine. It’s now in a learning phase, and an early one at that. It’s building a new Vocabulary of Influence, not to sell us products but instead to tell the future. All you need is a series of similar events that you can compare, and look for correlating ripples that came before. Certain punctuated events would have no meaning, like outcomes of Super Bowls. But something like, say, a quarterly stock report, would be easy to parse.

It would be regular enough (and have a large enough data mine of its own) that you could put the most powerful computers to work just looking for the pattern. And as the owner of the ONLY data set that traces complete ripples of influence, there is no break in the chain to cloud the data.

Maybe the predictions will come with just a few hours notice, like a tsunami warning system. Maybe it will evolve into a longer-range forecasting tool for economics or finance. What could Larry and Sergey do with the Ginormous Google Gigawatt Crystal Ball? Other than promise us they Won’t Be Evil?

The truth is right there in your Google Reader, and the Devil is in your details. And that is why the High Holy Priests of Mountain View will never bring Reader to the sacrificial altar.

Passing Trains

The following messages came in through my Twitter (and Facebook) stream within a 15-minute span Monday morning:

Laura Howe: wow! metro is really quiet this am. hardly anyone on board for a monday morning.

Rick Murray: Want proof people are driving less: Metra has added a car to this train = 250 more folks doing the green thing downtown.

Metra Train, by Merrick Brown (on Flickr)Two trains, two cities, two divergent opportunities to make an observation. That’s what we do, gather input and try to reorganize it into some semblance of understanding. It’s easier to remember conclusions than the steps it took to get there. It’s easier to remember the final score of a game than a comprehensive list of the plays. The trick is to remember the information that is significant.

Finding the Factor

In geometry, we have theorems – postulates that aren’t true by definition, but have been proven true by experience and derivation from other known truths. We fail when we skip to a new derivation without enough fact to support it. And we do that far too often.

Take Rick’s assertion. Is it indeed a sign of the times? Are there more commuters avoiding high gas prices? Is he basing this on a personal observation or just reading a news release from the operators of Chicago’s Metra?

Now look at Laura’s message. The Metro (DC) is eerily quiet. Does that entail a drop in ridership? Or is there a federal holiday underway, not uncommon for a Monday? Or are more people taking cars?

Truth is, we don’t know. We don’t have enough information. Such a message (or observation) remains strictly anecdotal out of context. Maybe Metra is adding a car in anticipation of behavior that will not materialize. Who knows?

Shortcuts Can Miss the Truth

All too often, we over-apply Occam’s Razor and end up buttressing our previously-held beliefs with new ‘evidence’ that might not apply. Take Laura’s case. How many reasons might there be for such a small number on her train:

  • Holiday
  • More people are driving cars than before
  • Previous train was later than normal, giving a smaller “gap of opportunity” for riders
  • Connecting train was late
  • Erroneous report that trains were closed
  • Laura got on an unusually empty car

Again, who knows? But human nature tells us that when we carry a powerful narrative, we’ll tend to lean in that direction. If you are just convinced that we’re in the worst economy ever, you might even believe no one is on the train because everyone else is at home after a layoff. If you’ve just heard about a flu outbreak, you might blame it on that. Or, if you know there is a parade that day, you might assume people are attending that event instead.

The misapplication of Occam’s Razor occurs when we choose to believe the simplest explanation that matches our preconceived worldview, instead of just the simplest.

And the simplest isn’t always correct – just more likely to be.

Now – for fun – please chime in with your ideas. Come up with your own possible explanations for why Laura’s train might have been unusually empty. Or, share your theories about why Metra is adding a car that might have nothing to do with “going green.”

[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, statistics, occam’s razor, postulates, theory[/tags]

Gaming the System

dime

Where there are rules, there are winners and losers.  The real trick is designing a set of rules that elicits the behavior you wanted to begin with.

I’m about as competitive a person as you’ll meet, and over the years I can take a quick look at the rules and conditions of a contest and tell you where the holes in the system are.  In essence, the game becomes a meta-game for me — how quickly can I dismantle the original intent? I tried to do it at an Outward Bound Red Cross training over a year ago.  Teams were given three hours to complete as many odd games and tasks as possible.  My suggestion?  Let’s skip the first half-hour, split up, and see how the other groups were faring with their feats.  Steal the best ideas, and get done in record time.  Our facilitator put a stop to that before we started (and admitted no one else had ever suggested it.)

The old Game-Breaker reared his ugly head again this week.  My kids are going to a half-day Vacation Bible School, and the game is to see whether the boys or the girls can collect the most change for a charitable mission.  There is a daily weigh-in for each side.

That’s right.  Weigh in.  Within an instant, I was scheming of ways to convert my daughter’s quarters and dimes into pennies, pronto.  (Dimes are a particular handicap liability in this scoring system, with a very small weight-to-value ratio.)

Clearly, if the goal is to raise more money for charity, you have to buckle down and actually count the currency.  Not while there are ways to exploit the rules.

The Tweak is On

This happens more than you think in sports.  Rules and competition committees meet to decide how far the three-point-line must be from the goal, how much leeway a defensive back will get in putting his hands on a wide receiver, how wide the strike zone will be, how long before you must pass the ball or throw a pitch or take a shot… Each one of these rules is designed for one reason:  To make the game as entertaining as possible.  Who wants to see slow and boring slugfests? Tweak the game, get more fans in the gate and more remotes ordering premium pay-per-view packages and season passes.

Now, I’m not advocating cheating in any fashion.  It’s one thing to blatantly break the rules to obtain a competitve advantage over opponents.  It’s another to find an optimum strategy that exploits a peculiarity in the rules.  If the game is no longer fun, then you blame the designer.  Lore Sjoberg had a perfect example of this recently, explaining why he’d never enjoy any Superman-themed videogames: “An accurate Superman game would have one button labeled “Use Powers” and you would press it and win.”

The Game is All Around Us

I admit I’m more competitive than all of you.  (You’re right, I didn’t say most, I said all.)  But each and every one of us exploit the rules around us.  For instance, there are parents out there who will put their children through several Vacation Bible Schools at different congregations over the course of the summer.  (Hey, it’s cheaper than daycare.)  It’s just that we don’t call it “Game Theory” when you’re sitting down and calculating if the extra distance to that other store will be worth the slight price break you’ll get retail.

More importantly, when you set up expectations and boundaries, are you really encouraging the behavior you want?  If those in the mix start doing crazy things you never anticipated, there might be a hidden reward in your scoring system, or an unforeseen obstacle that makes your intended outcome impossible.  As it happens, there is a correlation between weight and value for some US currency.  A quarter is worth 2.5x a dime, and it weighs 2.5x as well — so a pound of quarters not only weighs as much as a pound of dimes, it will also buy as much.  (The average weight of a nickel is exactly twice that of a penny, while having 5x the value.)  So I’m off to the bank, to trade in silver coinage for those wonderfully heavy pennies that so many want to discontinue.  Pennies from Heaven, I’ll call it!

A shortcut on your part in measuring success can make more than a dime’s worth of difference in the outcome.

[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, Game Theory, Economics, Currency, Sports[/tags]

Speed Kills

Dinosaur grace

During one of my recent travels, I missed out on one of those magic parenting moments. My wife told me about it later, and it cracks me up.

My son had his toy dinosaurs all gathered together. The biggest one was laying on its side. Deceased. The others were huddled around, ready to eat. And before they started, they sang. (Actually, my son was singing for them, the Blessing Song, which sounds suspiciously like Frere Jacque.)

Re-enactment
Re-enactment
God our Father,
God our Father,
We thank you,
For our food.
Bless it to our bodies,
Bless it to our bodies,
A-men, A-men.

While I’m not sure what sort of table manners the dinosaurs indeed had, my son did get one thing right: the quick and nimble survive, while the slow and lumbering become lunch.

No dinosaurs were harmed in the making of this picture
No dinosaurs were harmed in the making of this picture

RIP: Serendipity

Valeria Maltoni is a very smart woman. She speaks fifteen different languages, and holds patents on two new ones. (Okay, I made that part up.) Being the multi-lingual diva that she is, she’s known as “The Conversation Agent.” I would suppose that being able to analyze situations through several languages at once opens a different set of perspectives on the matter. And, of course, supposition is all that might be, as I am a naturally-born United States citizen and am prohibited by the Constitution from learning another language. (Okay, I made that part up too.)

She’s got a very smart analysis about the fracturing of the marketplace, and what the Blitz of Choices will mean for marketers. Go ahead and read that so you can be smart, then come back and allow me the indulgence to wax poetic on what it will mean for individuals.

Heir of Error

I am an Heir of Error. The process of evolution, at the molecular level of DNA, is nothing more than a Comedy of Errors. Over time, those errors that don’t kill me make me better.

Errors also make life more interesting. For instance, I love Black Cherry Fresca. Even though I have no taste for cherries, and every other cherry-flavored soda is repugnant to me. Tastes like petroleum. (I’m talking about you, Diet Cherry Vanilla Dr. Pepper.) The only reason I tried BCF is the labeling was too similar to regular Fresca, and my wife bought it for my office. I tried it, out of spite, and liked it!

More than a Beverage

Now, imagine a life where your personal shopper (sorry Hon) never makes a mistake. Better yet – imagine a life where your personal assistant knows your preferences and tastes so well that what you want is served directly to you, without being asked?

In some respects, we are right there. We are about to see the rise of web services that pull and pluck the information we want, and the stuff we didn’t even know we wanted. By analyzing keywords and content, they will be able to suggest news and information from sources you never imagined existed – and suggest news about topics that you really would have wanted if you knew about them!

This poses a scary future. One in which the initial choices we make will have a profound impact on the final direction of our information flow. Choosing a single different news source at the outset can set you on a different path entirely. And once the system “learns” your patterns, you will be inundated with so much personalized information that you’ll not have time to choose outside of your algorithm. You might try, but why bother when you’re so comfortable with all of the content right there in front of you?

The Exercise of Choice

Once we’re cocooned in our comfort zone, “choice” really has little meaning. We’ve ceded “choice” to a formula — or worse yet, a “web” of preferences based on other people just like us. How easy will it be to game those formulae? Take away choice and error, and say goodbye to serendipity.

If it weren’t for “choice” and “error,” I wouldn’t be sipping the last of a delicious Black Cherry Fresca as I finish this post. And I wouldn’t have stumbled upon the writings of Valeria Maltoni. And you most likely wouldn’t be reading this. In fact, I know you wouldn’t. Because my subject matter and format — while maintaining a somewhat uniform tone and theme — doesn’t fit an easy stencil template. If you had a preference for commentary on communication, you’d get something that did nothing but that, and miss out on my Venn diagrams and Demotivationals. You wouldn’t learn about the connection between the rhythm of the cicadas, hair mousse, Avatar, the Hook-and-Lateral, and Jimmie Lee Sudduth. (They all made the complex simple.)

We’d miss out on the really interesting things that happen at the intersections. It’s the crumbs that fall into the cracks between disciplines that make for the most original thinking, the most important science. It’s the ability to carry a concept from the language of one tribe into the cant of another.

Right, Valeria?

[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, Valeria Maltoni, Conversation Agent, fuzzy logic, marketing, choice[/tags]

Trust, but Verify

Email question

I stumbled across a popular link on one of the sharing sites. Within the last day or so, more than 100 people have linked to a web-service that verifies email address. Just type in the address, and it will tell you if it exists.

So I did…

Email question…and I was told that my primary email address has invalid syntax. Apparently, the person who programmed this wonderful utility neglected to include a provision for anyone with a ‘.name‘ account.

Oops.

Sadly, the way these bookmarked links tend to propagate, there will be many people out there using this tool to block certain people, or even blackball them from business for submitting “false” information. There’s got to be something screwy built into psychology that allows us to not take someone at their word about their address, yet we “trust” an essentially anonymous web-service to give us a correct answer. Never mind that the service in question might have been programmed by a fallible human, or even a mischievous one.

For that matter, I’m willing to bet we know very very little about the individuals and companies that create more popular web services and networking sites. We know they “promise” not to mess with our personal data. That is, if we bothered to even read the user-agreement. So much of the internet and the networks that make it useful are dependent upon an implicit level of trust. I’ve not thought hard enough about why some sites immediately get my buy-in, while others make me iffy. I’d hate to think it’s little more than color scheme or layout.

Who have you trusted today? I’m making a list, and it is scaring the hell out of me.

[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, internet, trust, social networks, social media[/tags]

The Sweet Spot of Influence

Story Venn

Today’s “Moment of Venn” looks at the factors that make a story powerful and influential:

Story Venn

This one speaks for itself.

[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, Venn diagram, storytelling, influence[/tags]