Google Code is nifty

Just found a cool bit of code through Google (I searched) on Google (Code), and then checked it out in a mat­ter of sec­onds using SVN. The whole oper­a­tion took under five minutes.

# by Josh on December 1st, 2006 Tags:
| No Comments »

What Josh Does at Youthworks

I’m employed by an organ­i­sa­tion (the one I referred to in my first post about this project, wherein I didn’t bother explain­ing exactly what was going on, but hoped it would be clear to those who already knew) that exists to — amongst other things — resource youth ministry.

One thing we’ve noticed (“we” is myself and a hand­ful of oth­ers with an inter­est in the web) over the past twelve months is an uptake in web usage by youth min­istries — for obvi­ous rea­sons: that’s where kids are spend­ing their time, and it’s a great com­mu­ni­ca­tion tool, and every­one else is doing it.

When I say every­one else is doing it, I actu­ally mean every­one else is try­ing to do it. Every­one has, for the last six to twelve months, been writ­ing the same appli­ca­tions, inte­grat­ing the same soft­ware, pay­ing for the same soft­ware, attempt­ing to train the same peo­ple, and gen­er­ally doing a lot of the same stuff, sep­a­rately. With no point of inter­sec­tion or shar­ing or intel­li­gent resource management.

This is under­stand­able: after­all, the web presents a rel­a­tively new front for churches in gen­eral, and whilst kids have been wast­ing time online for years, only with the rel­a­tively recent advent of social net­work­ing web­sites (I refer to it as ‘Soc­Net’ in these parts — no-one else seems to, but I like it, so what­ever) have the less computer-inclined began spend­ing sig­nif­i­cant amounts of time in front of a keyboard.

There’s also a bit of a catch-22 when it comes to build­ing these things. Peo­ple ask, what are the ben­e­fits? We’ve never had some­one come along to youth group because of our website! — well, no, you’re right. But you also don’t have a web­site, so that’s hardly fair, is it? Nine times out of ten peo­ple will not come along to church (gener­i­cally) because they’ve searched for a church in a par­tic­u­lar sub­urb in Google (though, speak­ing of that, I’ve got to do a bit of SEO work on the Matthias site — it’s not on the first page for a “Church in Padding­ton” query. Changed the title, it’ll be a while til that kicks in. We’ll see.)

They’ll come because a friend asked if they wanted to, or they were walk­ing past and heard peo­ple inside, saw them going in, and won­dered what it was all about.

But this is hardly exclu­sive to hav­ing a web­site. If they have those points of con­tact, a web­site is a great way to invis­i­bly inves­ti­gate fur­ther with­out need­ing to make them­selves uncom­fort­able. It’s easy to find these sorts of web­sites through search engines — you walked past a church and noted its name, you remem­ber the name of your friend’s church, etc.

The same goes for youth groups, obviously.

Peo­ple have just been start­ing to realise this, or at least think of it at all and decide “yeah, we could do that”. So, there’s the ratio­nale for it all. Most peo­ple with decent web­sites already may not have con­sid­ered ratio­nale in any great depth — they’ve got a good web­site because they know some­one who makes them, and vol­un­teered their time (maybe they’re a leader), throw­ing some­thing together with Xoops in an after­noon. It’s quick and dirty, but effective.

We’re try­ing to spend a small but not insignif­i­cant amount of money to equip peo­ple to do these sorts of thing, so it’s only sen­si­ble that some more time is spent con­sid­er­ing what on earth we’re try­ing to achieve. Hence the lengthy pre­lude to what it actu­ally does.

Now, the fea­tures. We have too many tar­get audi­ences for it to be an alto­gether com­fort­able project, but that’s half the fun of it. The prod­uct is being mar­keted to churches (who pay for it) through lead­ers (who want to use it) and for youth (who actu­ally aren’t the cen­tre of the uni­verse on this one, but we need to give them UX that says they are). Out­side of these three, there are also the friends of the youth already in the appli­ca­tion who are just check­ing out the youth group page.

Of course, it’s not quite that sim­ple. We’re also mar­ket­ing this to camps, high school scrip­ture groups/lunchtime bible groups, and maybe bands/events. Which is great and tech­ni­cally only a small step, but it does pretty hor­ri­ble things when you try and explain who’s pay­ing for what in a con­cise business-like fash­ion. If you’ve read this far, chances are you’re well aware that concise-ness has never been my strong point.

So, with these tar­gets in mind, we are (firstly) going to equip them with web­sites. Big woop. WordPress.com and Blog­ger eat your heart out. Cue yawns.

No, seri­ously. We’re going to give them (‘them’ being the var­i­ous enti­ties described above, not indi­vid­u­als so much — there’s no way I’m posi­tion­ing this against other Soc­Net sites because I reckon it’s too frag­mented to last… Face­book or Myspace or Bebo or.… yes.) web pages. Wel­come to 1999.

They’re going to have web pages with cal­en­dars they can chock full of the sched­ule for the term, though. So that’s exciting.

And everyone’s going to have their own user­name, so they can leave com­ments on the inevitable blog­ging ele­ment with iden­tity — this is won­der­ful for com­ment– and generic form-spam. Inci­den­tally, I read a few blogs that Wild St peo­ple are writ­ing and was really excited to see they’re actu­ally enthu­si­as­tic about doing it. There’s quite the bunch of them on Blog­ger these days, and it’s all com­pletely autonomous — so far as I know, no-one has pushed them to start doing it. I was so proud of their keen­ness and inno­va­tion for build­ing up com­mu­nity and spread­ing the gospel! Another aside, my copy hasn’t arrived yet but I believe there’s some­thing about blog­ging in The Brief­ing for Decem­ber (it’s not on their web­site yet, either). My copy arrived today, and I dis­cov­ered the cur­rent issue is in their web­store, just not on the main site. It’s The Brief­ing #339, if you’d care to read it.

Any­way. Blogs will fea­ture. Cal­en­dars will fea­ture. All the stuff you’d rea­son­ably expect to be able to do with a CMS tool these days will fea­ture. Blogs, cal­en­dars, gal­leries, con­tact forms, sta­tic pages. Yay. So that’s the bor­ing stuff that we’ve just got to do the grunt-work for at some point (I’m sure it can be fun, but, just between you and me, I’m not really look­ing for­ward to the cou­ple of weeks we have to spend on that bit).

Now, for inter­est­ing and inno­v­a­tive fea­tures — because, let’s face it, the above is hardly enough to con­vince any­one to switch their exist­ing web­site (if indeed they have one) across to a hosted plat­form for a nom­i­nal (to be deter­mined, but prob­a­bly only payable by church groups, and not for camps/events on account of these being once-off) monthly fee.

Con­tact tools. Yummy. We’re going to give them mail­ers that make it easy to send a mes­sage to, say, all the kids in year 10. Or just guys. Or girls in year 8. Or only to your co-leaders (we’ll have a resource area where they can share files — Word doc­u­ments, PDFs, slide shows — on the site, too: that’s some of the fun CMS stuff). But email’s been done before. Everyone’s used email. Admit­tedly, some­times you just wish there’s a bet­ter way to store and man­age lists of peo­ple, and this tool will cer­tainly do that, but it’s a lit­tle bor­ing still.

So we decided it’d be a good idea to throw SMS into the mix. It’s not just a gim­mick: again, this is in response to what peo­ple are already doing. The only dif­fer­ence is it’s paid on a shared account (used by the lead­ers — the youth kids won’t have access to these tools, for fairly obvi­ous rea­sons) and inte­grates the same con­tact man­age­ment fea­tures as the mailer app. We’re hop­ing con­ve­nience will draw peo­ple across to this tool. Use sce­nar­ios are basi­cally just that you’d use this tool to inform peo­ple of what’s going on this week at youth group, or remind­ing them that the group is on bring­ing sup­per this month, etcetera. The orig­i­nat­ing num­ber will be that of a sin­gle leader, or it could even be that of that person’s own leader.

For exam­ple, one mes­sage is sent to all kids by the group co-ordinator, but that mes­sage is altered depend­ing on who the indi­vid­ual recipient’s bible study leader is, so that it appears to orig­i­nate from them. Obvi­ously com­mon sense would say that you wouldn’t do that with­out con­sul­ta­tion, so we’d prob­a­bly have a check box in the leader’s “my account” page that would say “Allow mes­sages from other senders to orig­i­nate from my mobile num­ber”, or some­thing to that affect.

Beyond con­tact tools, we want to take advan­tage of the fact that this is a service-based prod­uct and entirely a hosted solu­tion. Part of the rea­son we’re strongly pur­su­ing that is it gives an oppor­tu­nity to equip and direct in a way that decen­tralised sites can’t be. So, a few things we’re think­ing of doing are cen­tralised offer­ings like weekly newslet­ters (sent to lead­ers two days in advance so they’ve got an oppor­tu­nity to see it first) and global blog prop­er­ties that give reviews, cur­rent affairs com­men­tary, etc.

That’s the end of the uni­ver­sal fea­tures that are great for kids and lead­ers alike, but there’s lots more for lead­ers. As I’ve already said, we want this to be self-funding. Part of this is sell­ing elec­tronic ver­sions of dead-tree prod­ucts, as DRM’d PDFs, or as unen­cum­bered PDFs with watermarks/obviously time-sensitive adver­tis­ing (so vio­la­tion of copy­right is glar­ingly obvi­ous). The other part is (for me at least) far more excit­ing, and that’s reselling user generated/contributed con­tent (UGC) under an iStockPhoto-esque model (Basi­cally, profit sharing).

This isn’t just about words on a page — I want to get plenty of video stuff hap­pen­ing, too, because (espe­cially in reformed evan­gel­i­cal Anglican/Baptist/Presbyterian, etc. churches) that doesn’t get nearly enough of a work out as is. It’s a really effec­tive tool for sup­port­ing preaching/bible stud­ies, and it’s been largely over­looked until prob­a­bly early this year (I had my first con­ver­sa­tion with some­one about video resources for small group bible stud­ies as late as July or August this year, I think! They had used a Matthias Media resource which I haven’t encoun­tered, and thought it really helpful).

Pric­ing mod­els for all that are still a lit­tle up in the air, but, from a consumer’s point of view, it’s def­i­nitely going to be afford­able. The project will ulti­mately sit on a server main­tained gratis and depend largely on vol­un­teer labour to admin­is­ter con­tent. The only “costs” are those to the estab­lished Youth­works pub­lish­ing divi­sion, but hope­fully we can tran­si­tion the way they do their high-school level con­tent effec­tively, so they’re com­mis­sion­ing con­tent for the web and sell­ing it there. Some­thing that’s really excit­ing is the pos­si­bil­ity that, instead of com­mis­sion­ing con­tent, it’s pos­si­ble to pur­chase it directly and already cre­ated from a pool of resources on the website.

There’s def­i­nitely a work­able model here, somewhere.

Prayer is greatly wel­comed for:

  • wis­dom try­ing to fig­ure that model out
  • energy and resources to make it hap­pen (in what­ever form)
  • adop­tion and enthu­si­asm from youth lead­ers and kids
  • effec­tive­ness in web strat­egy as we attempt to use it as an evan­ge­lis­tic out­reach tool, and a tool for the growth of exist­ing ministry
  • and, hand-in-hand with that last point, that God’s will be done and if He wills it, that growth would be given!

FEVA not-marketing, motivation, and red wine

FEVA’s “Pro­mot­ing the Word through Image and Text” con­fer­ence (they will break my link fairly quickly, methinks, but it’s good whilst it lasts) was today, and it rocked.

Ses­sions about archi­tec­ture to cre­ative strate­gies to the the­ol­ogy of “pro­mo­tion” (which we don’t call mar­ket­ing for fear of stir­ring the con­tro­versy pot) to a rather help­ful copy­right ses­sion (albeit one rais­ing more ques­tions than it answered), as well as great food, a com­fort­able venue, and gen­er­ally excel­lent organ­i­sa­tion, etc.

Go along next year.

And, now that pos­i­tive rec­om­men­da­tion is cemented firmly with­out men­tion of the web…

I did, how­ever, take great excep­tion to the web strat­egy speaker, who I am tempted to pour out all man­ner of vit­ri­olic utter­ances against but will attempt to refrain. He essen­tially said that footer keyword-stuffing was fine, as was spam­ming meta tags (though, thank­fully, he acknowl­edged search engines pay “less atten­tion” to them these days — I would put that closer to “insignif­i­cant atten­tion and not worth the markup bloat they so often are”). Every­thing he had to say about con­tent for the web could be sur­mised in the key­word, “key­words”, pay­ing no atten­tion to the dif­fer­ent copy-writing demands of web media and the flow-on effects of organic key­word enhance­ment. Fur­ther, he man­aged to sug­gest online games for youth and prize com­pe­ti­tions as legit­i­mate mar­ket­ing tac­tics, which, to me, seems brain-dead — per­haps I should just say “an unpro­duc­tive use of time”. The entire pre­sen­ta­tion appeared to have been repur­posed from a very basic web 1001 pre­sen­ta­tion to small busi­nesses, with­out much (or any) regard for audi­ence feedback.

For exam­ple, he asked ques­tions at the begin­ning to get an indi­ca­tion of where the audi­ence was at in terms of web pres­ence (I would say well over 90% had a web­site, with prob­a­bly half of that being main­tained in some capac­ity — yes, our web­site is get­ting touched up soon… heh, in all my free time) and then pro­ceeded to com­pletely ignore that (although he did act very sur­prised at the num­ber of hands that went up) and tell every­one about how to get online in the first place. Com­plete with the worst in Pow­er­point pre­sen­ta­tion technique.

Def­i­nitely not a high­light of the day!

Any­way, that aside, I went home feel­ing pretty moti­vated to Get­Stuff­Done™ and started on the three gazil­lion changes pend­ing for the Matthias site… then gave up when Budd called say­ing Borat was on. I’ve gen­er­ally had a great evening, though — a few hours with a glass of red wine and a sense of accom­plish­ment as con­tent takes shape, then a con­ver­sa­tion about using Google Maps to plot some 2,100 retail out­lets effec­tively (no con­sen­sus as to how to achieve this yet, because that’s 2,100 points to be ren­dered client-side as an over­lay, which would prob­a­bly crash some browsers, if not make them run hideously slowly — but the brain is churn­ing over), then watch­ing that crazy movie. Yeah, you’ve got to laugh at it, but… gosh. Really hope they went back and explained it was satire to some of those peo­ple, if not apol­o­gis­ing out­right. Hav­ing said that, I think he’s reached the lim­its of the per­sona; it really got a bit repet­i­tive and pre­dictable (but still evok­ing laugh­ter for shock value) in parts. I still laughed loudly.

Any­way. More to come soon.

Selo gets sauced

Direct from Kings­ford Maccas.

It’s also on Google Video if you’re not Flash-friendly (they offer MP4 down­loads as well as the in-site Flash and pro­pri­etary GVP (Google video player) rubbish).

Alluded to in the video, “myspace audi­ence” are located at myspace.com/morbelli. Not up at time of writing.

# by Josh on November 14th, 2006 Tags: , ,
| 1 Comment »

People versus search engines

It seems that search engines are an immutable fact of early-twenty-first cen­tury exis­tence. We can’t escape them in any imme­di­ate sense, and can­not believe they could ever dis­ap­pear (I recall one instance on Whirlpool forums where a user thought his/her ISP’s inter­a­tional link must be down because he couldn’t access Google. This was one of the very few times Google had actu­ally dropped off the face of the planet for about twenty min­utes. It was sim­ply out­side the realm of possibility.)

Yet, increas­ingly, our surf­ing habits are defined by this bizarre social con­cept that seems to be shap­ing cer­tainly acqui­si­tions and web-two-point-oh-bubblism, wherein web­sites serve users by con­nect­ing them with one another, not on the basis of them know­ing what they wanted, but rather in a bizarre a pri­ori man­ner whereby degrees-of-separation (MySpace) or user-supplied-already-knowns (Live­Jour­nal, Xanga, etc.) define con­nect­ed­ness and dis­played content.

Search is no longer the macro-inter killer app, but an intra-site facil­ity applied to micro­cosm — often based on “trans­par­ent” tech­nol­ogy that has, on the basis of known knowns (in the words of a cer­tain Rums­feld), already done some of the hard work for users (I should say peo­ple, but don’t out of habit: it is an indus­try haz­ard) with­out actu­ally ask­ing them any­thing. This is where loca­tion– and organisation-based match­ing (cf. MySpace, Face­book, etc.) come in.

But none of this data is intel­li­gently search­able by generic engines.

None of this data (in the case of Myspace espe­cially, hor­ri­bly marked-up doing-everything-wrong-with-the-web tech­ni­cally entity that it is) is avail­able for index­ing by search engines because it’s not abid­ing by any defined seman­tics. There is not, for exam­ple, any over­whelm­ing use of micro­for­mats — hCard, etc. — for defin­ing con­tact details in any com­mon sense. Yet these things are search­able within a given website.

And, what’s more, these things are search­able with great pre­ci­sion within (social net­work­ing) sites. This is because of a very well defined inter­nal seman­tic (not the “seman­tic web”, but inter­nal data struc­tures) and an enforced obe­di­ence to these struc­tures that was never a part of pre-SocNet sites.

Soc­Net plat­forms are rad­i­cally dif­fer­ent from web 1.0 sys­tems in that they are (iron­i­cally) vastly more con­strict­ing. As “web 1.0″ I would cite Geoc­i­ties and free web host­ing ser­vices, por­tals, and all-things-to-all-people con­tent net­works. Now, we’ve got blogs (pre­cisely defined web­sites), MySpace (chiefly Soc­Net pro­files with bits on the fringes com­mon to the users, and now with enough impe­tus to appear unstop­pable), Flickr (free — and fee-for-service that peo­ple actu­ally pay for — web host­ing, pre­cisely defined as photo host­ing), and, strangely, a por­tal (Yahoo!) still on top of Alexa 500 rank­ings. A por­tal that owns both Flickr and Geoc­i­ties, but has changed the model of the lat­ter to place greater empha­sis on fee-for-service host­ing. But I digress into strat­egy — the point is not that, but rather in the way social data is stored.

Flickr is meta-data rich. It uses a well defined sys­tem based on EXIF, intrin­sic seman­tics (title, descrip­tion, tags — tags that get used prop­erly, unlike Face­book which doesn’t bother to make such things clear — I want Face­book to flop, by the way, because it annoys me, so don’t expect nice things to be said about it. It’s a poor closed-system imi­ta­tor, albeit with a stu­pidly effec­tive adver­tis­ing model every­one else should be wish­ing they came up with first but haven’t seen in order to copy… because it’s a closed sys­tem (or used to be) exclu­sive in scope. Which makes it very effec­tive SocNet/Web 2.0, by my own def­i­n­i­tion, so I don’t really have a basis for com­plaint.) and extrin­sic seman­tics (groups, pools, etc.).

Pro­files, unlike ‘pure’ Soc­Net (Myspace, Face­book), per­mit anonymity, but allow dis­clo­sure of as much as is desired: at any rate, that is not the pur­pose of the site. Myspace/Facebook’s rai­son d’etre is pro­files. (Well, and that and cash-cow-marketing-tool of the *R**IA’s of the world) Accord­ingly, its pro­files have very def­i­nite seman­tics even whilst the rest of the site may not (I speak of Myspace more, here). Myspace gives core “Details” pro­file info indi­vid­ual fields, whilst allow­ing a diverse “Inter­ests & Per­son­al­ity” infor­ma­tion in freeform textar­eas that are designed to entice users into par­tic­i­pa­tion (and, pos­si­bly, aid­ing more fuzzy searches — but mostly I think it’s just com­pelling con­tent, as there is no imme­di­ately obvi­ous way to search that data).

“Inter­ests & Per­son­al­ity”, along with blog con­tent, seems to be the only freeform con­tributed mate­r­ial avail­able on the site. Want music or a video with your pro­file? You’ve got to browse to the band’s site, load the player (no go in Opera with Flash at the minute, it seems), and then select “Add” on the track. They (yeah, it’s kinda big-brotherish) know exactly what song you chose, what band it’s from, what genre, etc. — that is to say, unam­bigu­ously and cer­tainly beyond a probably-common song title. This isn’t an upload-yourself-and-we’ll-manage-rights kind of thing. The offi­cial­ity gives that inter­nal data struc­ture that much more depth: but, again, the point is that the data is inter­nal and not open.

This, it seems, is the defin­ing qual­ity of Soc­Net. That’s what makes the ideas of open fed­er­a­tion advo­cated by Google Talk ear­lier this year so bizarre for the rest of us. We don’t par­tic­u­larly care, because closed sys­tems mean inno­va­tion (because we can define new data for our­selves to work with) and/or exten­si­bil­ity that isn’t pos­si­ble in an open plat­form (if, for exam­ple, not all fed­er­ated part­ners agree to a spec exten­sion — take, for exam­ple, Google Talk’s own Jab­ber base and pro­pri­etary VoIP on top of that). Open­ness is in Google’s inter­ests, because it’s so depen­dent on things being open for its core busi­ness (search). But real peo­ple want ser­vices that work, not ser­vices that push them to another site. I’ve never trusted sites that bounce me off to Google for their site’s search, even if it’s one of those crappy co-branded things. It doesn’t make sense. Why would you make some­one inspect your web­site from an infe­rior per­spec­tive when all the infor­ma­tion is stored in a data­base, with the pos­si­bil­ity of more seman­ti­cally mean­ing­ful search open inter­nally only?

Google won’t deal with your inter­nal search needs. It’s not designed to. It does a great job of deal­ing with pub­licly indexed mate­ri­als com­pletely aside from Soc­Net ser­vices. Soc­Net sites thrive on and are empow­ered by strong intrin­sic seman­tics that make clever profile-based (or UGC–based) search pos­si­ble, which builds loy­alty etcetera in a way for­eign to infor­ma­tional web­sites. Soc­Net is expe­ri­en­tial and (sur­prise sur­prise) social — it doesn’t have to be about anything.

Con­tent was deposed as king some­time in the mid­dle of the first decade of the twenty first cen­tury, and with that regime change his deputy, Search, was also shuf­fled to a some­what less promi­nent posi­tion. Some­where out of sight, Search’s iden­ti­cal twin, Query, is the real power behind the throne: it uses unin­dexed data and makes clever links to bring peo­ple closer together in a way that tra­di­tional search engines had never even envisaged.

I hate academic snobbery

Oh my good­ness. Why didn’t I go to Google sooner? All that time trawl­ing through books and ERIC and Gale DBs, wasted!

I could have even hit I’m feel­ing lucky. I’M FEELING FREAKIN’ UNLUCKY! Num­ber 1 match for “ado­les­cent emo­tional devel­op­ment” (entered not out of despa­ra­tion but sim­ply on a whim this evening to see what it turned up! I’ll con­fess I was expect­ing angsty blog entries from some more-erudite teenagers rather than actual research.) unveils a bril­liant overview page from an Assoc. Prof. at Queen’s Uni (Canada)‘s devel­op­men­tal psy­chol­ogy depart­ment, which is incred­i­bly well sup­ported with cita­tions, etc.

I should quit this whole uni/vocational dealing-with-people-and-books gig right now and go back to my lit­tle geek world in which Google knows all and Wikipedia can be read with­out fear of vio­lent reprisals from the fac­ulty thought-police. The two are con­verg­ing! It’s like those cheesy rooms in movies with spikes on the walls that couldn’t real­is­ti­cally kill you prop­erly because of the ridicu­lously large space between spikes that makes scal­ing the wall pos­si­ble! And now I’ve stopped whin­ing and am just procrastinating.

# by Josh on September 5th, 2006 Tags: , ,
| 2 Comments »

Three-phase 32A 415V power socket

I was try­ing to describe to some­one what a 3 phase 32A 415V socket looked like (at least in Aus­tralia) the other day and dis­cov­ered noth­ing of assis­tance in Google at all.

So here are two photos.

An Australian 3 phase 32A 415V power socket

3-phase at Sydney Uni

Note the easter-egg in this image. If you go to Syd­ney and need to show some­one what one looks like, there are about four on the front lawns.

Feel free to steal these images, etc./link to this page. Deep link images and die a hor­ri­ble death. I’ve refrained from doing BadThings to a cou­ple of MySpace users thus far, but if any­one with slightly more brains tries it then the images will prob­a­bly turn into things you’d rather they didn’t. Here ends the warn­ing that also applies to every image pub­lished here.

# by Josh on May 17th, 2006 Tags: , , , ,
| 4 Comments »