No harm in making my field notebooks public as I watch the Grease Monkies cavort in the wild.
Monthly Archives: April 2005
DoubleClick
I think of Double Click as an identity company. An intermediary that builds and brokers models of users.
The clever bit in their approach is that they build these models without having to solve two of the hard problem two problems. They avoided the problem of getting the installed base of client software to change. They avoided the problem have building strong respectful relationships with the users being modeled. You could argue that they turned both these problems on their head; leverging both turning them into advantages for their business.
These problems are both of a kind. They are both hard because the numbers are huge and the benefit for solving them one user at a time are low.
These probelms have a facinating complementary nature. People who work on identity tend to focus on one or the other. People who focus on the need for vendors to create really strong relationships of trust with their users tend to roll their eyes when you suggest impoving the installed base of client software. People who labor to raise the bar on the client side tend to paint stark exagerated pictures of how nieve it is to expect to ever create high trust relationships between weak users and strong intermediaries.
Of course it is the lack of any relationship with the users being modeled, that makes DoubleClick smell so evil. That they conspire with sites to leverage client software cookies enable their model building is just the means of that evil.
I see they are in play.
Here’s a puzzle. If you were king of DoubleClick could you create the missing solid user relationship.
Notice one more thing. A third hard problem in the identity problem space is how to create the governing rules for your circles of trust. Note: DoubleClick has proably got the largest existing “circle of trust.” Good use of scare quotes, huh?
Death Trap

… a 40% to 99% chance that there will be at least one more
fatal eventmurder …
weird incentives
Here’s a odd thought.
Google presumably works to place ads which maximize click thrus.
Most traffic to my old pages are from google searches.
See, the weird incentive?
They control the whole audience experiance with the exception only of what’s on my page. What makes a good page in this situation? A page that bounces the user quickly thru and into the ads. Short pages are good. Pages with few distracting links. Pages that leave the user hungry.
I think this explains why some of my pages seem to have ads on them that appear slightly off from the actual content. I suspect their ad placement AI has noticed that such ads attract users who got sent to these pages by mistake.
Bugs that lower search engine result quality create opportunities for the Ad engine.
It’s like the old slightly paranoid joke about why ads are more entertaining than the TV shows.
Complexity and Condensation
The web spread out so fast because HTML was so lame even a monkey could understand it. That simplicity created a low barrier to entry. Monkey see, monkey do learning was the key. A million monkeys at a million keyboards and a few years later … boom!
Even before the war buffs could turn around in their lawn chairs the long running standards war over document formats was transformed. It took Microsoft years to displace Word Perfect from the rich farm lands. It’s took Adobe years carve out an encampment on the high ground above Microsoft Word. Suddenly HTML was in control of the seas.
Bill Gates onces said of Netscape that they owned all the river front property. But, the HTTP and HTML were the water and owning those was harder. Not that they both didn’t try to own them.
Spreading fast creates very fragmented markets. The entire middleware industry is a side effect of this. Building a custom niche oriented authoring tool, say a bridge from your real time control system into the web, was the work of a weekend. Happy monkey.
Diffuse big markets call out to be condensed. They call out to capitalists to be owned. They call out to engineers to be made safe and efficent. They call out to the monkeys to come join in the fun, and those monkeys start demanding regulations, police, schools, etc.
One road to condensation is to roll up the big monkey firms, the ones that have found important bits of real estate in the new jungle. This is, for example, what Adobe is doing in buying Macromedia. Adobe likes the high ground, the sophisticated elegant page layouts and such, and Macromedia is it’s closest competitor for that ground. Flash is more widely deployed than the Adobe reader; end of story. Buying up the big monkeys isn’t an effective tactic if the new ones appear faster than you can buy them.
Another way to condense a difuse market is to raise barriers to entry. But, how do you raise the barriers to entry around HTTP and HTML? Easy. Make them more complex.
For HTTP the answer is SOAP, WS, et. al. You create a specification that is sufficently complex it scares off little monkeys. Frustrate their desire to whip off an implementation over a week end. It’s not clear this tactic is working; the value add of these stacks just isn’t as overwhelming at it needs to be.
For HTML the answer is DHMTL, XML, Javascript etc. This tactic is working out pretty well.
The idea is to make raise the barriers so the monkeys will wander off and find something else to play with. View source used to be a lot more fun for a lot more monkeys than it is today.
This is a story about standards. Simple low barrier to entry standards can spread like wild fire over an ecology. After the burn there begins a progression toward increasing complexity. Some players in the forest society will work to increase the complexity. Their motives vary. Some do it to for fun or to address real needs. Sometimes, particularly inside proffesional standards bodies, the complexity rises because the process tends to compromise to the sum of all features.
For some players the rising complexity is a conscious attempt to prepare the forest for something more suitable for their big agriculture of monoculture crops.
Ha!
It really shouldn’t be that hard to automate this kind of translation. I do love blogs.
Have we mentioned that PDF is an excellent format for distributing résumés?
Minuteman Library Grease Monkey
One sign of a good open source project is that it has lots of rough edges for people to rub down.
For example there is a little monkey that will tinker with Amazon pages to add a link to your local library, when they have the book your considering. This script needs to be reworked to get to your library. Here’s the modification so it checks the bigger of the two Boston area interlibrary systems.
var libraryUrlPattern = 'http://library.minlib.net/search/i?SEARCH=' var libraryName = 'Minuteman Libraries';
Get the modified script here.
Interface Sistering
I drove by this yesterday and had to go back and take it’s picture. They replaced the telephone poll but avoided having to rework all the wires on the old poll. They chop out the section of the old pool holding the wires and suspend that from the new poll.
I assume moving the wires requires getting each of the N utility companies to come and move their wires. On this street all the polls were these ugly things. I particularly loved this one because you can’t actually move any of the wires. It’s on a curve and they aren’t long enough reach the new poll.
In software rework you rarely get to provide a clear visualization of what a mess things are, and how what sounds simple actually has cascade effects far beyond your wildest imagination. I used to work with a guy who would quietly say, at times like this: “You may not use the word ‘just’.”
I took this picture a short distance from where I took this one. I’m starting to think this neighborhood vast metaphor for software reengineering.
Grease Monkey
Go have a look at the list of scripts for tweaking pages that are piling up around Grease Monkey. Talk about encouraging compliments! What a perfect example of the kernel design pattern for open source. I think I hear a tornado coming.
Popular Science
Some times I recall an invention I read about in Popular Science when I was a wee lad and wonder what ever became of that? For example I recall an air conditioner who’s design was based on blowing a stream of air, at an angle, onto a surface. The magazine assured me that the air that then went one way was cooler than the air that went the other.
These days I read Science Blog for my science innovation porn. Today we have room temperature combustion using catalysts.
… “nano-catalytic reaction” with nothing but nanometer-sized particles of platinum stuck to fibers of glass wool in a small jar with methanol and air — with no source of external ignition. … “Since the caveman days, we have burned things to utilize their energy, and the high temperatures and the entire process have created a lot of problems that we’re then forced to deal with,” … solve the energy crisis is to replace our existing fuel consuming method with one that has much higher efficiency … the reactions can reach high temperatures of greater than 600 degrees Celsius and low temperatures of just a few tenths of a degree above room temperature …
Meanwhile Stefano points out some programming language porn. A wonderful hack. A cool trick. At the end of the little movie the inventor says “I hope I made you think.” Indeed!