Google Docs – Spreadsheet.

It’s no secret, I’m a spreadsheet geek; an MSExcel geek to be more accurate. Today, I took the plunge and decided to try out Google’s spreadsheet application.

At first, I was pretty impressed. Not only did it handle all of my normal functions like sumif and vlookup, it even had a little hovering function template. It has lots of formats for numbers, though it is oddly missing the ability to manipulate the number of decimal places to display (you can do all of them, 2, or rounded to 0) unless you add a formula to round to a specific number of decimal places.

Also, there are many tables and charts that excel does not have, which can give a report serious pizzaz, or function as more than a spreadsheet. There are pictorial graphs (worms, chocolate, money all in the size of a bar chart), and there are moving flash graphs. There are also internet-savvy charts, like word-clouds! To function as more than a spreadsheet a Google gadget will produce a Gantt chart, with just task titles and dates. An org chart can also be created by listing manager’s names in one column and subordinates names in another (multiple columns = multiple levels).

However, there is an enormous barrier to using Google Spreadsheet if you are an analyst like me – there are not enough fields. The regular table only has 100 rows and columns to “T” (2003 Excel has 65000 rows and columns to “IV”, and even this is limiting, so I heard 2007 Excel has 100,000 rows). There are not many major trends that can be analyzed in only 100 rows, nor can an analyst find historical data within only 100 rows.

You can add up to 500 more rows, but no more columns. When I added the rows, the spreadsheet crashed.

I may try to use Google Spreadsheet again, in order to finish off a report. Apparently, .xls files can be uploaded into the Google application, so I can use it for my summary findings, and create some nifty charts and graphs for the ooh-la-la factor that execs are always dying for.
Are you catching this, Microsoft?

Online Health Self Help?

Can Web 2.0 help us avoid trips to the doctor? To the wrong doctor?

The other day, I had a sore throat. The last time I went to the doctor with a sore throat, they peered down it and said I was fine. This isn’t the first time a doctor has told me I was fine, when I was sure I had a malicious bug – maybe I’m a hypochondriac.

Another route I like to follow when I feel a bump in the wrong place or have a phantom pain is the web. There is instant gratification in self-diagnosis using a symptom checker. This is much quicker than making an appointment, taking time off work, and traveling to the doc’s (besides, the symptoms have usually subsided by then anyway).

WebMD is one I like because of the cool interface – touch a part of the body that hurts, and describe the symptom:

I found out, though, that this is not the most effective website. This is an article where several symptom checkers are reviewed. Looks like WrongDiagnosis.com is the winner.
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/Home/News.asp?id=52025&PageMem=2

There are stories about hypochondriacs over-hyping their symptoms (“why aren’t we going to rule out ovarian cancer, are you sure its just a UTI?”), and there are stories about people who under-diagnose themselves, and end up having awful infections that could have been avoided had they just gone to the doctor.

There are also those who, after receiving a diagnosis from a doctor, surf the web incessantly, trying to find alternative cures their doc didn’t mention.

For these reasons, many doctors loudly proclaim that the Internet should not be a place people go to for their own health care.

Docs also don’t want patients posting reviews on their medical care online. Just like Yelp!, sites that allow patients to write public comments about doctors end up with libel issues. There are even doctors that are beginning to ask patients to sign a waiver, stating that they will not post reviews online without the doc’s permission. More in this NPR story: http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=102297861&m=102297852
Bottom line – I will keep surfing online for medical advice. I know that I am on the hypochondriac side, so I won’t under-diagnose myself. Also, I trust my doctor, so if she isn’t worried about a symptom, I won’t be worried either. On that note, the only thing most patients can review about a doctor is their bedside manner – that trust factor. Unless someone has received a second opinion from another doctor, or has attended medical school themselves, people should not make claims against a doc’s ability as a scientist and healer.

Yelp!

Yelp is a customer review web page, which is a great way to figure out what’s going on from locals.

This site may compete a bit with TripAdvisor, but the thing that differentiates Yelp from TripAdvisor is that the reviews are for locals, by locals. Any and all companies can be reviewed – this is not limited to “top things to do,” but includes local pet stores and hair salons in addition to restaurants and bars.

Another site that may compete with Yelp is GetSatisfaction. However, GetSatisfaction is more for customer complaints, while Yelp is all reviews – in fact, on Yelp, there are 60% positive reviews (4 or 5 stars), 20% neutral (3 stars), and 20% negative (2 or 1 stars).

The upside is clear – people looking for products and services can find them with the help of prior customers. Businesses get “free” PR from customers who want to talk publicly about their experiences.

In the middle is the way Yelp makes money. Apparently, Businesses can pay fees to Yelp in order to have a “fancier” review page, and be allowed to “thank” individual customers for good reviews. They also have the ability to highlight one review to post at the top of their Business Page.

There has been some scandal over whether paying sponsors have other benefits – like negative reviews dropping to the bottom, or being deleted by Yelp altogether. However, Yelp firmly denies that these are benefits of sponsorship.

The downside - in all open online forums, people are making public statements. If these statements are unfairly negative, the victims may sue for libel. Defamation is a tough case to make, but more than one Yelp reviewer has been sued by the business that upset them.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/161997/dentist_can_proceed_with_lawsuit_against_yelp_reviewers.html

While I understand why laws against defamation exist, I am truly concerned about the fact that a business (especially one with deep pockets) can tie up a customer (usually smaller pockets) in a lawsuit. Spreading negative reviews by Word of Mouth is the best defense that customers have against businesses that would otherwise rip them off, or sell sub-par service or products.

It seems like the only defense against this is to have the businesses who are reviewed on Yelp agree to having the reviews posted. In their Terms&Conditions, businesses could agree not to sue reviewers. Instead, the company could simply refute a disputed review.
Because social media is a conversation, companies can participate openly with customers, rather than pitting themselves against their customers!

The Web in Africa

First World nations that were present for and part of the development of the world wide web take the freedom of the web for granted. When we lose access, we complain about missed ebay bids, not talking to friends, or not being able to watch goofy videos on YouTube. But in some countries, the freedom the Web provides reaches much futher than “free shipping.” In many nations, even with minimal, spotty access, the ability to participate in the social web has hugely affected the participation of people within society. It is so powerful that oppressive regimes have spent large amounts of money and energy restricting and filtering their citizens’ access to maintain control.

The obstacles put in place by dictatorial governments can only hold the flood of information back for so long. Jonathan Gosier wrote a 3-part blog on the web in Africa, which describes some of the advances being made – technically and culturally – in some cases, in spite the efforts of government control. His goal is to encourage entrepreneurship through the use of the Internet in the third world.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_media_in_africa_part_1.php
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_media_in_africa_part_2_mobile.php
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/africa_democracy_social_media.php

When government can no longer control information, the people can begin to hold government accountable. In Ethiopia, the services Feedelix uses technology that can bypass government filters to keep users connected. In Zimbabwe, the civic group Sokwanele uses the web to alert citizens and the rest of the world to violence and forced “land redistribution”, while the government attempts to suppress reporting. http://appfrica.net/blog/archives/131

Perhaps because of the need for the populous to communicate above the government radar, Africa’s mobile market is the fastest growing worldwide. While there is little broadband infrastructure, VSat services can provide a signal, even without electricity.
Due to this availability, many regional social sites have popped up – Muti.co.za, which is like Digg, Sokwanele.com provides updateable maps through SMS, Amatomou is a news Aggregator, Mzaleno tracks Kenya’s Parliamentary actions.

The downside of satellite connectivity is that networks get bottlenecked and will slow down, which keeps prices high and speeds low.
Johathan Gosier writes his blogs in hopes that the developing world will notice the extraordinary potential available in Africa

The demise of Advertising is near.

Monetization is necessary for all businesses, and is becoming a sticky issue for Web 2.0 companies. Advertising revenue seems like one of the most likely strategies for many of the companies who are competing in a “Free” space. However, according to Eric Clemons, all media advertising revenue is failing, and the Internet effectively shatters any hope those advertisers would have of resurrecting it. He discusses these ideas in the TechCrunch article, “Why Advertising is Failing on the Internet.”
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/22/why-advertising-is-failing-on-the-internet/

He states three reasons for this failure. The first two are ongoing plagues, but haven’t begun to do real damage to ad revenues: 1) “Consumers do not trust advertising”, 2) “Consumers do not want to view advertising.” It is the third reason, which has changed since the popularity of the internet, that really crushes advertisers: 3) “Consumers do not need advertising.”

Professor Clemons states, “will no longer need advertising to obtain …information. We will see the information we want, when we want it, from sources that we trust more than paid advertising. We will find out what we need to know, when we want to make a commercial transaction of any kind.”

We have heard a great deal about how Facebook has been experimenting with ways to earn money though targeted advertising, including programs like Beacon. People are uncomfortable with this, but it seems like Facebook is directly addressing the items that Professor Clemons is concerned about.

You can trust the advertising if it comes from a “friend.” If you are notified through Facebook that a friend has purchased a dress at Ann Taylor Loft, for instance, you know that your friend made an informed buying decision to do so. Therefore, you can trust that, if you go to Anne Taylor Loft, the dress will feel nice, be a nice color, and fit well (at least it will fit someone like your friend well).

You want to see the advertising if you are already on your friend’s Facebook page, because you are interested in your friend. This is not an in-your-face popup, not even a targeted ad, it is actual information about your friend.

Finally, you can go wherever you want to for more information. You can go to your friend, to the Ann Taylor Loft website, or to the ATL store. You decide what information you want and go get it when you want it.

The hurdles, though, are that people feel like they are being “used” to advertise for these companies. Are there better ways to appeal to consumers?

Mine – RSS goes to print?

Time Warner and American Express Co. have decided to take the online experience to print! What?

They have created Mine Magazine – an in-print (or online) magazine that is populated with personalized information for the reader, much like an online RSS feed.
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/ariel-schwartz/sustainability/time-incs-mine-magazine-paper-saving-printed-rss-feed

Mine magazine is an experiment. It will be 5 issues over 10 weeks, and will be free to 31,000 subscribers. All of the ads in Mine magazine will be from Lexus, but each ad will be customized to the reader’s tastes.

This may help answer several questions for the print news biz:
Has the internet engulfed the print news industry because of the customizable news? Is it possible to continue to prosper in the print news industry, if more personalized content is available? How will advertisers respond to the ability to customize ads along with content in print?

I’m an RSS lover, so signed up. In order to customize my information, they had me pick my favorites from a list of quirky questions. I’m not sure if this is just to customize the Lexus commercials, or if they will actually use this to pick articles for me.

Then, they had me pick five magazines from a list of eight. I wanted to pick three, but had to pick five. Hopefully, my selection order will play some role in the amount of information I see from each of the mags.

I understand the draw of an in-print magazine versus online news. First, it is physically easier to read paper, as there are only a few devices (like Kindle) with enough resolution to minimize eye-strain. Paper can also be read more quickly, since we are in better control of our eye movement over a static reading surface than a scrolling reading surface (though millennials may disagree). Also, there is convenience in paper – no problems are caused if coffee is spilled on a magazine, it can be easily tucked under an arm or folded into a purse. There is no need for internet access, power cords, or charged batteries.

However, the negatives continue to outweigh the positives. The news in a magazine is “old” by the time it is printed and mailed. Also, printing and mailing both use up many more resources, including paper, ink (which makes the paper nasty to compost), electricity to run the print shop, and gas. Most importantly, there is no way to get as much custom information into a magazine as one can find online.

It is this last issue that will be best addressed by Mine. Can a slightly more customized magazine tip the online/in print news balance back in the favor of the convenience and readability of a magazine?

For those who currently stand by print media, it may be an opportunity to bridge an ever-widening gap. However, many of these people stick to print because they think it is important to get news they DON’T want, ensuring that they do not become biased news consumers. They probably will not want a customized magazine any more than they want an RSS feed of leftist topics.

Overall, I think it will be a failure. I don’t think advertisers will pay the exponentially greater cost of custom printing and collating custom magazines, just for the opportunity to select a woods scene versus city scene in their advertisement.
I certainly don’t think consumers will pay any more than they currently do for magazines. We currently customize our own in-print content by deciding whether to buy off the shelf or to subscribe. People won’t pay more for a subscription just because it is a mash-up of a few they might like .. especially while most online news is still free.

Sexting: Harmless Fun, or Kiddie Porn?

Sexting is sending nude or pornographic pictures via text message. According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 20% of teenagers admit to sending these photos to their friends (http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/chris-dannen/techwatch/sexting-why-worry).

This behavior may seem to be very normal for experimental teenagers. To the kids who are doing it, it probably seems like harmless fun. They feel a false sense of privacy sending these messages to their friends, and they may not consider the likelihood that these images can be shared with the world if maliciously or mistakenly distributed. We have discussed the ease with which a pic-message can be posted on the open internet, and/or or virally distributed to hundreds of cell phones or email accounts at a time.

This is what happened to Jessica Logan, from Ohio (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29546030/). She sexted a photo to her boyfriend, but when they broke up, he forwarded to the picture to other friends, which eventually led to hundreds of local teens seeing Jessica’s picture. She was taunted for the remainder of her senior year. Jessica reached out to warn others about the dangers of sexting. Ultimately, the shame of this event led her suicide.

Even if teens who engage in sexting comprehend the possibility that hundreds or thousands may view their photo, they certainly don’t recognize the overall social, ethical, and legal consequences of these erotic messages.

Although the kids are acting willingly, they are not at a legal age to distribute nude pictures of themselves. Therefore, some of these teens have been charged with manufacturing and distribution of child pornography. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/ http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2009-03-11-sexting_N.htm

This may be a harsh charge to levy. Though there is no mandatory jail sentence, convicted child pornographers must register as sex offenders, which is a penalty that follows people ominously forever. However, law enforcement officers feel the need to set examples so that kids recognize the significance of this situation.

This is uncharted territory, though, because the intent of child pornography law is to protect kids from pornographers – not to protect kids from themselves. However, we are familiar with other laws that draw this line. Minors in possession of alcohol are prosecuted. Also, statutory rape cases can be tried whether the minor was willing.

Teenagers sext messages to their friends, and their friends may be bold enough to re-post these pictures online. There is no telling, at that point, whose hands the pictures could fall into, or how else the could be redistributed.