Archive for March, 2012

March 14, 2012

Disappointment, Google (YouTube)

I am a little disappointed that when you perform a search on YouTube for “lithium”– Evanesence is the first search result; not that THAT “lithium” doesn’t deserve its status– just disappointed that Nirvana isn’t #1. Hopefully that just means that we all already have Nirvana’s lithium bookmarked and favorited so nobody’s searching for it.

Okay, fuck that shit, I’m being nice. There is no way Evanescenes’ lithium should rank higher than Nirvana’s lithium on a relevancy algorithim. Especially when I have Nirvana’s channel as a favorite and I’m signed into my Google acct. Google owns YouTube for those who haven’t been paying attention. And Google personalizes search– but omit this for now.

I don’t give a shit how many teeny boppers are twitterbooking a gazillion times per second about Evanescence. There should be some sort of Kantian ethics built into these search algorithims that prevent such a mishandling of “relevancy.”

Unless Nirvana fans have somehow dwindled or died off– I can’t see any logical justification for an algorithm that would place Evanescences’ Lithium above Nirvana’s Lithium.

Both songs were uploaded in 2009.
Yet Nirvana’s Lithium was recorded over two decades ago.
and Nirvana’s Lithium has 4m more views (14m vs 10m) collected in the same span of time

So I have come to a dual “either/or” conclusion.

Either Google’s YouTube algorithm is extremely flawed OR everyone already owns Lithium on their iTunes so there would be no need to search for the song on YouTube.

But the latter argument seems like a stretch so I’m betting that YouTube’s algorithm is OLD and RUSTY because Google is placing so much focus on it’s bread and better algorithm, at google.com;

and that’s probably because YouTube doesn’t really have any serious competition, yet?

here, so you don’t have to search for it o_O

Advertisements
March 7, 2012

I got 99 Iterations

Iteration can go WRONG, very wrong, when you’re dealing with Human Resources.

iteration
Iteration
Iteration.

It’s the new thing in business. Create, pre-release, gauge feedback, re-release, change, pre-launch, test, launch, make sure Google didn’t copy us, re-launch, sell to Google.

In the web2.0 era, iteration isn’t only popular by choice, but it’s necessary to avoid death.

Every competitive business should fear being copied. Thus, as a survival mechanism– the everlasting quest for perfection and efficiency impels owners and entrepreneurs to iterate at every step of the way.

What is the consequence of not-iterating? Imagine the Encyclopedia Brittanica. That is the dusty old vestige of a product which failed to iterate fast enough to keep up with technology. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is “iterated” every single day.

When it comes to technology– I’m a big fan of iteration.

It’s relatively easy to cut and paste code around and test the effects; reactions can be made quick

When it comes to humans– I’m not so fond of iteration.

Even though I’m a process person (meaning I strive for 100% efficiency in all processes), I understand that humans take a while longer to program than a computer. There is a lot more downtime in changing a human process, telling someone to sit somewhere else, switching teams, changing workflow, etc. It takes a while for humans to “warm up” to the new process.

Sometimes the “perfect” process is the familiar one. It takes repetition to become an expert. So stop changing shit around (what you’d like to say to your boss).

However, if you’re not iterating and reiterating, then you may be guilty of:

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Einstein says this is insanity.

I say it’s perseverance.

People say I’m crazy.