Not Top Searches from the Top Search Corporation?

It is December 29, the last working day of 2006, and I was just browsing the Google blog and found a new entry about their Zeitgeist list for 2006.

The posting is a rather curious study in verbiage. Take, for example, this sentence:

Instead, we looked for those searches that were very popular in 2006 but were not as popular in 2005 -- the explosive queries, the topics that everyone obsessed over.

By "explosive queries," does Google mean those search terms that dealt with explosives, such as bombings? Afterall, there seemed to be daily bombings reported in the news, so much so that we might not give them much more than a cursory glance now.

Or is Google using "explosive queries" to refer to those "topics that everyoner obsessed over"? The sentence construction makes it difficult to decipher exactly what is meant by the last part of that particular sentence.

And then there is this sentence:

Similarly, our "what is" and "who is" lists are not necessarily the absolute most frequent searches, but rather those that best represent the passing year.

What constitutes "those that best represent the passing year"? What does "administracion" mean for those of us who don't know Spanish? And how odd no definitions are found in English. Are there not people who have translated definitions from one language to another on the Internet?

Someone, somewhere, is going to point to this as a perfect example of how Google manipulates data to present its own picture, which is the same argument people have used against the media for years. Top searches are meaningless, then, according to Google, since they don't change year-to-year.

Still befuddled, I consulted the Google Zeitgeist section of its Press Center, a rather curious collection of information that seems to add weight to the argument of "Google Control" or "Google Spin." The result was a generalization that didn't clear up anything for me:

What you see here is a cumulative snapshot of interesting queries people are asking – some over time, some within country domains, and some on Google.com – that perhaps reveal a bit of the human condition.

"Cumulative snapshot" sounds like statistical jargon you'd use when then is no real answer. "Interesting queries people are asking" is a subjective answer open to interpretation, almost a political non-answer answer. Oh right. Google is a corporation playing politics. My bad. "Reveal a bit of the human condition." Now that is a scary thought. So how can we tell, from the almighty Google, if the human condition is deteriorating? Or if it is exalting in all its glory?

No doubt people are going to consult the Google Zeitgeist in the future in an effort to determine where things took a dive or a decidedly uncharacteristic spike.

Really. We are that fickle. And Google will provide indisputable evidence, in case anyone has any doubts.

So what will the Google Zeitgeist of 2007 show that aren't the "most frequently searched terms"? Will the terms of 2006 vanish? Or make a stellar comeback?

You, it's also curious to note that not one of the search terms listed relates to politics or the War in Iraq or the War on Terror. They deal with people and technology, for the most part. We really are a country unto our own, aren't we?

RFID Chips in Passports

OK. I found this article from WIRED on Digg and it gave me pause.

I'd heard rumblings awhile ago about RFID tags mostly used for tracking purposes for long-haul and retail businesses al la Wal-Mart and the possibility of using them in passports for security purposes. Naturally there was grumbling about a lack of privacy if RFID chips were included in passports, as well as guarding against hackers who enjoy a challenge.

So it was interesting to read this brief article in WIRED about how to disable the RFID tag. Or rather, a way that will most likely disable the RFID tag.

I'm curious as to how they tested this, or even if they tested it. There are quite a number of variations on RFID tags, or RFID chips, so it strikes me as odd that there would be a universal way to disable them. And if the RFID tag is disabled, wouldn't the government know about it? Wouldn't there be an indication of a disabled RFID tag, which very well might ignite a frenzy that another terrorist attack was in progress?

Course, that would mean that the government would actually have to have a means by which to track the activity of RFID tags, and an alert system that showed when on had been disabled.

It sounds like an imperfect system to me. Who is to say the owner disabled it? Or that it didn't happen when the person fell or landed hard on the pocket that contained the passport? Maybe the chip was faulty to begin with and disabled itself after being lightly bumped in transit.

If it is really that simple to disable an RFID tag in passports, as the WIRED article seems to imply, then what is the point of using them in passports?

NBC is Breaking New Ground

I just saw this article on the NYT website and, naturally, couldn't resist checking out the video on YouTube.

NBC has apparently broken new ground, posting a sketch from its show, uncut, on the Web. Too saucy for prime time but not too sauce for the Web? Hmm....

So will this start a new trend, or maybe bring an underground trend to the mainstream, with uncut, uncensored, downright hilarious video on the Web?

Another example of so-called convergence?

Less Time Template Tinkering, More Time Writing

Google announced yesterday that Blogger is out of beta, and, like most blog posts on the Google Blog that of interest to the majority of people, links have accumulated and word has spread across the Internet.

Looking up at the top while I write this post, I see that it now says "www2.blogger.com" so it looks like the Internet is moving out of infancy and into adolescence. God help us all.

This link caught my eye though as it mentioned business blogging will now be easier. I wonder what type of businesses are using Blogger, or rather, how many of them have the Blogspot address. It is possible they are using Blogger it posts under their own domain instead of Blogspot.

Blogs I have seen, especially from media corporations who seem to have been the earliest adopters of blogging for the masses, use WordPress or TypePad.

Though you know, Blogger might make it easier to create a blog, tinker with the template and make it look professional, but it doesn't simplify keeping that blog up-to-date, which seems to be something with which corporations struggle to rectify. I talked a little bit about this already here.Few see the value, it seems, in having one or two staff member dedicated to blogging, and not just blogging for the corporation, but monitoring the blogosphere for info on or about the corporation.

We've heard it often enough already, that anything, good or bad, spreads like wildfire throughout the Internet. And it doesn't even have to be true, it just has to be interesting or juicy and it will take on a life of its own.

We'll save the issue of paying bloggers to blog about your company and products for another post. The Internet continues to compel greater transparency, in one form or another, to the praise and ridicule of many.

Internet Etiquette -- Is there Such a Thing?

David Pogue is a technology columnist for the New York Times, and he writes a blog called Pogue's Posts which I have started reading quite often.

A recent entry is called "The Netiquette Diaries," where he posts comments he received about a previous post on Online Etiquette, or lack there of. There was this little snippet from his recent post:

Blogger Michael Moncur (figby.com) responded to my own posting, noting that the percentage of nastiness climbs with the popularity of the blog:

* “What Pogue has probably noticed is that, as his writing presence grew from a tiny thing read only by techies to a mass-audience phenomenon, he’s getting more and more e-mails and comments from jerks. It’s easy to look at this and think that people everywhere are losing their manners…I’ve had the same thoughts more than once. But now that my wife and I run several different sites, we’ve learned that the smaller ones have less jerks, and different sites attract different sorts of audiences.”

There is an argument to be made on both sides of the coin. With the anonymity the Internet provides, people are more brazen or bold about what they say. If it is difficult, at best, to prove libel, slander and defamation of character through normal means, the Internet makes that near impossible.

I wonder if the lack of etiquette might be mistaken for passion. The Internet is teeming with passionate people, and passionate people aren't always the most eloquent or the most mindful of manners. Or is it just that the popularity of one particular blog brings out the Jerk in people? They feel the need to voice their opinion, however outlandish or ridiculous or bad-mannered it is?

Is there a direct correlation to be drawn between moving farther into the mainstream and thus into more Jerky waters?

Web Copyright Protection Tool

I originally found this article on Digg about a start-up company that has created a way to "scan the Web for violations."

The company, Attributor, another egregious spelling error despite the fact that it does get its point across, has taken on the monumental task of combing the Web for the kind of copyright violations we have become accustomed to hearing about when large media companies send letters and file lawsuits against websites like YouTube for copyright violations.

Certainly the big targets of violations are websites like YouTube, MySpace and a host of music sharing websites, but there are other, smaller targets, like websites that quietly copy content from other business and governmental websites either because they are too lazy to write it themselves or they think no one will notice. Google and Yahoo duplicate content filters can only do so much, and people have figured out how to trick them into thinking the content is original when it is not. So called "black-hat" tactics that go unnoticed. For content authors everywhere, this tool might be rather useful.

Attributor's tool has the potential to fill a void for companies, large and small, as well as the potential to create a backlash from the Web community. Some might see it as "Big Brother," watching what they post and where they got it, making some content producers more cautious and others more brazen. Media companies might see it as a saving grace: countless man hours can now be devoted to developing new ideas and building business instead of scouring the Web for violators and infringer's and defending itself against them.

Either way, Attributor will add another layer of complexity to an already complex debate. And it clearly won't spell the end of company names and catch phrases that seem to perpetuate the butchering of the English language.

TIME Perons of the Year: You..and Me...and Everyone Else

TIME Magazine has chosen its Person of the Year: You. And me. And everyone else. The Internet population at large.

Indeed. 2006 saw the growth of the Internet in ways not quite conceived so long ago. Who would have thought millions of people would embrace blogging, from top executives to regular people like you and me? Or even the millions of people who read these blogs as they would read the newspaper or a novel?

Then there is the social networking phenomenon with places like MySpace, Friendster and Facebook. A new way to interact and communicate with people, all people, not just those you know. I have 34 friends on MySpace, a pittance compared with some, by my "social network" as it were, is somewhere around 2 million, simply by being associated with those 34 people and, by default, their friends. How curious. There are 2 million people whom I've never met but with whom I have this thing association, this one link in common.

The Internet really has leveled the playing field, and provided a pulpit for people to call out and keep watch on those around, from seedy politicians to child molesters to your next door neighbor and maybe even your kids. Would the Foley scandal have gone unchecked for a longer period of time if not for the Internet? Would we not all have a better understanding of world affairs if not for the Internet?

Would the millions of people who have something to say be heard, loud and clear, without the Internet? Would we all be able to learn something about a book we might be considering, or a movie we might want to see without the input from fellow fans? Hasn't the Internet simply made it easier for fans to communicate, collaborate and bring in more fans?

Really, the Internet has thrown the window wide open on the world.

Congratulations to us all for becoming TIME Magazine's "Person of the Year."