Google's new browser, Chrome, and Google Bookmarks

Have you tried Google’s new browser, “Chrome”?  It’s fast and it rocks.  But there’s no Google Toolbar!  How can you bookmark pages to a central location (Google Bookmarks)?  Here’s how, in just a few quick and easy steps :-D.

1. First, download Chrome (duh!) :-D.
2. If you don’t already see a bookmarks bar (right below the address bar or “omnibar” and above the actual web page) turn it on by hitting CTRL-B (you can hide it anytime by hitting CTRL-B again).
3. Visit this help page on Google Chrome and bookmarking.
4. Go ahead and—you guessed it—drag that little box to the bookmarks area of Chrome.

VOILA!  Now whenever you want to bookmark a page, just click on that little bookmark.

*  *  *

But what happens when you want to find that page again?

Well, for one thing, Chrome’s omnibar is pretty damn smart… even smarter than you might initially expect!  Try typing just a few letters from that site’s URL or title and it may very well show up for you in the omnibar :-D. But if you still want to see all your bookmarks, you can do one of two things:

• Revisit Google Bookmarks OR
• Check out the cooler experience of Google Notebook, and you'll find all your bookmarks under the UNFILED folder (click on the left), where you can annotate, group, and optionally share your favorite bookmarks with friends.

* * *

Hope these tips help you enjoy Chrome even more!

* * *

EDITED on Wednesday, September 3 to add:
Thank you to Simon B for the improved link to the bookmarklet! :-D

How to pick an apartment (with the help of a damn cool Google Spreadsheet "wiki")

I’m in apartment-hunting mode, and have amassed a set of criteria for my search that I thought you might benefit from… and be able to easily add to!

With the new release of Google Docs and Spreadsheets (horrid name, super product), I can now do all sorts of cool stuff!  For instance, I’ve embedded the spreadsheet below for you to read… but I’ve also included links at the bottom for you to:

• EDIT ONLINE:  Load up the spreadsheet online in edit mode!  Your changes will be reflected within five minutes on the document AND this page, so please be both thoughtful and nice (I can revert as necessary, of course).
• EDIT OFFLINE:  Download the CSV and load it up in Excel or Excel imitator :-P.
• VIEW: ...as PDF, HTML, TXT, and in other formats as well.
• SUBSCRIBE:... view Atom or RSS

Pretty neat, eh?  And now, on with the show!

• EDIT:  View and edit online (general Google Account required; add lines as needed by right-clicking cells and selecting INSERT… or you can highlight several rows and select INSERT [n] ROWS ABOVE/BELOW)
  Aw, bummer!  As described in the comments below, I hadn’t realized that the usernames (and, thus, gmail e-mail addresses) of collaborators would be listed in this doc, so I’m un-sharing the doc until and unless this no longer happens.  Thanks, Rockya, for the discovery.
• DOWNLOAD / VIEW:  CSV, XLS (Excel format—new link for this entry), PDF, TXT, HTML, ODS
• SUBSCRIBE (1st page): Atom, RSS

I welcome your comments below…
- On the actual criteria I’ve listed (or has been added)
- On this use of Google Docs and Spreadsheets
- On anything else related to this entry :-D

Getting hired by Google

I recently noticed that a fellow Googler posted some thoughtful tips about interviewing at Google, and -- now that I'm a bit more comfortable blogging about Work -- I figured I'd contribute to the conversation a bit by offering my own, unofficial tips.

Note the unofficial part. I work in Search Quality; aside from occasionally being asked to interview candidates (like most Googlers) -- I have nothing to do with our recruiting, recruiters, etc., nor do I pretend to speak for the HR folks. The stuff below is based on my own observations and opinions.

* * *

Application and interview tips
Broadly: be interesting, be humble, demonstrate outstanding competence in your direct area, briefly highlight your well-roundedness (academically, workwise, and personally), and clarify how you are an excellent
fit with both the position you're applying for and Google overall.

Admittedly, with an insane number of applications a year, it is a bit of a numbers game.  Some outstanding people get rejected.  And, though I haven't witnessed this personally, I'm sure some jerks get offers.  Luckily, Google's been overhauling its hiring processes, and I'm optimistic that particularly the percentage of great people getting overlooked (in relation to the number of apps) will decrease.

Some specific tips and notes:

• Write a decent cover letter


• Write with a tone that's professional yet warm... not stiff or dry.  Your (discernible) voice should come through.
• Keep it to one page (max!) or less.  Maybe even a lot less.
• Convince Google of the fits described above -- that's critical!!!
• Your resume can be in PDF, Word, HTML, or text formats (unless otherwise requested, of course!)


• But note that it will be ultimately printed out.  This means that reasonable pagination can be helpful and also suggests that a comprehensive 20 page document is perhaps not a great idea.  When you want your recruiter and interviewers to know more about your background & interests, links are your friends. 


• Respectful persistence can be appropriate


• If you genuinely have another offer on the table, let your recruiter know! If the recruiter promised to get back with you in [x] days, and in [x+1 or x+2] days you haven't heard back, politely e-mail them.
• If you have a friend at Google who can articulately and sincerely vouch for you, that can work in your favor.


• Your association / relationship with that person matters.  They'll be asked how they know you and how well they know you (and your skills).
• Passion matters and is skillfully perceived.  You're probably wasting your time unless you really are
  excited about a particular position.
• Getting turned down for one Google position does not mean you're ineligible to apply for another position down the road.
• General interview advice that probably applies for pretty much any company:


• Ask thoughtful questions.
• Allow time for traffic and parking and finding the right building. Google -- at least the Mountain View campus -- is a big place!
• Dress one or two steps better than you expect your interviewers to be.  Less than that, and people may wonder about your judgment. More than that, and people may think you're clueless or arrogant.


• The "right" dress at Google probably varies by department. Engineering folks tend to be more informally dressed than sales folks.  If you're interviewing for a senior management position, I'd probably dress a bit more formally than you would for an intern interview.  But the official advice also really makes sense here:  dress comfortably.  If you feel comfortable and confident, it'll show.
• Get a good night's sleep the two nights before.  Sleep deficits are cumulative.  If you have a
  morning interview, make sure you're getting up early the two or three mornings before to get yourself ready to be mentally and physically alert during your interview time.  On a similar health note, drink and eat smartly the day of your interview.  Hunger pangs are distracting.
• Invest in a good pen to take to interviews.  The heft and reliability can be a real-even-if-small confidence booster.  Taking occasional notes can help you remember info or questions for later, and also might indicate a sense of thoughtfulness and interest to your interviewer.
• On the whole, think of interviews kind of like first dates.  You don't want to do all or even most of the talking.  You're there to impress, to learn, to help determine whether there's a good potential for a relationship.  First impressions are important.  Show you are caring and thoughtful by asking good questions.  Avoid having spinach in your teeth (floss beforehand!).

Possibly-little-known factoid:

No Googler -- not even Larry or Sergey -- can singlehandedly extend an employment offer to anyone.  While candidates don't have to go through as many interviews nowadays, most candidates -- regardless of level -- typically interview with quite a few peers; team-fit is critical!

* * *

I expect to offer some more Google-thoughts in the future, but -- as a reminder -- this is my personal blog, and as such, I expect to generally blather on about anything I feel like discussing, ranting, dissecting, punning, lamenting, etc... which is more likely than not to be boring to the impatient sort.

Oh, and one last thing: please keep comments on-topic as a courtesy not only to me, but to the cool folks reading my blog. Thanks!

* * *

Related entries:
- A blunt note to HR folks and interviewers
- How to evaluate your current job & career... and thoughtfully consider future options

and lastly, for a blast-from-the-past... some perspective & a bit of cranky ranting...

- What do you do? (self = job?) And how are you?

Gmail user? The new "murder," er, "mute" function will have you crying tears of joy

Lots of folks have noticed that five very cool new features debuted today in Gmail:
1) Enhanced UI, with Reply and other handy features placed at the top of conversations.
2) Notification when new messages have been made in the conversation since you started drafting your reply.
3) Forward an entire conversation (all messages).
4) Send chat messages to your friends using Gmail chat or GTalk even when they’re offline (the messages’ll be held for them).
5) Get Gmail on your mobile phone with a rich app (not just slow Web pages).

[Read more about these new gmail features]

But what I have to share with you is even more deliciously glorious… especially for those of you who are on lots of mailing lists or who have boring (albeit perhaps well-meaning) friends who just won’t shut up.

Friends, Romans, fellow GMail users… I introduce to you…

MURDER!

Oh wait, that’s not exactly right.  Officially, the new feature is called Mute Thread, or “Mute” for short.  Here’s how it works:

THE OLD WAY:
1) You’re reading some posts about the elections.
2) You were once excited about reading this stuff.
3) But at least one conversation is now on its 471th message.  You keep hitting Archive but the damn conversation keeps popping up every time someone makes a new post!
4) You’re ready to tear out your hair.  The posters’ hair.  Your keyboard’s hair.  Er, keys.
5) MAKE IT STOP!  MAKE IT STOP, PLEEEEEASE!

THE NEW WAY:
1) You get yet another annoying message in the same damn conversation that’s already been conversed to death.
2) You press the ‘m’ key.  Unless a message is written *directly* to you (e.g., your name is in the TO spot), you’ll never see that message in your inbox again!

In short, the Mute feature enables you to tell Gmail: “Archive this conversation AND all future posts in it… just have ‘em skip the inbox!”

[See official Gmail info on Mute]

I can think of only one downside to this feature at the moment:
If you filter your discussion list mail into separate labels (say, “Prolific Politics List”) and already have those posts skip the inbox… then the M key will sadly have no effect.  It doesn’t remove labels, it just creates a “get out of inbox free”

But that aside, I think this is a super-awesome feature, and one that—to my knowledge—is unique amongst major Webmail providers.

So, go ahead, indulge in those high-traffic lists again.  And don’t hesitate to threaten any annoying poster, “Dude, if you write one more word about Rummie, you’re getting SO m’d!”

DISCLAIMERS:  I work for Google.  I am not on the Gmail team.

Being under the microscope

I’ve been at Google about four months, and it’s been a hell of a great ride so far.  I really need to write more about this later, but in a nutshell… my colleagues rock, the flexible and trusting environment is awesome, and I’m very excited about what I’m working on.

However, I do have to admit to sometimes being a bit freaked out :o.

I spend a good chunk of my morning reading relevant industry news and also thoughtful blogs from Webmasters and others all around the world.  I glean a lot of great ideas (and yes, sometimes also bugs) that I share with colleagues here at Google. 

A few days ago, I came across a pretty untraditional note, and I thought, hey… wouldn’t it be kinda funny if I actually went ahead and mailed Al a Tylenol packet?  So I did.  I figured he’d get a chuckle, maybe share it with some friends or even post a quick update on his blog.

I had no idea that something this silly would capture this much attention!

Anyway, yeah, this little mailing was indeed sent on a whim from a random Googler (me!), and though I’m a bit shocked by the response, I’m glad that my letter ended up entertaining not only Al, but also lots of other people.

Along with many others here at Google, I’m working on some very cool projects dealing with Webmaster communications.  But aside from all of that official stuff, I’m reminded that it’s clearly the little things now and then that give a human face to this company.  Not to mention that when one of us Googlers decides to be a bit wacky, it’s far from a private moment :-P

Super-speedy-search tip for Firefoxers! (search keywords)

I love RottenTomatoes.com.  It’s one of the most useful and addictive movie sites I’ve found, right along with IMDB.com.  Now I can look up movies on either database in a snap by using a surprisingly little-known Firefox feature that lets you assign a keyword of your choice to any search on any site.

I’ve set up my browser so that I can type “rt [moviename]” or “imdb [moviename]” in my Firefox addressbar and be whisked right to that movie’s page in RottenTomatoes or IMDB respectively.

It’s easy to do!  Just go to your favorite site (movie or otherwise) in Firefox and right-click on a search bar on the page (e.g., where you’d normally enter in a movie to look up) and then select “Add a Keyword for this Search.”  You’ll then see something like this:



Enter in any title you want in the first box (that's what'll show up in your bookmarks), choose a short but easy to remember keyword, and the URL should be filled in automatically for you.

From then on, you can enter in stuff like "rt an inconvenient truth" (great movie, btw!) directly into your Firefox addressbar and save yourself the hassle of navigating to the RT homepage, then finding the search box, etc.

* * *

But what if you'd like to make use of such a handy feature at home and work (or on your personal desktop and laptop) and don't want to set up such shortcuts multiple times?

Google Browser Sync to the rescue! (insert standard disclaimer here... I work for Google, I don't work on this particular product, I'm not paid to write this, yadda yadda yadda). It's a super-nifty way of having your bookmarks, cookies, and other stuff (you choose!) automatically synchronized across all your computers. And yes, privacy-keen geeks, you can opt to have all of this stuff encrypted, too :-D. The downside: This extension causes my Firefox to load more slowly (sometimes taking 10-15 seconds), but I'm guessing that's because I have a crapload of settings, extensions, bookmarks, etc. It's still well worth the initial load-wait for me.

* * *

Anyway, I hope you find these tips helpful, and feel free to share any of your own Firefox tips below! :-D

I've joined Google

A couple of months ago, I became a Googler.  Since my boss—Matt Cutts—has already so kindly introduced me on his blog, I feel this is probably a good time to say a few words about my new job :-D

The short version:  I’m honored, humbled, a bit nervous, and yes, very happy.  As a lifelong geek who’s been excited about search and Google in particular for many years, it’s hugely fascinating to be experiencing new adventures from the “inside.”

Okay, now for the longer version!


What I’m doing at Google

My main focus is on broadening communications between Google and Webmasters… learning as much as I can from both Matt and the Webmasters he chats with so amiably and then building upon this rapport.  Or, more colloquially, as it’s been joked around the office, my uber-challenging goal is to become a “MiniMatt.”  Though a colleague did note that a MiniMatt sounds like a scary cross between a convenience store and a diminutive vaccum cleaner.  Hmm.

You’ll find me hanging out at Webmaster conferences and various geek gatherings, occasional replying to Google-related blog or forum posts, tackling some Webmaster-related e-mails, and undoubtedly popping up in other random places.

I’ll also be a “Webmaster Advocate” inside the Googleplex.  I’ve seen firsthand that tons of folks here already eagerly read and appreciate Google- and search-related comments throughout the Web; I’ll be doing what I can to expedite concerns, bug reports, and other feedback to the right colleagues.

I’m coming into this job with a lot of knowledge about search, Google, and communications, but I know I have a lot to learn and also much trust to earn.

What my new job means for my blog

I’m not sure yet.  For the time being, I’m going to generally maintain a separation between the personal and work spheres of my life.  This means that you’re likely to be disappointed if you subscribe to BLADAM expecting to read lots of juicy Googly tidbits.

With that said, though, I do admire Robert, Jeremy, and, of course, my boss Matt and recognize that their work-related blogversations have very often educated, engaged, and entertained thousands.  So perhaps I’ll come up with a middle ground here—occasionally sharing my enthusiasm, useful Google tips, amusing Google observations, and so on—while avoiding topics likely to make my colleagues annoyed or uncomfortable.

“So I have a question about my site…”

Please, not here.  I’m enjoying tackling general and specific Webmaster issues every day at work… and my teammates and I are really, truly committed to opening up new channels of communication (like our Sitemaps tools and active Sitemaps GoogleGroup, for instance, plus MUCH more to come!).  But everyone needs a break from work now and then, so please respect my personal space here on the Web.  Thanks!

With that said, I know that Matt got some outstanding feedback on Google Communications, and so I’d be nuts if I didn’t also invite you to share your Google Communication ideas below.  I’d also love to hear from you about your favorite bloggers who masterfully juggle work and non-work topics on their blogs; I could use some more role models in case I decide to go that route eventually :-D.

*  *  *

Anyway… to you faithful BLADAM readers who’ve stuck with me during all my bloggily dry and/or boring spells, thank you.  To you new readers, welcome!  It’s a pleasure to have you here, and—as always—I look forward to your comments.  Now I’m heading offline to go celebrate my birthday weekend! :-D

Browser toolbar creators are missing one of the simplest, most useful options

Bookmarks.  Favorites.  Most of us save a list of sites we often visit or want to re-find again… either by adding them as a Bookmark in Firefox or as a Favorite in Internet Explorer or even adding the site to our online list residing on del.icio.us or Spurl, and so on.

Also, lots of us have browser toolbars by Yahoo! or Google or other folks.  Unfortunately, there’s a huge disconnect here.

I visit Salon.com regularly.  Same with Google News, SlickDeals, and many other sites.  In Firefox, it’s very easy to assign a shortcut to access any one of my favorite sites; for instance, I can type sd into my Firefox address bar and be immediately whisked to SlickDeals.net.  Even cooler, I can type gns lindy hop and instantly be brought to the search results page of Google News that shows me if there are any recent articles about Lindy Hop.

The downside?  If I want to use any of these shortcuts on other computers (at a friend’s place, at work, when visiting my parents), I have to somehow copy over my Firefox preference files over via a thumbdrive or whatnot.  Or, if they don’t have Firefox, I’m screwed. 

This is where browser toolbars come in—or, rather, where they SHOULD come in.

In a nutshell, ALL the major toolbars should—when I’m logged in to my Passport or Google or Yahoo account or whatever—automatically let me…

1) Bookmark and assign a shortcut keyword for any site (e.g., msbc for http://microsoft.blognewschannel.com/). 
Thereafter, I should then be able to type that shortcut into the toolbar search box and immediately be whisked off to that site.

2) Add a search shortcut by right-clicking on any search box of any site and choosing a shortcut keyword, just like I can do in 10 seconds on Firefox today. 
For instance, I should be able to easily make amzs creative zen immediately search Amazon for any product with the words creative zen in them.

*  *  *

IMHO, this request is both relatively easy to implement and capable of significantly simplifying the online lives of lots of people.  I honestly believe that the first major company to add this feature to their toolbar is likely to have a significant competitive advantage (“Jump to your favorite pages in a jiffy and do fast handy searches… no matter what computer you’re on!”) *and* increased penetration (e.g., if have all my bookmarks via my Google account and I’m visiting my parents who don’t have the Google Toolbar installed on their computer, I may just go ahead and install it for them so I can easily access my bookmark shortcuts :D)

It’s not like this would require a huge overhaul for the majors, either.  I know that Yahoo!, for instance, already enables people to bookmark pages from their toolbar.  And what a great complement to Yahoo’s My Web 2.0 this would be, eh?!

*  *  *

Do you think this feature set would indeed be massively popular?  Or is it instead just something a geek like myself could love?  Your thoughts…?

*  *  *

EDITED on January 25, 2006 to add:
Whoops!  It looks like I overlooked the fact that Yahoo! in fact already does exactly what I’ve outlined above! :O

Specifically, at least when signed in, you can type an exclamation mark immediately followed by a shortcut and VOILA!  For instance, !ebay canon sd550 brings you directly to the search results listings   page for that camera on ebay.  Additional, you can create your own custom shortcuts.  As a bonus, this works:
- from the regular address bar (if you’ve set Yahoo! as your default search engine)
- from the Yahoo! search box on Yahoo’s site.
- from the Yahoo! toolbar.

My only quibble?  An exclamation mark is an annoying character to use to indicate a shortcut search, since it requires the use of the shift key (one extra keypress… it adds up!) *and* it’s located on different places depending on your keyboard type (internationally).  I think it’d be better if folks could specify their own shortcut-indicator key.

Still, this is quite a cool offering from Yahoo!, and thanks to the little byrdie (who wishes to remain anonymous) who let me know about this over e-mail.  Oh, and apologies for overlooking this feature initially!  Google, MSN… you have some catching up to do here ;-).

Lastly, here are more details on the Yahoo! Open Shortcuts feature.

Well-reviewed movie "Waterborne" now available free on Google Video

I haven’t had a chance to watch more than the first few minutes of this film, but Waterborne has been generally well-reviewed… and you can watch it for free either below or directly on Google’s site through January 15, 2006.



Rather than spoil even part of the plot, I’ll instead invite you to begin watching it now without preconceptions, with a note that it’s a serious film focusing on characters rather than explosive action.

Beyond this particular film, what fascinates and excites me about Google’s video offering—despite generally wide critical raspberries—is that it can serve as a fabulous equalizer.  The key problems with getting great independent and foreign films seen by larger audiences aren’t just associated with marketing and word of mouth, but rather distribution.  Just as Google AdWords (and, before it, GoTo.com) presented a revolutionary way for Mom’n'Pop outfits to reasonably compete with BigCos, Google Video will provide market access to low(er) budget films… in this case, literally FREE distribution.  And then when some random Joe in Manhattan gets genuinely excited about a particular quality (or just frickin’ hilarious :D) production, he can indirectly cause that film to gain enormous market awareness by simply posting about it on his LiveJournal and linking to the Google Video, causing a chain reaction (remember the numa numa video?:-) And hey, can anyone even find the original anymore?!  But I digress!)

*  *  *

But how will this actually make money for the film producers?

- Pay-per-download
For instance, while Waterborne is free to stream and watch online for a week, it’s then $4 to download.  With this film, thanks to the openness of its producers, purchasers will actually OWN their copy and have the practical and legal options of burning it to DVD, watching it on their iPod, etc.  This can be a win-win situation; whereas early adopters and those with more time than money can make sure to watch it for free, others will help fund the film by purchasing unfettered downloads.  Alas, not all content producers are so wise and thoughtful towards consumers; the bulk of groups charging for video on Google Video now are placing some DRM (Digital Rights Management) restrictions on their files, so they’ll self-destruct after 24 hours or be uncopyable to a portable video player, etc.  Hopefully they’ll eventually see the light, however.

- Related sales
T-shirts.  Actual DVDs in jewelboxes.  Sequels.  Toys or other similar merchandise.  Soundtracks via Napster or Magnatune or Amazon.com.

- Long-term career growth
Unknown artists can perhaps become bigger household names, garnering big studio money later on.

Other ideas?  Your thoughts…?

*  *  *

Hat tip to Inside Google for reporting this and other interesting Google video tidbits.

Click-to-call is the next big thing in Web advertising... but with a twist

I just read on Darren's Problogger.net site (via Threadwatch) that Google is testing out a pay-per-call feature in its AdWords program.

The way it works (so far in testing) is that Google places a little phone icon next to specific trial text ads where text AdWords ads are normally placed on the righthand side of Google search results pages.

When someone clicks on the phone icon, they get a call from Google and Google then connects them to the advertiser free of charge... of course, charging the advertiser an amount up to their max pay-per-call bid price.

IMHO, though, this is one layer away from being humungously useful to advertisers. As it's currently implemented, I think a lot of folks (like me!) would be apt to read the small text ad, click through to the site, and then decide whether to call the company from *there* or not.

And by that point, there's no easy way for the advertiser to know that I came via AdWords... which means that it's basically flying under the ROI radar. This may not seem like a horrible problem, but let me tell you... for some advertisers (like one of my clients, who spends over $150,000 a month on AdWords alone!), it's quite painful to wonder whether that cost-per-lead is unduly inflated because lots of customers are calling in their high-ticket orders rather than placing them on the company's Web site directly. With the latter, this client can see the conversions via Google's conversion tracker. With the former, the best the client can do is ask the purchaser "Where did you hear about us?" and 9 times out of 10, the person will say "Um, somewhere on the net" or maybe even "Google" but they'll hardly know whether they spotted this firm via a natural or AdWords listing!

* * *

So here's my idea: One of these companies... Google, Yahoo!, or Microsoft (with its Ad Center, not yet released in the U.S.) should implement a special javascript code that displays -- on the advertiser's site! -- a tailored-per-client toll-free number when the referrer is a ad-click from Google, Y! or Microsoft. If the visitor isn't from one of their respective PPC programs, then the javascript code would default to simply showing the company's own default toll-free number.

And one of the coolest things about this is that it'd be VERY hard to game or click-fraud. If the engine set, for instance, a minimum call length before charging (say, 15 seconds), you're not going to get random "calling farms" in India making 16 second calls, IMHO :-).

Of course, really cheap-ass companies participating in the program could say "Oh, hi! Let me quickly get your number and call you back..." but -- especially when high-ticket items or subscriptions are at stake -- I don't think such behavior is likely. The annoyance of that would likely offset too much potential revenue from customers.

* * *

From at a technical perspective, I think this would be pretty easy to do. I understand that there might be some referrer-acknowledgement issues (e.g., people surfing in high-paranoid mode with referrer stuff turned off), but on the whole, I can imagine that advertisers would be willing to pay a premium for a visit + call... and consumers would be well-served, too.

What are your thoughts on this? Am I missing a key problem here?

Helpful numbers to save in your phone!

I invite you to go grab your cell phone / mobile phone / home phone whatever and program the following numbers into it:

- 1-800-555-8355 ("555 TELL" -- TellMe)
- 1-800-373-3411 ("FREE 411" -- Free411)
- 1-888-392-7563 ("EZ ASK ME" -- AskMeNow - Initial signup on site required)
- 46645 ("GOOGL" - Google SMS beta - Google via Text Messaging)

NOTE: One or more of these numbers may be U.S.-only... sorry :|

For details on each service, read on...

TELLME
I've been using this service for ages, and it's really gotten me out of some tight jams!

Via interactive voice menus, callers can easily get weather reports, serious and entertainment news, movie info, and much more. But the butt-saving features I've particularly appreciated are TAXI and DRIVING DIRECTIONS. The former will connect you (free of charge) with a local cab company, and the latter gives you step-by-step spoken driving directions between any two points in the U.S. (powered by "Microsoft MapPoint Technologies")

Supposedly, TellMe is ad-supported, but I have yet to hear any ads on the service.

* * *

FREE 411
Tired of paying $1.25 and up to your greedy mobile or landline phone company for directory assistance? Then you'll especially love Free 411! Not only does it find residential and business phone numbers for you, it also connects you free-of-charge (even to long distance numbers!) This service is apparently ad-supported (e.g., ask for Dominos Pizza, get a 15 second ad for a competing pizza place), but I've never heard any ads during the 3-4 times I've used this service.

Voice recognition is pretty decent, but the one time I stumped it, I was transferred to a human operator who was able to promptly get me the number I requested.

Frankly, though, I do wonder how sustainable this is. Will enough companies really pay to have folks redirected to them? If people are asking for Smith Window Washing services, will they really be so easily swayed towards a competitor? I have my doubts. But in the meantime, I'm happy to use this very convenient free 411 service!

* * *

ASK ME NOW

Need to know the capital of Wisconsin? Or find the phone number of a particular Citibank branch? Sure, if you're near an Internet-connected computer, you could probably quickly and easily find this info yourself. But what if you're busy or not near a computer? Yes, I have a Web browser on my Treo phone, but it's slow, the screen is small, and it's generally just a miserable experience trying to navigate Web sites with it.

Well, Ask Me Now is indeed a viable alternative. You call their number, leave a message, and 1-3 minutes later, you get back text messages with the right answer. Or at least AN answer. In my minimal testing, Ask Me Now gave me the right answer to "What is the Capital of Wisconsin?" but gave me the wrong answer to "What is the phone number of the Citibank branch located on Diamond Street in San Francisco?" The person (apparently located in the Philippines) who answered my query clearly just quickly googled for the answer and didn't bother checking on Citibank's Web site, since the correct answer is available in the latter, not the former.

This service costs 49 cents per query, billed to your cell phone account. Supposedly you can get free 'automated' answers, but it's not clear to me what qualifies as free and not-free, even after looking on the company's Web site.

* * *

GOOGLE SMS
Another option is Google's SMS service. Text message GOOGL (46645) to get driving directions, movie showtimes, weather reports, price comparisons, and more.

I've found this service to be both wonderous and frustrating. For instance, when I asked it [What is the capitol [sic] of wisconsin?] it replied back "Did you mean CAPITAL..." and gave me an appropriate Web page... when I would have preferred for it to actually include the answer, not just a link, in the reply. Additionally, when I asked it [Phone number for Citibank on Diamond St in San Francisco CA] it replied unhelpfully: "Looking for map of [query]? Unfortunately map information is not available through Google SMS."

I had better luck with other queries, such as [weather 91360] and [what is the population of belgium].

* * *

YAHOO SMS
Despite multiple attempts, I could not get this service to work. I kept getting an "Invalid..." message, with instructions relating to Y! Messenger, after even using the exact queries listed on this page. Bummer. Any Yahoo people out there wanna help me figure out what's going on here? I've heard good things about Yahoo's mobile offerings and perhaps there's just something small / obvious I'm missing?

Google Analytics (formerly Urchin) free Web Stats is now live

https://www.google.com/analytics/

I learned that this was coming via this Information Week article.

Lots of fascinating issues and implications!

- How much of a further competitive edge will this give AdWords over other pay-per-click advertising services like Yahoo! Search Marketing?

- Will this completely decimate small, low-cost Web Stats services like StatCounter? My gut is that it'll make a dent, particularly amongst small to medium-sized businesses, but that for those who are looking for something very quick, easy to set up, and fast to browse, they may indeed stick with simpler solutions.

- What will this mean for HitBox, ClickTracks, etc? Once again, I think this'll significantly impact their share of small-to-medium-sized clients, but it's very unlikely to rock any relationships with Fortune 500 / large firms.

My experience with Urchin?
I set up and used the service with a client a few months ago, and found it to offer fascinating insights and have very high potential overall, but it was frustratingly creaky (slow, a bit flakey) undoubtedly due to the high (millions of hits a month) traffic it was being asked to process for this client.

With that said, though, I can't wait to try this out on my blog and my other personal sites, and I will recomend it heartily to my smaller clients. Assuming Google manages to scale this decently, I can see recommending it to larger clients as well.

Still, however, I'm skeptical that Google's customer support will scale decently for this product. Urchin, er, Google Analytics is a very complex, frankly complicated service, and there are so many places in which users can become confused or overwhelmed. Thankfully, Google recently substantially improved their help documentation (a couple of months ago), but still...

And hmm... perhaps Google will roll out a more limited and/or fully integrated version for BlogSpot folks at a later time?

Anyway, I'm going to quit blathering and give this service a try now. :-)

Yahoo! and Google Maps... add more common sense, please

I don't know about you, but the vast majority of searches I do on Google Maps and the splendiforous new Y! Maps (beta) are for directions from my apartment in San Francisco to somewhere else in the city. Here's the sort of search I'd type in by default:

[{my address} to 16th and valencia]

But both Google and Yahoo! choke on this search, and choke bad. Yahoo! gives me an error message saying the address could not be found, and then nonetheless gives me directions to Valencia, Arizona. Google performs no better here; it asks me "Did you mean Valencia Road, Bromsgrove, Hereford and Worcester, B60, UK?" Suuuuuure, Google, I'm going to get in my car and drive from San Francisco to the UK. ;-)

Where's a Common Sense module when you need one?

For starters, how about assuming that if I don't add on a city, state or zip code, that I'm intending to travel within my home city. On G, one can already define a default starting point. And I'd assume that, when logged in to one's Y! account, Yahoo already knows one's home city, too. Not to mention IP sniffing possibilities, too!

Or even better yet, if it's not too computationally resource intense, it'd be great if the engines could assume a 100 mile radius and prioritize by proximity. That means if I type in 123 Mission St and I'm in San Francisco, I probably mean to indicate that street in SF or nearby, not somewhere in Minnesota. Since most of us don't have zip codes handy when we're doing directions, it's a lot faster and easier to type [555 myhomestreet 94112 to 123 mission st] than [555 myhomestreet 94112 to 123 mission st, san francisco, ca].

Lastly, I understand that sometimes requests ARE ambiguous (maybe I meant mission street in a nearby city, not SF, despite failing to specify it)... so the services should always preface the results on such ambiguous requests with something like this:\

NOTE: We assumed you're traveling to 123 mission street in San Francisco, CA. If this isn't right, please retype your request and specify the city and state.

And heck, for that matter, why can't I type [1531 19th ave to 99 valencia st] and have it assume I mean San Francisco (based upon my signin, my past searches, my IP address, whatever)?

Am I on target here, or would such assumption-makings on the part of the engines be more trouble than they're worth?

$1 will cure the Blogspot splog problem (and related problems)

THE PROBLEM
As Chris Pirillo and others have noted, doing a search on practically anything nowadays returns a deluge of spam blogs, or "splogs," that are comprised of a bunch of randomly scraped-together sentences automatically stolen from around the Web. Typically, the sploggers create these blogspot blogs just so they can slap AdSense ads on them and earn cash from unwitting surfers who land there, see that all the content is crap, and then get away by clicking on one of the ads on the page.

Sounds stupid? It is. But sadly it's actually lucrative for the sploggers. And Google's caught in the middle because -- while, yes, they're earning money as well out of the deal -- their search index is becoming less and less useful... and that can undoubtedly hurt the company's long-term viability. Say what you will about Google, but they are nothing if not forward thinking... so this is a problem that they are certainly seriously tackling in the background.

THE SOLUTION
But I have an idea that'd solve the issue faster. It's not entirely 'democratic.' It also risks some 'friendly fire'. And initially, it'll be a major pain in the ass for Google and a minor pain in the ass for anyone wanting to set up a blog. But hear me out... :-)

Google should require a $1 credit card, ACH bank payment, or paper check payment from any blogger who wants his or her blog to be indexed.

But note that...
- Anyone could still create a blog for free.
If you wanted to have a blog to communicate with your friends or family or workgroup or whatever, no sweat. You'd just give 'em the URL, let them subscribe to your RSS feed, etc., no payment required.

- Google would create a special subdomain for the paid blogs.
blogspotgold.com or whatnot... so that other search engines could easily filter out anything in the blogspot domain.

- Google would allow any current blogspot user to 'upgrade' for $1 and would automatically redirect their URL permanently.

WHY THIS'D WORK
- It would likely no longer be economically feasible for spammers to create 10,000 disposable splogs.
- Even if the economics worked out, Google could limit the number of blogs created per credit card number or bank account.
- Google's creating its own payment processing solution anyway, so they'll soon have the payments part covered.

WHAT WILL HAMPER THIS SOLUTION
- Sploggers could use stolen credit cards, though I think it'd be difficult to do this in bulk.
- But most critically, there's the frustrating issue that even a $1 payment could end up publicly silencing voices that should be heard.

MORE ABOUT THE SILENCING-VOICES PROBLEM
While I'm all for accountability and taking personal responsibility for one's communications, I also recognize that there are instances in which folks desire -- and often should be accorded -- anonymity.

For instance, what about Chinese dissidents who may want to blog about their feelings and experiences or even blog about upcoming protests? Is it inconceivable that the Chinese government could pressure Google into handing over identity information gleaned from a dissident's $1 blogspot payment? Even if Google takes pains to sincerely insist that it will *NEVER* do such a thing, will everyone trust this promise? And what about whistleblowers?

Or what about those people -- particularly in non-industrialized countries -- who may not have a bank account or credit card but still want to blog?

A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE SILENCED-VOICES PROBLEM
Perhaps, instead of denying indexing to all non-paid blogs, Google could simply -- upon request -- pre-screen all such blogs for indexing consideration. For instance, something like the following:
1) Person sets up free blog and blogs a minimum number of substantive (non-sploggy) posts over a minimum period of time.
2) They then submit this blog for indexing consideration to Google.
3) If Google determines it to be non-sploggy, they then elevate it to blogspotgold, and provide a free redirect from the old URL.

Admittedly, though, sploggers could retaliate in this context by submitting bazillions of obvious-crap blogs just to clog up the reviewing queue. However, if it were impossible to submit a blog for consideration until it had been around, say, 3 months or 6 months... that would make it harder to do a mass-submit "DOS" [denial of service style] attack. Spammers are not patient people.

* * *

So I'm curious... what do you think about all of this?
1) Would a $1 payment really prevent most or even all splog from getting into the indexes of Google, Y!, and all other major players?
2) Would there be bad 'collateral damage'... or could this be reasonably minimized by the ideas I've specified or through other means?
3) Know of any anti-splog options that are better than my $1 idea? (hint: capchas alone aren't the answer)

* * *

UPDATE at 9:00PM PST, 10/16/2005:
People have pointed out to me that children and young teens typically don't have credit cards or even bank accounts, and that it seems unfair to single them out for a waiting period. So here are some other ideas (with the first two stolen from current Gmail policies :D)

- Get a blogspotgold account via text message.
True, this requires a phone... or a friend's phone.

- Get a blogspotgold account via invite from current member.
Allow each current member to hand out up to 10 tokens a month, and if more than 2 of them are used to create splogs, then don't give that member any more tokens for a year.

- Distribute blogspotgold tokens via schools (administrators, teachers, whatever)

* * *

UPDATE, 10/18/2005 at 1:45AM PST:
Ah, Google responds to the outcry! I had no doubt that they'd be taking all of this seriously (I know that the Blogger folks are sincerely passionate about blogging!), but it's nice to see their public acknowledgment of the problem nonetheless.

Also, the prolific geek, Chris Pirillo (of Lockergnome fame) has proposed his own top ten list of Blogspot anti-splog solutions.

Bloglines, Newzcrawler... and the new Google Reader

A few weeks ago, I already started transitioning all of my feeds off of Bloglines. Why?
- It's slow.
- It's down too often.
- Reorganizing feeds (moving them to different folders, etc.) is worse than being stuck in a closet with Vanna White. Night after night after night after night.
- It's similarly painful to mark just a few articles in a feed as read or unread.

I've moved over to Newzcrawler, a stellar newsreader app for Windows. Beyond just tons of cool power features, it also lets me pretty easily sync my feeds between my desktop and laptop using an external FTP site (okay, geeky, I know).

* * *

With that said, I've still been hoping to see some vast improvements in the online-reader front. Rojo seems to be getting better. And I've heard rumblings over other cool services as well. When I learned today that Google had entered this space, I was extremely excited. Please, I thought, give us another Gmail. Or Maps! :D If not for me, at least for my less-geeky friends whom I'm dying to get into feed reading.

So far, alas, I'm rather disappointed in the Google Reader. I know it'll get better, but for now, Googlers...

1) It's too cluttered and overwhelming.
Hide some stuff. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but blog text blends into all the other text and I find it just tiring to spend more than a few minutes in Reader.

2) No mouseovers?!

3) Ambiguities
Is "Read items" a description or an action? Okay, admittedly this is rather a nitpick, but it is a top-line link ;-).

4) Search what?!
When I see a search box at the top of the page, I expect to be able to search the content-in-context. In other words, if I'm in my Gmail account, I expect to search my mail. If I'm in Reader, I expect to search for a string in my read and/or unread feed items. From an expected user-action standpoint, what's likely to be more common: adding new feeds, or working with the feeds one already has?

5) Save me from overload!
There's no way to mark an entire feed as read. Or group of feeds.

6) Why the weird quasi-breadcrumbs in center focus?!
Why do I want to see "New Subscription" "New Subscription" article article article... Just show me new articles. If I want to see what I'm subscribed to, I'll go to the Your Subscriptions tab! :-)

* * *

Other quick suggestions/observations:
- Add a space in "Subscriptions(#)" to make it "Subscriptions (#)"
- Include a shortcut key to go to the pulldown menus. Actually, quit using HTML-style pulldown menus as action-triggers. It's not good UI, IMHO, and it's confusing when more than one says "More actions..." (plus with more than one on a page, that sort of makes it hard to use a keyboard shortcut)
- Allow for the multi-selection (and from there, tagging) of feeds.
- Include a feedback link directly on the Reader page.
- Enable us to see ALL articles from a given feed in one fell swoop (ala Bloglines)
- Let us easily sort, reposition, edit, and delete labels and sets of labels.
- BUG: I unsubscribed from a feed, it's outta my list, but I'm still seeing items for it.
- Gimme feed icons, please! When I have 200+ feeds, it's how I can most easily spot some of my favs :-)
- Dim links if they're not applicable (e.g., dim the Page Up link if I'm already at the top)
- I tagged an entry. How do I search for it by tag now? (I only see how I can filter feed tags)

* * *

Okay, let me be a LITTLE less of a jerk here and note what I *DO* like about Reader:
- Keyboard shortcuts! :-)
- Ease of adding new feeds (by keyword, by title, by URL... very flexible!)
- Nice how the filter narrows as I type! (but it'd be even nicer if ESC cleared it)
- Pretty fast (excepting the short time earlier today when it was first released)

* * *

Anyway, I'll keep my fingers crossed that Google rapidly works on this beta, giving it top resources... rotating in seasoned PMs / APMs, providing needed equipment for scalability and so on. For now, though, I'll happily stick with Newzcrawler, and -- admittedly grudgingly -- suggest that my newbie friends start off with Bloglines for now.

Google RSS ads: Either foiled by anti-ad bastards or...?

I have run a single Google AdSense ad in each entry in my full-text RSS feed since May of this year. I'm apparently not allowed to discuss clickthru rates, so let me just say this:

Despite getting a rather decent amount of traffic for a personal blog, I cannot buy a pack of bubblegum with the revenues I've earned from ads in my RSS feed. In fact, I'd be surprised if I could buy a single gumball.

This comes as rather a surprise me, not to mention a disappointment.

The ads were unobtrusive but still noticeable. And more importantly, I found them to be generally pretty relevant (nicely targeted) as well.

Since I've now removed the ads from my feed, I am free to talk about them without worrying about incenting clicks and jeopardizing my account. So a few questions come to mind:

1) If the ads had been less subtle, would more people have clicked?
2) Is it a demographic thing (people reading RSS feed = geeks = non-ad-clickers)?
3) Was the presence of these ads annoying enough to some to get them to unsubscribe? (Probably not, since I don't show any drop in subscription or clickthru rates)

I recall reading on the Web that many others were having similar bad luck with their AdSense feeds for RSS. I wonder if anyone has actually had GOOD luck with these ads.

GoogleTV - undoubtedly a boon for consumers, but...

GoogleTV is coming.

In this role, you will provide leadership on product vision and execution of projects that enable using Google's search and advertising technologies to enhance users? Television viewing experience. [...] You will identify key market trends that are shaping user behavior when watching Television. These include but not limited to the intersection of Internet and Television technologies, Video-On-Demand, Personal Video Recorders and emergence of next generation set-top-boxes with IP connectivity. You will then identify areas where use of Google's search and advertising technology can enhance this user experience and define appropriate products to deliver these user benefits. [...]

- Job posting placed online by Google this morning

UPDATE 9/23/05:
Google has removed the job listing from their site.

* * *

Is Tivo quaking in their boots? And will Hollywood embrace or fear the upcoming empowerment of consumers?

Historically, even when it's been in the entertainment industry's long-term best interests, they've staunchly protested many technological advancements. VCRs, Tivo... despite the reality of occasional ad-skipping, these tools have undoubtedly increased viewership (and with videocassettes / DVDs, sales) by an order of magnitude.

* * *

What will the Google tools offer consumers, advertisers and the entertainment folks? And what will be the response of privacy advocates to the advertisement targeting?

Benefits of TV ad targeting
I'm guessing that Google will ultimately succeed in matching (unnamed) user viewer behavior -- individually or in the small-aggregate -- to smart-targeted ads, and I think that's great. I'm personally in favor of the new world entertainment order. If I'm watching a nature show, I'd rather be pitched an ad for eco-friendly detergent than an SUV. And more specifically, if I watch a lot of nature shows, then even when I'm watching non-green stuff, I should be shown ads that appeal to my environmental sensibilities.

Targeting by show, not by person?
In terms of privacy, I do hope (and expect) that Google won't be attaching viewing profiles to personally identifying information (e.g., they won't know that Adam Lasnik is a liberal environmental softie). That's how their Gmail works, at least; I believe they actually target per e-mail not to a specific ongoing profile, much less a particular named person.

* * *

Ad targeting challenges and concerns
So many fascinating issues! Even for those of us who aren't big TV watchers, this heralds an era that's worth watching. Particularly in the privacy (and perceived privacy) arena... worthy questions abound; should Google profile users long-term? How will it deal with multiple family members? And unlike with Web surfing that generally features one person typing/viewing at a time, TV can often be a family matter. If Dad loves golf and Mom loves gospel music and they're watching a crime drama together, could viewer profiling work in this messy context? What about inappropriate juxtapositions (ads for funeral homes during coverage of Katrina)? Google takes care to avoid inappropriate and uncomfortable content/ad ties in its current properties, but the visual medium can be so much more powerful and searing...

* * *

Can Google play nice, even with dinosaurs?
And then there are the questions about Google's current and upcoming relationship with content providers and advertisers. We already know that Google's relationship with at least some book associations is strained at best (unfairly so, IMHO). And I've read quotes from entertainment moguls as being a bit wary of Google in some contexts...

Hopefully this time Google will more strongly endeavor to engage in proactive, open, and reassuring conversations with all affected parties... even those who are governed more by fear than by consumer interests.

---

RELATED LINKS:
- An index of postings about Google in this blog.
- An index of general Geekdom postings in this blog.
- The full-text RSS feed for this entire blog.

Want to get e-mailed whenever BLADAM is updated?
Type your e-mail address into the box at top left. Full feed or summaries, but no spam! :-)

Google's moving in the wrong direction: It's the message, not the medium

There'd been talk of it for a while... might do, could do, should do.

But Google's finally gone and done it with blogsearch. After being tipped off by John Batelle's blog, I learned that Google has added a "blog search" feature that lets users search blogger blogs and other blogs as well in near-real-time.

I've already spotted reviews of the service's speed and completeness and related basics... but I'm concerned with something a bit deeper.

At best, I think the new Google Blogsearch tool is moderately interesting and helpful. At worst, however, I think this seriously undermines the ideals of content over form.

I don't think I've come out and said it so bluntly before, but I've been meaning to:

No one ever been fired for blogging. People admire Robert Scoble for his communications, not his blog. Washingtonniene got herself in hot water (or a hot book deal, depending on your perspective) due to repeatedly opening her legs in front of influential congresscritters and blabbing about it to lots of people.

I am a writer, a dancer, a community evangelist, a geek, but I'm NOT A BLOGGER.

I happen to use a tool (Movable Type) that structures my writing in reverse chronological order, ads some neato features and frills, and at the end of the day, the output is in the form of and called a blog.

I also use the telephone. Does that make me a telephoner?

I've spoken before large groups using a microphone before. Does that make me a microphoner?

The tools doth not make the message... nor the worth of that message. They may enable it, amplify it... but the medium is not the message. I take responsibility and credit for what I communicate -- in ANY form -- as should others.

* * *

So what's my point? Is it all semantics? No, no, and no.

Why does the Googlebot and the Google index like blogs? Because they are often refreshed frequently and often have content that people are searching on.

Why are blogs useful to many people? Because they are often refreshed frequently and they often have content that folks want to read.

The distinguishing factor isn't the structure, it's the message, or at least the frequency of message output.

But, I hear you arguing, if I'm looking for articles about the beauty of Foo, I'm more apt to find interesting / informative / entertaining stuff in blogs, as opposed to from a general Google search, where I'll find "Buy Foo here!" and "foo foo more stuff that looks like foo but isn't!" and "A directory of foos linking to foos that link to more foo directories."

Ah, spam, glorious spam. But to this I say... the problem is in the message (or lack of relevant message) and/or the funneling and discovery of the message, not the medium that message has been stamped with. And besides, as most folks have ruefully learned lately, there's a lot of spam in "blogs" or things that are blogs in structure only.

* * *

So what does separating out blogs accomplish?

Highlighting the little guy, the fella who blogs his heart out after he gets home from his day job? Not necessarily. Lots of the most popular blogs are part of blog 'empires' nowadays, with people literally paid by the entry. Basically news sites. Mega-editorial sites.

Does filtering in/out blogs accentuate opinions? News items? Photos? Likely no moreso than an intelligent, optimized search of the Web on the whole.

Perhaps, some would retort, it provides an easy way for folks to find venues for community online interaction via blog comments. But this is an especially flawed argument; after all, a great many blogs have disabled their comments, and on the flip side, there are tons of forums on the Web that feature robust conversations.

And at the end of the day, what exactly is a blog anyway? Is Slashdot a blog? Or a forum? How about CNet? Or Metafilter?

If I add an RSS feed to a Web page or a wiki, does this make it a blog? How about comments?

Or the reverse: what if a "blog" doesn't have an RSS feed and doesn't support comments or trackbacks; is it really a blog?

What if it's essentially a newsletter sponsored by a megacorp (e.g., a McDonald's "Blog")? Is that more bloggy than a Web site by Auntie Jo with FrontPage-pasted daily updates?

* * *

Given all this ambiguity and the questionable use of separating out blogs, I believe that Google and other search engines would be better off improving how they interpret searcher intent. So when folks search for "foo facts" or "foo reviews" or "foo opinions" or "buy foo" or "foo sex" they'd get search results relevant to the TYPE of or FOCUS on foo that they were hoping for. Increased personalization will (or at least should) do a ton to improve this as well.

So, too, could Google simply add better tools to more finely filter messages or sites... regardless of whether they're wikis, forums, blogs, or something else entirely. A "freshness" slider (written or edited recently vs. a long time ago), presence of comments, multiple authors, has RSS/Atom feed, etc.

I fear that Google -- and ultimately other search engines that follow in their lead -- will have taken the easy way out. Maybe they're hoping that this'll at least be a useful stopgap measure until they improve their algorithms and tools enough to filter upon searcher intent... but I'm resigned to the reality that -- once initiated -- a (perceived)-blog-segregation is unlikely to be undone. And that's a bummer for bloggers, pseudo-bloggers, and everyone else.

A review of Google Talk: Not yet revolutionary or compelling

As hyped in breathless news articles over the last few days, Google came out with their own IM (instant messaging) client this evening, Google Talk.



VERDICT: Clean, uncluttered, intuitive, and rather unexciting in its current version.

To be frank, I was (somewhat unfairly) disappointed with GTalk. Granted, it's just v1 of a public beta, so I shouldn't be so greedy, but... unlike with Gmail, I didn't see anything that made me go WOW!

Great voice quality? Sure, but Skype has already got that (and also already has a humungous userbase).

Ad-free (at least for now)? Yes, but so is Trillian, the IM app I already use and love. Incidentally, the Pro version of Trillian (a very worthwhile buy, IMHO), along with other clients, can connect to the Google network. This is because Google is smartly and unselfishly running their chat service on the open source Jabber platform.

And indeed, I'm having trouble seeing how Gtalk will gain traction for the time being. AIM, Yahoo, and MSN users really have little incentive to switch, especially since GTalk doesn't (at least yet) interoperate with the big 3. Trillian users... I can't see any reason why they'd switch, either. Skype folks? As noted above, I simply can't forsee any defections.

* * *

Let me sprinkle in a few positive notes, though:

You can run an 'embedded' form of GTalk within the Google Desktop sidebar. Exit GD, wait a few moments, then restart it. Click the little down-arrow at the top right, select ADD/REMOVE PANELS, and check off Google Talk.

Google Talk replaces the current Gmail Notifier, and that's handy.

GTalk scans your existing GMail address book, and lets you easily find and invite others to GTalk.

Oh, and there's a puzzling little easter egg in the About dialog box. Click on the ABOUT link in GTalk (or the sidebar component), and you'll notice this in light text towards the bottom:

play 23 21 13 16 21 19 . 7 1 13 5

Anyone wanna guess what the significance of that is? 23, undoubtedly, stands for the 23rd of August -- the release day, but the rest...? Maybe it's something that, if you can solve it, you get a Google job offer? Get cracking! :D

* * *

Anyway, I'm guessing (and hoping) that Googlers have a trick or two up their sleeve with regards to this new product.

What are your thoughts on this?

Google Desktop review -- check out the cool new beta version!

Introduction

What is Google Desktop ("GD")?
Google Desktop (formerly known as Google Desktop Search or "GDS") is free program from Google that enables you to search for data on your computer much like you use Google to search the Web. You can look for and open e-mails, photos, music files, PDFs, and lots of other good stuff. No ads are shown. Below you can see a screenshot of me searching for "drink."



How to get GD

Go to http://desktop.google.com/ and follow the very simple instructions. Note that you have a choice of the latest version (2.0 beta -- a version still in testing, described in the rest of this post, or 1.0 final).

A brief background on my love / not-so-love relationship with GD
I had just about given up on GD. Initially impressed and pleased with the product, I was losing love for GD as I became more seduced by the find-as-you-type capability from competitors such as X1 and MSN Desktop Search. Sometime straying, I would somewhat grudgingly come back to GD, appreciative of the handy contextual Web snippets but wishing there was a product that combined the richness of this with find-as-you-type speediness.

Just in time... Google Desktop Search v2 (GD2) is that charming fleet-footed if still a bit gawky new friend.

For those too lazy or impatient to read through my entire review, I'll summarize with this...
Google Desktop offers a delightful mix of usefulness and fun. For those who have humungous amounts of data and need to finely drill down by multiple fields, X1 and Copernic may remain more favorable options. But for the vast majority of geeks and non-geeks alike, GD's speed, light footprint, and currently-entertaining-if-not-yet-essential non-search extras will likely be enough to earn a place on their desktop.

Key improvements

GD2 is a significant step above GDS. Here's a sampling of what's new and improved:

• Find-as-you-type (search results quickly pop up as you type each letter, narrowing the search with each additional letter)
• Search Gmail and network drives.
• Search Outlook items like tasks, notes, appointments. Search directly from the Outlook interface, too.
• A nifty sidebar (discussed in detail below) with an open API!
• Items moved (even from an IMAP to non-IMAP folder) are now handled more effectively by GD.

Installation and pre-installation

Installation of GD is easy and pretty painless. On my reasonably beefy P4, the download took a few seconds and the entire install process took under 3 minutes. This, of course, doesn't include indexing time, which (though I didn't time it) seemed only a few hours for my drive with 100+ megs of stuff AND my Gmail account.

Google's GD privacy policy, thankfully written in English rather than legalese, is similarly straightforward. Highlights:

• The contents of your computer aren't shared with Google or other folks without your explicit permission.
• A limited amount of non-personal info is sent to Google to help in troubleshooting, software development, and content personalization. You can opt out of this if you want.
• You have control over what GD indexes.
• You can uninstall GD if you like (duh!).

Google walks you through some basic configuration options and then, voila, you're done. Well, almost done. You have to go read a book, ride a bike, or do something away from your computer (ack!) for a while if you want Google to actually index your stuff. And hey, make sure your (supported) e-mail program is open in the meantime, or GD won't be able to index your mail.

The nifty GD Sidebar

The sidebar consists of the following components, any of which may be either not shown or minimized. Items in green are ones I personally find particularly cool.

• Email
  This only supports Gmail for now. It shows a bit of each recent email's title, AUTHOR, and time of receipt ([x] minutes ago).
• News
  This shows a number (your choice) of headlines from Google News... article title, source, and time of posting ([x] minutes ago). This is very frequently updated and you can actually see new items gradually push down older items in a nice gradual sliding effect (which I suppose some could find distracting).
• Web Clips
  This presents "feeds" to you either from sites you've frequently visited and/or from sites you specify. For instance, after I visited Wired.com, this sidebar component started including headlines from Wired. When I visited a friend's blog, it started including headlines from her blog. You get the idea.
• Scratch Pad
  Pretty much like what it sounds like. Write plain-text notes here and they'll stay here :-).
• Photos
  GD crawls through your photo collection (which you can bound by specific limits) and displays a mini-slideshow here... a new photo fades in every 15 seconds by default. Clicking on the photo takes you to a list of recently shown photos. Clicking on one of those photos brings up the full-sized version. In addition to grabbing photos from your hard drive, this panel item also optionally shows photos from sites you visit.
• What's Hot
  I'm not exactly sure how this works, but it seems like some sort of Zeitgeist / Blogpulse type of thing highlighting the Web pages that have recently been popular. I find the stuff on www.spurl.net to be more comprehensive and entertaining.
• Quick View
  This panel item lists items or pages you've recently accessed or viewed. Sounds great in theory, but I've found it pretty useless in practice, since it tends to show files that my computer accesses frequently (preference files, etc.), or files that I regularly -- but indirectly -- access on the 'net.
• Stocks
  Add stocks or stock indices, see the numbers. Pretty basic.
• Weather
  Add a city, see the highs, lows, and so on. Pulls from the same weather data you see if you type weather [zipcode] into Google... that is to say, not terribly accurate data, IMHO.

Information from each sidebar can also be viewed in a larger panel; for instance, you can click on the << mark on the title bar of News, and you'll get a larger (attached) window showing news items. Click on one of those news items and you'll see a snippet. Click on the title in the snippet, and you'll be brought to the original Web page. Whew! Sounds complicated, but it's all rather intuitive.

You can also easily drag-and-drop resize, and minimize sidebar components.

Most importantly, I see this sidebar as just a glimpse of stuff to come. I have no doubt that people will create and share their own useful or fun sidebar items via GD plugins pretty quickly, especially given that the sidebar -- as GD on the whole -- has an API that independent developers can write for.

Configurability and options
GD is reasonably configurable. You can set, among other things...

• What types of data you want indexed (email, chats, Web history, etc.)
• Your Gmail signin info (so GD can search your Gmail)
• Additional hard drives and network drives to search
• Web sites and hard drive directories to exclude from searching
• Encrypt or not-encrypt for the GD database (default is unencrypted... better speed!)
• How you want the search box displayed (as part of the sidebar, as described above, or as a small box in your taskbar or a small floating box you can place anywhere on your desktop)

Pictured below are the main options box (via the systray icon) and the sidebar preferences box respectively:



Strengths, weaknesses, and AdamWishes
GD has some stark strengths and weaknesses when compared to some rather admirable competitors.

STRENGTHS

• Small footprint.
  Unlike other desktop search programs I've tried, GD never slows down my system... either in indexing or when conducting a search. 
• Plugin architecture:
  Like the MSN Search Toolbar with Windows Desktop Search (whew! just MSNDS henceforth!), GD provides a framework where developers can create neat plugins that extend the functionality of and even improve the interface of the software.
• Ability to search desktop and Webmail (well, at least Gmail) simultaneously:
  For those who maintain mail accounts both locally (e.g., on Outlook) and on Gmail, GD is the only offering that can search both simultaneously.
• Enjoyable extras:
  Do we really need a mini photo slideshow along with tickers for news, weather, and other stuff? Not really. But, if even a mere guilty pleasure, it's a treat having them all optionally stacked together in a well-behaved docked sidebar with GD. And the scratch pad is more useful than I initially suspected it would be. So, too, does the frequently-updating news component provide a greater amount of engaging information than I initially expected. Oh, and one particularly fun use I've found for the Hyper find-as-you-type feature: entering in the name of a song on the spur-of-the-moment, hitting [enter] and then (as it's quickly loaded into my music player), hearing the song played. Much faster than loading up music software (winamp, wmp, whatever) and searching for the song there. 
• Fast and comprehensive indexing:I've found GD to be among the fastest of the bunch to include files and e-mails, and -- particularly with various plugins -- it boasts a pretty comprehensive list of supported filetypes (though if memory serves me right, X1 may still take the prize in the comprehensiveness if not the speed area). 
• Web historyThis is a biggie for me! I haven't seen any other desktop search program that lets me not only pull up Web pages I've visited (via a full-text search!), but even keeps cached copies. Super-useful in research (what was that page I saw last week or the week before about new advances in speech recognition?...)

WEAKNESSES

• Search results narrowing by field:
  Here is where competitors like X1 and Copernic shine. Type a few letters of a mail recipient and then refine it with a few letters from the subject line. Boom! Or drill down by one of at least a dozen other useful fields as an extension of a general search. This, perhaps more than anything else, is the feature I still miss in GD.
• Full-pane previews:
  While I appreciate GD's snippets in the Web browser view, I sometimes yearn for the full-pane preview I grew accustomed to with competing products. 
• Limited hits in find-as-you-type:
  While GD's inclusion of "hyper" (the technology (?) that lets you display up to ten hits as you enter letter by letter of a search query) is quite valuable, it's frustrating that it's limited to a mere ten hits. Contrast this with the competitors seemingly almost-limitless view of as-you-type results. 
• Lack of synchronization of panel extras:When you type a useful note in your scratchpad at home, you may find yourself surprised and miffed that it doesn't show up on your GD panel on your work computer. Indeed, as far as I can tell, there's no sharing of configurations or scratchpad data at all. You'll need to set up your preferred stocks, weather, and other data bits on each installation, and that's rather annoying. So, too, I'd assume, are "remove this" requests not synchronized from one installation to another, resulting in you dismissing those annoying whatsit Webclips on multiple computers. Since GD provides the option to log in to one's Gmail account, it's a pity that they didn't (yet) go one step further and have initial and ongoing personalization efforts attached to one's account and affect all of one's GD installations.

ADAMWISHES

• More keyboardability!
  Once in the Hyper search box, I'd like to be able to to select numbers 0-9 to quickly select a search option, or letters A-whatever to select another option (search more, etc.). Heck, while we're at it, why can't I access items within a panel component (e.g., News) with a keyboard shortcut, too? :-) Incidentally, I've suggested the former UI idea to the Gmail team as well; on the pull-down options, why should I have to use my mouse? Why can't they let me type the first letter of an option, e.g., R) Mark as read, S) Add Star and so on? But I digress. 
• Filetype and field shortcut listing, please
  I know I can specify from: and to: and I think there's type, but what other magic things can I modify use to narrow my searches with? Ah, okay, I just noticed some details here, but surely there must be more? Or there should be, I'd hope, for us powergeeks :-). 
• More Outlook friendliness
  When I type Fred Smith in Hyper, one of the ten item listings should be his contact entry if one exists. And I'm still trying to figure out how I can look up a contact specifically (contact: [name] doesn't work). Also, while I like having a search option with Outlook, it's currently rather hobbled since the field listings aren't flexible; noting a set of e-mails are from me doesn't do much good if I can't scan quickly who they're to.

* * *

Okay, enough of my blathering. Now it's your turn!
- Have you tried GD? If so, what did you think? If not, are you going to try it?
- What other desktop search programs have you tried? If you've also used GD, how do you think it compares?
- What would you most like to see added to or improved in GD?
- Got any GD questions?

Oh, and here are some other cool sites talking about this latest GD version:

- Review by Nathan at InsideGoogle
- Search Engine Journal review

EDITS:

• 8/22: Changed references to Google Desktop Search to the correct name of Google Desktop ("GD")