Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

August 22 2012

18:52

Bing surfaces content from Quora

Quora Blog :: A few months ago, Bing introduced a social sidebar that allows its users to connect with relevant friends and experts all within Bing. They've worked with numerous sites to better surface new categories of useful information. Today, Quora content will be surfaced in this sidebar to all Bing users in the U.S. helping them find relevant Quora content in an easy way without scrolling through pages of search results. We're excited to see Bing evolve their social search experience and offer more distribution to Quora writers.

A report by Sandra Liu Huang, www.quora.com

HT: Frederic Lardinois, TechCrunch

Tags: Quora

August 20 2012

18:48

Quora makes its content more quotable with embedded threads

GigaOM :: Inspired by embedded tweets and Kindle highlights, Quora will now let you embed your favorite questions and answers across the web.

A review by Eliza Kern, gigaom.com

Tags: Kindle Quora

August 01 2012

20:30

Om Malik: Thanks to Quora, now you can’t read anonymously

Om Malik :: Quora launched a new feature that essentially takes away the option of reading anonymously (unless you opt-out) on its platform. This is part of the growing trend of passive sharing involving what one is reading on the web. And it’s not necessarily a good thing.

An opinion piece by Om Malik, gigaom.com

Tags: Quora
18:33

Quora launches ‘views’ to show you exactly who is reading your posts

TechCrunch :: You may have noticed recently that Quora has increasingly required you to log in to see the full breadth of the site’s question-and-answer content. Today, it’s rolling out a new feature that shares some of the data it collects from those signed-in users: Quora ‘Views, site analytics that show you just how many people have read your Quora questions, answers, or posts.

A report by Colleen Taylor, techcrunch.com

Tags: Quora

April 22 2012

09:16

Quora is raising at a $400m valuation

TechCrunch :: Quora is raising money according to the multiple people in the past week who have told me that Quora is raising money. From what I’ve heard, the startup wants to raise between $30 to $50 million in its Series B, at a $400 million valuation — an amount which strangely enough seems modest in light of the billion dollar rounds being thrown about willy nilly.

Continue to read Alexia Tsotsis, techcrunch.com

Tags: Quora

July 19 2011

14:30

Tackable, BANG collaborate on a location-based digital newspaper

Ever since he was a beat reporter at the Palo Alto Daily News and the Contra Costa Times, Luke Stangel has been thinking about how to improve finding and consuming news by adding more specific location data to news content.

Last year, he co-founded (with Ed Lucero) a company called Tackable to develop his ideas, and in February, we described here Tackable’s first product: a pair of iPhone apps that Tackable envisions as the basis for a social network that “organizes media on a map.”

Now Tackable has rolled out, in partnership with the newspapers of the Bay Area News Group, something much more complex and ambitious: an iPad app called TapIn BayArea, which Stangel describes as “the world’s first location-aware digital newspaper.” TapIn, at launch, is already an impressive, sophisticated product that shows potential to evolve in multiple ways. And its ability to engage users at various levels bodes well for its capacity to generate revenue.

The collaboration with BANG, the San-Francisco area cluster of the California Newspaper Partnership led by MediaNews Group, includes incubation space for the Tackable crew at the San Jose Mercury News. Jeff Herr, CNP’s VP/Digital, describes it as a “strategic partnership, with both partners sharing costs and both having a stake in the potential outcomes, which include expanding the product to other units of MediaNews Group and beyond.

TapIn is the first product that aims for a space envisioned by Ken Doctor here in his recent Lab post, “The Newsonomics of the Swift Street Courtyard,” in which he asked, “Imagine a world in which consumers can move their finger around a magic tablet surface, watching, listening, reading reviews and more?” TapIn may not completely fulfill Doctor’s vision, but it’s aiming to go there. After the launch, Doctor wrote on his blog: ” Potentially — and I cannot emphasize that word too much — it may become a prototypical product for the news industry, pointing a new way out of the hollowing-out landscape into which the news industry has meandered.”

Checking the reviews

During the Lab’s summer hiatus last week, a number of good descriptions of TapIn’s functionality were posted elsewhere, and rather than reinvent the wheel I’ll give you those links and move on to my impressions of where TapIn could be headed:

Not every user is going to be thrilled with the map as the basic navigational interface. The idea that men navigate with cardinal directions, while women navigate by landmarks, has scientific backing and implications for hardware and software design. Is it possible that some people (not necessarily women) will resist the map-based UI? Stangel says, “That was one of the things that came up in our focus groups. The ultimate goal is to produce a product that delights.” To that end, users can choose to access data via one of several views, with or without maps, including OnTap, a mix of the top six things that TapIn thinks you’re going to like. “We’re finding that people are clicking on OnTap a lot,” says Stangel. Right now, OnTap’s content is ranked mainly according to human editorial judgments, but eventually, the rankings will also be influenced by the crowd — frequently-shared material will bubble up — and by user customization in which users list preferences to get more personalized content. (“I want pizza but not Italian restaurants,” or “I like this sports team but not that one.”)

Down the road, Stangel has visions for upgrades ranging from version 1.1 all the way to 2.0. The ultimate goal, he says, is “a product that delights,” and the envisioned upgrades will aim for improvements in localization, personalization and customization, for all of which Stangel offers intriguing possibilities.

For example, TapIn is likely to accumulate many more optional layers of information organized on maps, which users will toggle on and off at will. In fact, Tackable plans to provide an API later this year so that third-party developers can add such layers — essentially apps within the app — catering to niche interests. Some of these layers could begin to appear in the next version, says Stangel, who paints a picture of layers focused on real estate, classifieds, sports scores, crime reports, and user interests like wine or gardening, all location-specific, all capable of generating topical conversations. (Herr also suggests fishing conditions as a map layer; and I can imagine more esoteric-interest layers like spelunking and underground urban exploration.)

To me, this potential multi-dimensional, data-rich, customizable environment is the flip side of concerns about comfort levels with the map interface. There is simply too much mappable news and information out there not to try this.

Leaving user input fuzzy

TapIn’s social layer is based on Gigs, a feature borrowed from the original Tackable phone app. Deliberately non-specific, Gigs simply allows users to place a red pin on the map and attach a post of some kind. This could be a restaurant recommendation or comment, but most intriguingly, it could be a question — “I’m here and have an hour to kill, anything cool to do nearby?” or “Does anybody know why traffic on this road is tied up?” or “What’s the story behind this interesting-looking building,” or “Can someone recommend a plumber who will come out here on a weekend?” “Post what you need and see who can deliver,” Herr says. “[We're] definitely just nibbling at the edges of a new marketplace like that.”

Indeed. I’m often struck by how quickly location-specific questions like, How do I kill 6 hours at the Denver airport are answered on Q&A sites like Ask Metafilter (and, not quite so quickly yet, on Quora). With local critical mass (how large?) the quality of such answers could be even better and faster on TapIn.

Stangel says Gigs was left “intentionally nebulous. We don’t put a lot of rules on what you ask for. You type in what you’re interested it. it could be a request for a photo. It could be simply, I saw something here and want to leave this digital beacon here to tell people about it.” The Gig pin and its associated content disappear after 24 hours — this is a pure real-time feature. People are starting to use it, and Tackable is watching to see how. “Our goal has been to create a robust community of people who live in a particular region and to give them the tools to really easily talk to one another, to ask one another questions, with the idea that they think and share local knowledge,” Stangel says.

In the course of the week since the app went public (on July 12), Stangel says downloads have been picking up exponentially, pushed along by Twitter talk, as well as by stories and promotions in the BANG papers. People are actively using the app and sharing links through it, Stangel says.

Where the money comes from

Herr spoke and emailed with me about the business side of TapIn. The principal revenue stream, of course, is expected to be advertising. “Geo-awareness just drives everything here,” he says. The tablet enables more elegant and engaging ads than prior websites, and Herr aims to use those capabilities. “We hand-selected some of the brightest advertisers in our markets because we need them to help us model out the ideal formulation.”

Clearly, additional revenue streams are possible down the road as well — for example, commissions on ticket sales generated through the app. An expansion of TapIn to the CNP’s southern California group, Los Angeles Newspaper Group (LANG), and to MediaNews’ Denver Post seems likely if the current rollout takes off with users and advertisers.

“From the start we looked for ways to engage people through game mechanics.”

One revenue stream will come from $4.99 per month user subscriptions (which kick in after a free introductory period during the summer), but a unique feature of Tapin is that active users can easily earn back the cost — and more — by earning credits for clicking on ads, sharing content or other forms of engagement. It’s an idea that might well be considered by other publications that have put up paywalls — just as electric meters can run backwards when homeowners install solar panels, engaged users could earn back their subscription fees by doing what you want them to do. (In the print world, many readers will tell you that the main reason they buy a Sunday paper is that they save more than the cost of the paper just by using some of the manufacturers’ coupons.)

Stangel says that what the team is calling the “earnout” feature came out of the CNP side of the collaboration. Every user action on a web site or app has a value — the user doesn’t know what it is; there’s no visible counter. But the site operator, the newspaper in this case, does. The team realized that “there could be a way for us to quantify the actions that people take on the app to essentially hold on to some of that value and trade it in for other things they find of value on the app,” Stangel says. Currently, they can do that at a store on the TapIn website that offers TapIn gear and merchant gift cards; eventually, this will happen within the app itself with a richer mix of offerings.

Here, too, I believe TapIn is potentially hitting a nerve and turning it to its advantage. As illustrated most recently by the Netflix pricing kerfuffle, whether it’s the slow economy or simply consumer fatique, people are reaching the limits of their willingness to spend more on digital services and content. So, especially when an app is clearly earning money from advertisers targeting me, why not give me a chance to reverse the meter by earning back my costs (and more) when I respond to the ads or engage my friends in the app?

All of this highlights the game-like aspects of TapIn. Herr points out, “From the start we looked for ways to engage people through game mechanics. We found in Tackable a perfect partner given their heritage in the gaming industry. They all worked in leading game-development shops on impressive game projects. I mean, they figured out how to coax couch potatoes up on their feet to jam on air guitars all night long!”

Soon after the introduction of the iPad, I posted here a set of iPad strategies for publishers. There is also a somewhat expanded version on my own blog. In the latter, I urged publishers to recognize that mobile will be ubiquitous; that content needed to be created and formatted specifically with the tablet’s capabilities in mind; to make everything personalized, customized and social; to forget about trying to emulate print with “issues” and “editions” on the tablet and recognize the atomization of content and the native capabilities of the new device; and to find new ways for merchants and brands to interact with consumers.

To me, TapIn hits the bulls-eye of those strategies. I’ll go a little further out on the limb than Ken Doctor’s “potentially” and say that TapIn is, in fact, the prototype (although certainly not the last word) for an innovative new class of apps and sites that can bring news publishers engagement with a brand new generation of consumers.

March 10 2011

17:00

“Journalists have lost control of the story”: Twitter, tech bubbles, and the nostalgia of the technology press

Editor’s Note: I’m very happy to welcome Tim Carmody — who you may know from Snarkmarket, kottke.org, Wired.com, Twitter, or elsewhere — as a contributor to the Lab. Here he looks at how the increasing speed of media opens us to manipulation — and false nostalgia.

There’s nothing new about speculation bubbles, especially in the technology industry. It’s nearly impossible to be certain which new ideas or products will be able to do what they’re supposed to be able to — let alone whether they’ll be able to do so at cost or scale, if they’ll be adopted by the market, or if a competitor will get there first and better. And when everything’s happening quickly and everything seems exciting, it’s nearly impossible to tell a bubble from a real boom.

The only sure strategy for an investor or inventor is to get in early, push the company as hard as you can to attract attention and investment, and try to sell high, neither too late or too soon. When the economics of money and attention move too far past the economics of the underlying value, you get a bubble. When the money and attention slow, then stop, then rush in the opposite direction, the bubble bursts. The boom is over, if it ever existed at all.

There’s also nothing new about the press’s role in helping to inflate bubbles, worrying over them, and watching them burst. What is new, according to Federated Media’s John Battelle and Thomson Reuters’ Connie Loizos, is how the accelerated news cycle of blogs, Twitter, and other digital media forces the technology press to work at the same speed as the investors they cover — with the same worries about getting in early and beating competitors trumping the real value of the product. In this case, though, the product is their own journalism.

“For several years now,” writes Loizos, “savvy investors have been effectively gaming Twitter and mastering the ability to trumpet their investments in 140-word sound bites.” The credibility (in both senses) of the technology press, when mixed with Twitter’s easy ability to quickly pass on information without comment, gives those trumpet bursts an amplifier. “Journalists have lost control of the story. In rushing to retweet the latest auction results from SharesPost, we’re not thinking about what we’re writing or questioning what we’ve been told.”

Loizos elaborated on her argument in an email. “Thanks to Twitter and, to a lesser extent, other social media like Quora, information about startups and financings has become much more porous,” spreading good and bad information equally quickly, and in volume. “The first story out wins. For example, that first ‘scoop’ is what gets the most real estate by powerful aggregators like Techmeme, while every other story gets scuttled underneath it.” It also changes the relationship between a reporter’s sources and her audience. “[Now] we’re not just competing against one another as journalists but also against savvy investors and entrepreneurs who know they can reach just as broad an audience by delivering their news themselves via Twitter and their blogs.”

Loizos is a veteran of the last tech valuation boom and bust, reporting for the first-generation tech magazine The Industry Standard, founded by Battelle. Battelle’s Federated Media has since gone on to partner with a who’s who of current tech culture and business sites, from Boing Boing and TechCrunch to Business Insider and GigaOm. He sees a problem too, possibly bigger than VCs driving their investments.

The real bubble, or at least the more troubling one, is the “Internet interest bubble.” Here the press is not peripheral but central to the story.

In the new media landscape, “we have migrated to a more free-wheeling discourse driven by any number of interested parties,” Battelle writes. In addition to investors, we see “bankers trying to influence any number of outcomes, and sources within all manners of companies pushing their own agenda on Twitter, Quora, or in private conversations with bloggers and other media outlets…The tweets, conference utterances, and blog posts of these sources are instantly turned into ‘news stories’ by the post-cambrian publishing explosion of sites covering the narrative that was once the province of first-generation Internet magazines” like Battelle’s Standard.

Churnalism, in other words, is a much bigger problem than just press releases and wire stories. It’s everywhere — and creating an echo chamber unprecedented in its size and reach.

“Millions upon millions of people visit these tech news sites, because the narrative they chronicle is more important than it’s ever been,” Battelle writes. “Our industry impacts a huge swatch of society and culture, and increasingly is understood to be the core driver of pretty much all of business today.” And apart from contributing to a tech bubble, Battelle and Loizos think that the echo chamber crowds out better analysis and better stories in our news sources:

But where’s the bigger picture? Where’s the hold-on-a-minute-let’s-think-this-through-and make-a-few-phone-calls-and-see-how-it-develops approach? Where’s the conceptual scoop? The second-day (or even second week) analysis?

“There are stories about healthcare startups that are transforming lives that no one is reading,” Loizos told me. “I think behind-the-scenes profiles of employees who truly make Valley companies valuable are fascinating, but people don’t make time to write them because there’s still this unquenchable thirst for the same stories being written again and again: about the hottest new startup, the hottest new venture capital firm, the hottest new valuation, the hottest new application.” There’s also the comfort of the familiar: “in the tech universe, people could read about Twitter and Facebook” — or Apple and Google, etc. — “all day long and journalists — saddled with driving eyeballs — are giving them what they want.”

“It’s an exciting time, but it’s also pretty screwed up,” she adds.

Both Loizos and Battelle show some nostalgia for the tech coverage produced by magazines like the Standard in the 1990s — partly for the quality of the reporting or at least the relative sanity of print’s slower pace. But Owen Youngman, Knight Professor of Digital Media Strategy at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, is skeptical that things were any better a decade ago.

“In my memory,” Youngman told Loizos, “a lot of glossy magazines back then were by and for the same people that are running up valuations today, and they could make even the wispiest of ideas seemed substantial.” In an email, he added that “the nostalgia is more about the former number of high-gloss, high-profile, high-paying outlets for tech journalism, not necessarily for the journalism itself.”

In a recent article for The Atlantic, James Fallows voices a similar skepticism about our ability to accurately measure journalism’s present against its past.

“When I recently talked to people in the news business, historians, political scientists, and others about the current predicament of the news, every previous era looks innocent,” Fallows writes. Flux in journalism isn’t the exception, but the rule; and what seem to us like venerable staples like Time, Nightline, or NPR are both younger and were more radical than we typically remember. Ultimately, even that is the wrong question: “While it’s interesting and even useful to know whether today’s journalism marks a descent from past standards, what matters more is how it suits today’s needs.”

At the same time, even VCs themselves are balking at the speed of the market and how social media are disrupting their own practices. AngelList plays a similar role for investors and entrepreneurs that TechMeme plays for journalists and readers, using aggregation, filtering, and social media to manage the flow of information and create new opportunities for both. In “Why I Deleted My AngelList Account,” influential VC Bryce Roberts detailed how this approach conflicted with his own investment strategy and style:

At the earliest stages, it’s nearly impossible to pick the next Google so throw a lot of darts in the dark and hope you hit it. That high velocity, light touch style is certainly a viable approach to investing. It’s just not my style.

I tend towards a more concentrated approach to seed investing where we make fewer, larger, investments and take an active role in working with the companies we fund. Frankly, I just don’t buy the notion that making an investment is akin to throwing a dart in the dark. Worse, I think it’s a dangerous idea to promote…

Real or perceived, organic or manufactured, AngelList is in the business of generating heat. As I’ve said here and elsewhere, I tend to be interested in ideas and companies that most investors aren’t, so heat is generally a false signal for me.

Johnson’s post quickly drew a sharp response from Internet entrepreneur/provocateur Jason Calacanis. “Let’s be honest and just say what’s happening here: you’re pissed that you now have hundreds of angels swarming on deals that you used to be able to snap up at half the price…There are now *hundreds* of qualified and unqualified angels who are driven by sport and not return! They are betting with their own money — not some LP’s” — limited partners who invest in a venture capitalist’s aggregated fund rather than make individual investments — “and [they're] more excited by private companies than 4% muni bonds.”

The language is very different, but it’s not dissimilar to Youngman’s critique of journalistic nostalgia — or for that matter, Nick Denton’s defense of Gawker’s approach to web journalism to Fallows. People want what they want — and what they want is low-opportunity-cost fun. Nobody wants “to eat their vegetables,” to use Denton’s phrase for high-substance, high-prestige investigative journalism. These outlets need the support of institutions or nonprofits, not advertising and eyeballs alone.

It’s clear that both technology companies and technology journalism are on the cusp of something. Whether it’s a bubble or a boom, we can’t know. In the meantime, we have all of the problems of indeterminacy: practices and standards held over from an earlier period jostling against emerging conventions which offer something new.

Blogs and social media offer both entrepreneurs and journalists new modes of engagement with each other and a different kind of conversation with their readers. At the same time, the demands of traditional news formats can actually push us into stories that privilege new forms of manipulation. Reporters seeking a news peg for an analysis-driven story about a popular company can find quotes from blogs, Twitter, or Quora as easily as they can from a company’s press release, putting the same texts and voices into circulation.

Finally, news outlets have to recognize that a big part of their readership is driven by popular speculation, particularly if their coverage focuses on hot startups, big IPOs, and new deals. If a valuation bubble bursts, those eyeballs vanish too. Investing in deep analysis, conceptual scoops, alternative content, experimental storytelling — and the reporters who can produce those stories — is a terrific hedge against that dangerous future.

January 14 2011

15:30

This Week in Review: Real-time reporting errors in Tucson, Twitter’s WikiLeaks stand, and Quora arrives

Every Friday, Mark Coddington sums up the week’s top stories about the future of news.

Managing reporting errors in the river of news: Though Saturday’s tragic shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was primarily a political story, it created several ripples that quickly spread into the media world. (One of those was the debate over our rather toxic climate of political rhetoric, though I’ll leave that to other outlets to focus on.) Another issue, more directly related to the future-of-news discussion, regarded how the news spread in the shooting’s immediate aftermath.

As Lost Remote’s Steve Safran described, several major news organizations, including Reuters, NPR, BBC News, and CNN, wrongly reported soon after the shooting that Giffords had died — reports that were corrected within a half-hour. NPR in particular devoted quite a bit of space to explaining its error, with social media editor Andy Carvin, ombudsman Alicia Shepard, and executive editor Dick Meyer all weighing in.

There was plenty of scrutiny from outside, too: Poynter’s Mallary Jean Tenore called the mishap “understandable, but not excusable,” and The Next Web’s Chad Catacchio suggested that Twitter use editorial judgment to ensure that inaccurate information isn’t highlighted in its Top Tweets. Salon’s Dan Gillmor cited the situation as a reminder of Clay Shirky’s line that “fact checking is down, but after-the-fact checking is way up.” Gillmor also posted an appropriate excerpt from his book, Mediactive, urging all of us to take a “slow news” approach to breaking news stories. Seattle TV journalist Paul Balcerak took the opportunity to remind both journalists and their audiences to ask “How do you know that?”

The erroneous tweets launched a parallel discussion on just what exactly to do with them: Leave them there? Delete them? Correct them? The debate began in the comments of Safran’s Lost Remote post, with NPR’s Carvin explaining why he left his faulty tweet as is. WBUR’s Andrew Phelps explained why he made the same decision, and ex-Saloner Scott Rosenberg defended both of them in two posts, suggesting a corrected retweet might offer a good compromise.

A couple of other new-media angles to the shooting’s coverage: The Lab’s Justin Ellis and Lost Remote’s Cory Bergman looked at the awkward art of publicly making interview requests on Twitter, and Nieman Storyboard highlighted innovative storytelling approaches amid the shooting’s chaotic aftermath.

Twitter’s stand against secrecy: The ongoing WikiLeaks saga publicly roped in Twitter this week, as news broke of the U.S. Department of Justice issuing an order requesting the Twitter activity of several people involved with the organization. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, who posted many of the order’s details and a copy of the order itself, also wondered, “did other Internet and social network companies (Google, Facebook, etc.) receive similar Orders and then quietly comply?”

Remarkably, Twitter didn’t just quietly comply. The order originally had a gag order preventing Twitter from telling the targets themselves that it was handing over their data, but Twitter challenged it in court and got a new, unsealed order issued, then told the targets about it. Fast Company looked at the likely role of Twitter’s attorney, Alexander Macgillivray, in challenging the order, and Wired’s Ryan Singel praised Twitter for standing up for its users against government, something that hasn’t really been a norm among online companies.

Mashable’s Vadim Lavrusik examined the potential implications of the order for journalists doing reporting on Twitter and other social media platforms, and Mathew Ingram of GigaOM noted that the episode illustrates how much we rely on single corporate networks within social media.

The traditional news media, meanwhile, remains lukewarm at best toward WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, as McClatchy pointed out. At The Columbia Journalism Review, Craig Silverman broke down one manifestation of that cold shoulder — the way mainstream news organizations continue to incorrectly report that WikiLeaks has released hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables, when it has actually released just 2,000.

Also on the WikiLeaks front, Assange claimed in an interview to have “insurance” files on Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp., and WikiLeaks attacked those who have called for Assange to be hunted down or killed. American WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Applebaum tweeted about his being detained by the U.S. while re-entering the country, and was profiled by Rolling Stone. And Evgeny Morozov of Foreign Policy argued that WikiLeaks’ cause would be best served if it would shift from leaking information to building a decentralized, open Internet infrastructure.

Quora hits the scene: The explosion of the question-and-answer site Quora is a story that’s been building for several weeks, but I thought now would be as good a time as any to get you up to speed on it. The buzz started just after Christmas, when tech guru Robert Scoble wondered whether it could be the next evolution of blogging. MG Siegler of the influential tech blog TechCrunch followed up by saying much the same thing, and talked about using Quora as inspiration for many of his TechCrunch posts. That week, it also received praise from Google’s head of user interaction, Irene Au.

That was the nudge Quora needed to begin some seriously explosive growth, doubling its number of signups twice in about two weeks. Quora, which was founded in 2009 by two Facebook veterans, is a fairly simple site — just questions and answers, not unlike Yahoo Answers and Facebook Questions. But it’s managed to keep the quality of questions and answers up, and it’s attracted a smart user base heavy on the “cool kids” of the tech world.

The next question, though, was how this rapid growth would shape Quora. The Telegraph’s Milo Yiannopoulos predicted that it would get bigger than Twitter, though Vadim Lavrusik of Mashable saw it as more suited to niche communities: “Quora feels heavy, which is of course where it excels, providing in-depth commentary to questions. But that heaviness is unlikely to attract a large audience.”

Mathew Ingram of GigaOM questioned whether Quora will be able to maintain its standard of quality as it grows, and Mary Hamilton wrote about Quora’s struggles between what its admins want and what its user want. Meanwhile, Journalism.co.uk’s Kristine Lowe noted that more journalism-related questions were being posted, Poynter’s Mallary Jean Tenore explored several of the best ways for journalists to use Quora, including looking for ideas for local content and monitoring the buzz around an issue.

Reading roundup: I haven’t given you any iPad updates yet, so you know this review can’t quite be finished. Very well then:

— We’re still talking about the decline of magazine app sales on the iPad, with The Guardian’s Jemima Kiss looking at that disappointment and some publishers’ efforts to overcome it. Advertising Age’s Simon Dumenco called those sales declines meaningless, but designer Khoi Vinh urged those publishers to stop pouring their resources into print-like tablet products.

The particular project that everyone’s most interested in is Rupert Murdoch’s The Daily, which was reported to be launching next Wednesday with Murdoch and Steve Jobs on stage together but now has reportedly tabled its launch for a few weeks. Rex Sorgatz heard that its companion website will have no homepage and be hidden from search engines, and Poynter’s Damon Kiesow took a peek at the site’s source code for clues.

— Wikipedia will turn 10 this weekend, and Pew kicked off the commemoration with a survey finding that 42% of American adults use Wikipedia to look up information. Mathew Ingram of GigaOM explained how Wikipedia set the prototype for modern information flow on the web.

— Facebook announced this week that it will allow users to like individual authors and topics within sites. ReadWriteWeb’s Marshall Kirkpatrick said it’s a step toward Facebook being able to do what RSS feeds couldn’t. Meanwhile, the Bivings Group looked at the top newspaper Facebook fan pages.

— One great piece I missed last week: Paul Ford conceptualized the web as a customer service medium, organized around the central question, “Why wasn’t I consulted?” Ryan Sholin applied the concept to online reporting.

— If you’re interested in real-time editing and curation, this might be an experiment to watch: Quickish, launched this week by former ESPN-er Dan Shanoff, who is starting by applying that concept to sports commentary and hoping to expand to other areas.

— Finally, three bigger pieces to ponder over the weekend: Dan Gillmor’s book excerpt at Salon on surviving the tsunami of information; Forbes’ Lewis DVorkin’s vision for the news site built on personally branded journalists; and the Lab’s Ken Doctor on the metrics that will define news in 2011.

January 10 2011

20:42

January 14 2010

19:22

Q&A 2.0: There's More Than One Way to Answer a Question

Since ReportingOn launched with a new Question & Answer format in July 2009, a few new entries in what I'll call the Q&A 2.0 space have popped up and grown their base of users. Here's a look at three Q&A 2.0 applications with wide appeal.

Aardvark

aardvark_idealab_011310.png

Aardvark allows users to ask questions via instant message, the website, Twitter, and an iPhone app, among other ways. I've used IM for the most part, answering questions about Twitter, iPhone apps, and journalism from time to time, while fending off questions about SEO, and using my favorite Aardvark feature to refer questions to friends.

Here's Aardvark's record of my question about a theoretically sustainable alternative to hardwood flooring, bamboo.

What you won't see on that page are the multiple ways I interacted with Aardvark along the way.

I submitted my question via the website, received the first answer via IM, and spotted the second answer as a push notification on my iPhone before reading it in the app. (My phone just buzzed again with another push notification as I typed that last sentence.)

Aardvark ranks high on the social scale: I'm getting real human answers from real humans with real experience buying, installing, and maintaining bamboo flooring -- and I'm getting the answers via any and all communication channels.

Hunch

Hunch is a different beast. Not content to simply act as a referral service to find someone who knows the answer to my question, Hunch aspires to answer my question by asking me about myself. About my personality. About my hopes and dreams.

Hunch is getting to know me so it can tell me what to do.

But not in a creepy way.

And if Hunch seems friendly, that could be thanks to co-founder Caterina Fake, who you might remember as one of the founders of the rather personable photo sharing network, Flickr.

In a blog post last year, Fake called Hunch a "decision-making site." It's not a place for questions and answers, but a place to climb "decision trees" that ask you the questions in order to determine what your best path of action would be, given the conditions you describe in your answers.

"In addition to helping you climb the decision tree, Hunch asks you a bunch of questions about yourself to find out more about what you're like and what you like. Hunch creates a kind of "taste profile" of you and people like you, which combine with topic-specific questions to deliver a hunch just for you."

So I gave it a shot. A search for "bamboo flooring" lead to the Hunch page for "What type of flooring should I choose?" OK, fair enough.

Next, the system walked me through a series of questions. Pets? Ground level? High traffic area? (For a moment, I felt like a kid home sick from school watching daytime television and its parade of household cleaning product commercials.)

hunch_idealab_011310.png

Eventually the possible flooring options were ranked based on my answers. Apparently, I want laminate, bamboo, or tile. So says Hunch.

Quora

Quora is a bit more conventional. Fire up your browser, visit the URL, and ask or answer questions. But it's well-designed, easy to use, and blazingly fast. When I say fast, I mean the whole site feels fast in the browser. Dig around, and you'll find Quora engineers answering questions like "Why is Quora so fast?" But there's another decision the builders of Quora have made to speed things along. They've removed some of the friction of average social sites, making the assumption that once you've logged in with Facebook Connect, for example, you want to automatically follow all your Facebook friends who are already on Quora. Instantly.

quora_idealab_011310.png

Quora feels like a solid piece of software, but the community seems to be heavily weighted toward Silicon Valley entrepreneurial questions at the moment, although I did manage to find one in the "journalism" category that I could answer.

(Quora is invite-only right now. I have 10 I'll happily give away if you're interested. Thanks to Andrew Gritt for getting me in to have a look around.)

What We Can Learn From Q&A 2.0

As we build question-and-answer applications geared toward solving civic problems in our communities, we can pick up a few tricks from these entries into the Q&A 2.0 space.

  • From Aardvark, we learn the value of reaching people wherever they are, however they consume and communicate information. Push notification on my iPhone during my commute home? Sure, I consume information that way.
  • From Hunch, we learn that if we hand a person a multiple choice quiz, we can record the results and let our algorithm learn something about them to bring to the table when they ask their next question.
  • From Quora, we learn the value of frictionless real-time interfaces. Don't assume your application has to follow patterns generated by its predecessors. You're building next year's tools, not last year's.

So. Any questions? How about answers?

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl