| 11:43 pm on Nov 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hee hee; I'm honored. I haven't had a chance to meet Doc Searls yet, but we've got a copy of Cluetrain in our engineering library. It's good stuff--I highly recommend it. Also interesting to see what he's thinking about other search engine related stuff recently:
Alrighty, my compile is done. Catch y'all later. :)
| 11:59 pm on Nov 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Cluetrain has always been right on the money when it comes to companies speaking with a human voice, specially on the net.
| 4:43 am on Nov 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Nice post Brett...
...snip from Chapter 4 [gonzomarkets.com] under heading of "Networked Markets".
|What’s more, networked markets get smart fast. Metcalfe’s Law*, a famous axiom of the computer industry, states that the value of a network increases as the square of the number of users connected to it -- connections multiply value exponentially. This is also true for conversations on networked markets. In fact, as the network gets larger it also gets smarter. The Cluetrain Corollary: the level of knowledge on a network increases as the square of the number of users times the volume of conversation. So, in market conversations, it is far easier to learn the truth about the products being pumped, about the promises being made, and about the people making those promises. Networked markets are not only smart markets, but they’re also equipped to get much smarter, much faster, than business-as-usual. |
Business-as-usual doesn’t realize this because it continues to conceptualize markets as distant abstractions -- battlefields, targets, demographics -- and the Net as simply another conduit down which companies can broadcast messages. But the Net isn’t a conduit, a pipeline, or another television channel. The Net invites your customers in to talk, to laugh with each other, and to learn from each other. Connected, they reclaim their voice in the market, but this time with more reach and wider influence than ever.
Above shows a big reason why AV is such a small player today. Ignorance is too easy to leave behind with a click on the net...
Thanks for the voice Google, your 'Guy' has done a superb job!
| 4:52 am on Nov 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Alrighty, my compile is done. Catch y'all later. |
Hmm... that means GoogleGuy is a programmer for sure. That and how else would he know what's in the engineering library.
I do work for a 5 person company, and the owner doesn't have a clue what all goodies I've bought with his money :)
| 5:49 am on Nov 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yep, The Cluetrain Manifesto is fun - I've written a review if anyone is interested, and I recently reviewed David Weinberger's latest book, Small Pieces Loosely Joined, as well.
| 9:41 am on Nov 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Hmm... that means GoogleGuy is a programmer for sure. That and how else would he know what's in the engineering library.
Maybe he's the librarian - he does seem to have a lot of time on his hands....
| 10:15 am on Nov 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"What if, instead, the attraction is an
atavistic throwback to the prehistoric human fascination with telling tales?" (from the manifesto intro)
Wow, this is it. I tell the stories and people that didn't even know they were interested in my topic buy books on it. They don't come to my site to buy books but they do in the end. Fascinating.
A huge % of my visitors are return visitors. Perhaps they come for the stories.
| 5:43 pm on Nov 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
People of WebmasterWorld: hello, it's 2002. The Cluetrain Manifesto is so 1999, one of the most vapid, self-congratulatory pieces of garbage I've ever read in my entire life. As Dorothy Parker once wrote of another book, this is not to be dismissed lightly; it should be thrown with great force. The people who read and believed this junk and worked for or invested in the companies that took their vacant words to heart are out of work and out of business.
| 5:47 pm on Nov 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Googles the most 'clued in' big company I've ever seen on the web. It's obvious they took it to heart.
| 7:29 pm on Nov 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yes, and we're all waiting for Google's IPO. So is Kleiner, Perkins [google.com]. The fact that it hasn't happened says volumes.
| 7:39 pm on Nov 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Good find, Brett--I was recommending cluetrain six months ago. :)
Come to think of it, Google is the only company I know of that has cluetrain, Bruce Sterling, and The Shockwave Rider sandwiched between Knuth and our python books. One little-known perk of working at Google: you can order just about any book you need for the company library. :)
| 9:53 pm on Nov 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The cluetrain manifesto is deeply important stuff. The companies that are gone are mostly the ones who didn't read it...or, having read it, didn't understand it...or, having understood it, didn't have the, uh, willpower to implement it.
| 10:51 pm on Nov 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Just curious scareduck. If cluetrain is so 1999 what is 2002?
| 3:00 am on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Just curious scareduck. If cluetrain is so 1999 what is 2002? |
Meaningful content. Actual, not pro forma, profits. In investment terms, Warren Buffet, not Jeff Bezos. Cluetrain is, in the words of John Dvorak [pcmag.com],
|written by a cast of characters who were apparently caught up in the dot-com scene at its peak, [who] managed to capture in one book almost all of the lunatic fringe dingbat thinking that characterized the Internet boom. |
You should all be concerned that Cluetrain is apparently required reading over at the Googleplex, especially if you are one of the many around here who believe that Google exists to feed you free traffic. Those of you claiming that this bilge is "deeply important", please read Dvorak's column, paying particular attention to his apt analogy to the 70's hipster philosophy-cum-cult of est.
| 5:11 am on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
In the discussion Dvorak mentions >>It's just the nutty aspects that annoy me. << I agree there. It's all a bit idealistic and 60s.
But there is a lot of truth as well. The Internet is different. Can you imagine your local bookstore having strips of paper hanging from each book with the opinions of several people written on them? People are drawn to interaction on the Internet, even those who never speak out like to read the opinions of others.
People are also drawn to a more personal and casual way of writing compared to what they will read in a book. Using storytelling in a broad sense there really is a lot of good storytelling done on the Internet.
I guess I see most of what I write as storytelling with good well-researched content much like a pencil and paper writer might research material then present it in an short entertaining fashion.
Content is still king but it's presented in a different way.
| 9:00 am on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
How is Brunner's Shockwave Rider etc. sandwiched between
(K) Knuth and (M) Monty Python
Does the Google library have a new algo? ;)
| 11:08 am on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
scareduck, just because I like cluetrain doesn't mean I don't respect the Oracle of Omaha. Google was paying attention the bottom line when it wasn't cool, and that's served us well. :)
WebManager, I could make up some mumbo-jumbo about cyber(Pu)nk going between (Kn)uth and (Py)thon. Truth is, the library's not huge, so we can use a, shall we say, informal filing system right now. I would point out that it's Python programming language books though, not Monty Python books. :)
| 11:40 am on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
<snip 400 line rant about the dvorak article - on second thought, he's not worth it any more>
The manifesto is anti everything Dvorak ever stood for. It's not the first time we've heard the geritol laced damn it I'm old and the Rogain quit working long ago cries from Dvorak. It's not fitting of a freshman journalism class, let alone worthy of a major magazine article.
(with apologies to anyone living in a trailer), it rates a solid 8 on on the trailer park peanut gallery scale.
| 11:45 am on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
<I would point out that it's Python programming language books though, not Monty Python books.>
Aww - I liked the idea of Monty Python books in the Googleplex reference library... :)
| 12:14 pm on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
> You should all be concerned that Cluetrain is apparently required reading over at the Googleplex, especially if you are one of the many around here who believe that Google exists to feed you free traffic.
Google need eyeballs, and their success in capturing and maintaining their huge usage levels make them (for me) the best source of free traffic. As the people who run Google seem to be pretty good at business, they hopefully will keep their market share (including partners) and I don't have to become a full time PPC manager ( <shudder> ). The more that Google come here and give us a clue about what they need from us, the more chance of a happy coexistence.
> ...not Monty Python books...
Too much to bear?
|"...egg and spam; egg, bacon and spam; egg, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam; spam..." |
© Python (Monty) Pictures Ltd
<edit spelling typo>
[edited by: ciml at 2:01 pm (utc) on Nov. 9, 2002]
| 12:23 pm on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
ref: Monty Python
Search for Cheese: 0 results of 0 for Cheese
| 3:17 pm on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have Mein Kampf in my library, along with the Bible, the Koran and the Communist Manifesto.
In my video collection, amongst others, I have "Flesh Gordon" (very amusing)
Does this make me a Nazi, Christian, Muslim, Communist porn lover?
I've just chosen to read / view them.
Seems a bit harsh that conspiracy theories are read into Google's eclectic library!
| 3:29 pm on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|The manifesto is anti everything Dvorak ever stood for. It's not the first time we've heard the geritol laced damn it I old and the Rogain quit working long ago cries from Dvorak. It's not fitting of a freshman journalism class, let alone worthy of a major magazine article. |
On the contrary -- he takes on Cluetrain with verve and without resting his entire argument on ad hominems. Are markets people? Conversations? What are they? Who knows -- the authors certainly can't seem to make up their minds. And that's just the beginning. Cluetrain is self-important nonsense from <edit> people </edit> who haven't managed a large corporation (or substantially grown a small one) to profitability a day in their lives. Just because you can build a decent website doesn't make you a Rockefeller.
So where, then is content? There isn't any, but that's not the point. Self-promotion is. Some of us have observed an unlearning process [finance.yahoo.com] in the public markets regarding exactly this sort of style-over-substance thinking, yet the false messiah business seems hot as ever. Given the wreckage [f---edcompany.com] left behind by equally talented individuals with plenty o' cash to burn, why is there anyone left who believes in this cult?
Googleguy -- you say that
|Google was paying attention the bottom line when it wasn't cool |
to which I would respond -- they show you the books? And how would you know if you were being lied to even if they do?
[edited by: NFFC at 3:40 pm (utc) on Nov. 9, 2002]
[edit reason] Rudeness removed, lets keep this polite please [/edit]
| 3:34 pm on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
the trouble is that when you use terms like
*unlearning process* - your Net babble becomes almost as contentious as the alleged Net babble you are complaining about!
An end to all babble - I suggest!
(and perhaps to this thread!?)
| 4:44 pm on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"Net babble"? How, exactly, is "unlearning process" unclear when it comes to two years of a declining, tech-heavy NASDAQ, and, in the case of IPO markets, one as dead as P. T. Barnum? Hardly cant, me bucko.
[edited by: NFFC at 5:10 pm (utc) on Nov. 9, 2002]
[edit reason] See stickymail [/edit]
| 4:54 pm on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
(with apologies to anyone living in a trailer)
Apology accepted Brett. ;)
Anne, who lives in a 28 foot 5th wheel trailer in a lovely pine tree filled RV park in Washington state.
PS this has been a fun thread and made me go out and read a lot on both sides. But I agree it's probably pretty much talked out by now.
| 4:58 pm on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
WebManager's comment about having Mein Kampf in his library not making him a Nazi is well-taken, and I was indeed over-zealous in my description of Cluetrain as "required reading"; there's no evidence to support such an assertion. Nonetheless, the fact that it seems to still get such glowing approval is worrisome. The "you don't get it" aspect of the book is interesting because to me, the burden of communication always falls on the transmitter. Summarily dismissing those who fail to understand is a sure sign that their "conversations" are failing -- at their end.
| 5:32 pm on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Scareduck - I agree more with your last post - thoughtful.
| 6:12 pm on Nov 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
There really is "nothing new under the sun"
Dennis Hopper sells Lincolns.
| This 50 message thread spans 2 pages: 50 (  2 ) > > |