Showing posts with label wrong. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wrong. Show all posts

Friday, March 25, 2011

Why I was wrong about Quora as a blogging service …

I must apologize to Dave Winer. He warned me about supporting services that aren’t the open web and I wasn’t willing to listen to him a month ago, because I was infatuated with a cool new service that lots of insiders were supporting.

I’ve seen a LOT of discussion about Quora in the past few weeks since I wrote it could be the biggest blogging innovation in the past decade. GigaOm even wrote a post asking whether it was worth the more than $80 million the investors are hoping it’s worth.

Turns out I was totally wrong. It’s a horrid service for blogging, where you want to put some personality into answers. It’s just fine for a QA site, but we already have lots of those and, in fact, the competitors in this space are starting to react. Mahalo just released a new version that has been getting lots of praise and at DLD I met the CEO of Answers.com and he said to expect a major update from his service (which has 1000x more users). Stack Exchange is growing faster than Quora and has many many times more questions and answers, plus I’ve found the answers are broader in reach, and deeper in quality (especially for programmers).

Even worse, I’m getting dozens of emails from people pissed that their questions have been changed, their answers marked “not helpful,” or that they got kicked off the service altogether. Admittedly one of the things I really love about the service is there is very little, if any, spam and everyone is forced to use their real name, but lots of people want to talk about their business or not use their real names. Mashable, for instance, has the most followers on the service but they’ve been banned because brands aren’t allowed on Quora. Funny that some people with obviously fake names haven’t been deleted yet, though.

These are all things that are allowed on blogs, even welcomed, and no one can downvote my blogs here.

Why?

Because if you gather a group that doesn’t like you, or your writings, for some reason, you can get voted down, which effectively makes your answer disappear. See this post, for instance. As of right now my answer is voted down, even though it got 33 upvotes and lots of “great post” comments on Twitter and under the post itself. In fact, no one explained why the post got downvoted in the comments — which means that people who leave answers are left scratching their heads wondering “what did I do wrong?” Most just leave the system, not to return.

So, does this matter to the long term relevance of the system? Yes.

I’m watching hundreds of topics and not seeing the influx of new users and new questions that this service needs to become worth $100 million so that investors will make out.

It is a fun place to see answers by Steve Case and other technology insiders, but it just isn’t an interesting place to participate and until Quora fixes this moderation problem, and puts very clear answers onto why something was downvoted, it just isn’t the kind of place that I can recommend supporting.

Sorry, Dave, you were right and I was wrong.

UPDATE: How would I fix this? Turns out the question could have been collapsed by a reviewer (who isn’t paid by Quora, but given “special powers”). To fix this problem the reviewer’s name should be included on the collapsed answer, along with the reason why it was collapsed. There also should be a way to contest/appeal the downvote. Either way, whenever a question gets collapsed it should be very clear why, who did it, and what process the answerer can go through to change the answer to respond to the criticism, and get it upvoted again.


View the original article here

Friday, February 18, 2011

I was wrong about Facebook’s valuation. Way wrong. Lee Lorenzen was right. Way right.

Back on October 11, 2007, I wrote that Lee Lorenzen was nuts. Back then he said that Facebook was worth $100 billion. He’s getting more and more right every day and I’m getting more and more wrong. Especially after Goldman Sachs just kicked in $500 million and valued the company at $50 billion.

I told Zuckerberg to sell at a $15 billion valuation. Why? I had watched other companies, like PointCast, turn down offers to sell and face doom. But, Zuckerberg and Lorenzen had real vision and I didn’t.

Ahh, always fun looking back at history and seeing just how wrong I was.

So, where do I buy some stock for the IPO? Let’s see, if every user of Facebook buys $100 worth, that’d be a $600 billion valuation at IPO. Can I get in before that happens? :-)


View the original article here

Monday, December 27, 2010

‘Guinea Pigs’ Trailer – Drug Trials Gone Horribly Wrong

Guinea Pigs movie trailer directed by Ian Clark

We will do anything when we are younger to scrape together a few dollars to go see a movie or buy our favorite comic book – paper route, bottle recycling, lawn mowing. As we enter college and beyond, the things we do to earn a little extra cash ramp up, becoming more extreme – selling plasma, donating blood and other fluids, pawning our possessions, and of course, medical drug trials.

British director Ian Clark is using medical drug trials as the basis for his new horror film Guinea Pigs. The movie was shot in “found footage” style similar to Paranormal Activity, Cloverfield and the upcoming Area 51 and Super 8. The one unique difference that sets Guinea Pigs apart from those other films – this is shown to the audience as if they are watching the whole story unfold via a series of security cameras.

Ian Clark, whose last directorial effort was the short Jenny & the Worm, both wrote and directed Guinea Pigs. It stars a series of mostly unknown British actors and actresses, including Alex Reid (Wilderness), Chris Larkin (Valkyrie), Steve Evets (Robin Hood), Aneurin Barnard (Ironclad), Skye Lourie and Nia Roberts, They play a group of individuals who agree to test a new drug, Pro-9, for a pharmaceutical company.  When the side effects turn really bad, the group finds themselves fighting for their lives.

Check out the unique looking poster, plus the very dark and moody trailer for Guinea Pigs below:

-

Guinea Pigs movie trailer and poster directed by Ian Clark

The trailer for Guinea Pigs reminds me of a web series we have been following for the past year called Broken Toy, if only in imagery. The unique storytelling method of using the security camera footage, as Clark has employed for Guinea Pigs, appeals to voyeuristic tendencies of the general public and I think that will be one of the film’s biggest selling points.

Guinea Pigs releases in the UK sometime in 2011. There is no word on a U.S. release date.

Follow us on Twitter for TV and Movie News @Walwus and @ScreenRant

Source: Twitch


View the original article here

Monday, November 15, 2010

Robot tells human off for doing it wrong

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Robot tells human off for doing it wrong

The video below shows a scenario that is likely to become real as industrial robots improve: a human and a robot work together to assemble an object from its parts. But in the clip from the University of Minho, Portugal, not everything is going to plan. The human gets a stern warning from the robot that they are doing it wrong.



The pair are assembling a foam chassis with two wheels. Although the robot has already attached the wheel on its side of the chassis, the human offers it another. The robot - ARoS - is not impressed.

"Ah! you want to give me a wheel. I have already inserted the wheel on my side."

When the human makes another mistake - offering it a bolt the robot doesn't need - the robot again refuses. It also points out that the human needs it for himself.

Industrial robots today are essentially dumb and dangerous - and must be kept separate from people. Having them work directly with humans could speed up all kinds of processes. But they need to be able to understand what their biological colleagues are doing - and perhaps make some small talk too. When the chassis is built ARoS declares: "I enjoyed your help! I hope to work again with you."

Most importantly, they need to be safe. Check out this previous story about a robot that can tell when it has accidentally hit a human.

Tom Simonite, online technology editorLabels: robots, video

Posted by Tom at 5:55 PM