Where My Mind has Wandered

Search Volume as a Gauge of Popularity

In her profile of tennis star and celebrity Maria Sharapova for the New York Times, writer Karen Crouse cites Sharapova's volume of Yahoo! searches as proof of her popularity.

Last year, she was the second-most-popular sports entity among Yahoo searchers, behind Nascar and ahead of the Boston Red Sox, David Beckham and Serena Williams.

No doubt search volume isn't a bad indicator, but according to ComScore as of September 2007 Google has a 57 percent share of the search market, more than Yahoo!'s 23.7 percent. So why pull the statistic from Yahoo! vs. Google? Google doesn't make it easy to get that information, while Yahoo! provides a handy dashboard that allows you to follow search popularity like the stock market, even showing daily change and the biggest movers. It is just a glimpse of their data set, but it is smart marketing on the part of Yahoo!

Google, ever the pure developer, has some great stuff in this area as well but it is hidden in Google Labs. Try and find it from their home page and let me know how long it took you. You may be better of searching for it. One of my favorite tools, Google Trends, tells a different, and more detailed story. In 2007 David Beckham far outperformed Maria Sharapova in global search volume except in Pakistan and India, where Sharapova outperformed. She is particularly popular in Delhi. Google Trends also indicates where news coverage coincides with spikes in search volume. In January, June, and September search volume for Sharapova outperformed Beckham, which no surprise coincides with Wimbledon, the French Open, and the U.S. Open.

There are other online indicators of individual popularity. One is simply how much content on the Internet is dedicated to the person in question. A fun tool for exploring that is Google Fight. Enter two names and see them fight it out for dominance.

Google Fight shows us another view. More people may search for Maria Sharapova on Yahoo!, but she only generates 313,000 search results on Google. Serena Williams generates 3.3 million, and David Beckham 9.5 million.

It is a copy and paste world, and when people quote statistics it is important to understand the source. In this case it doesn't impact the story one bit. Sharapova is more popular on Yahoo!, but she isn't more searched for globally.

McCain and the Internet Era

The front page of the New York Times on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 had plenty of material to get my mind going. The first article of interest for me was the story indicating that Sentor John McCain was on the verge of dropping out of the Presidential race becuase his campaign was unravelling. The consensus reason for the imminent demise is a lack of money; his fundraising intake is "drying up." Surprise, surprise. The lack of money isn't the problem, it is the symptom of a campaign that has made no sense. The NYT writers, Nagourney and Kirkpatrick, assign much of the blame to "Republican opposition to McCain's stances on issues like immigration." What Republicans? Every discussion of Republicans these days refers to the ultra-conservatives, the neo-cons and social conservatives that have hijacked the grand old party. Have moderate republicans run out of disposable income? Does the hard-core right-wing of the party control the destiantion of all donations?

McCain's problems began when he conformed his campaign tactics to the popular perception that you have to run to the extreme edge of your nominating party in the primaries to secure the base, after which you run back to the center to cature the general election. I can imagine the conversations in McCain's Senate office when his advisors told him he needed to launch a bible belt tour, starting with genuflecting to the student body of Liberty University. "We will keep it on the down low, nobody will notice." "By the time we hit the general election the Reagan Democrats and moderate Republicans won't remember you were there." In the Internet era everyone from traditional reporters to political junkie bloggers will know where you appeared and what you said within hours. Video of your speech will be on YouTube the following morning. The Republican Moderates and the Reagan Democrats aren't going to forgive your appearance at Liberty University any more than they are going to forgive your steadfast support for the Bush Administration's disasterous and misguided foray into Iraq. Weclome to the Internet era.

I was privvy to a remarkable dialog between two experinced envoys from the left and the right just prior to the 2004 elections. Both agreed that the candidate that was able and willing to run to the center would sweep any presidential election. How do you reconcile that with the need to raise inordinate amounts of money, starting a year before the primary? The consensus answer is run to the extremes, that is where the early money is. I don't think that works for a candidate like McCain. Smart money doesn't follow ideals; money flows as long as the money thinks the candidate can win. For a candidate like McCain that means staying true to what made you popular to begin with, not changing your colors to appeal to a vocal extreme. Act like a front-runner and raise money from your true base and the fringe will fear you and curry your favor. Make the bible belt come to you.

Frequency and User Ratings

Many social networking sites provide a user rating function that allows users to rate content. In many cases those ratings influence content ranking. A good example is YouTube, which uses a five-star ranking system and ranks content using some combination of ratings, total views, and total ratings (I do not know what the actual criteria is).

In these ratings systems for any content item the user is presented with two pieces of information: average rating and number of votes. Average rating tells the user how viewers who have taken the time to rate the video feel on average about the content. Number of votes tells the user how many people have taken the time to vote, which may influence how they value that average rating.

What is missing, and what I would love to see, is vote frequency data. I want to know how the average was reached. This would tell the user a lot more about how the community feels about the content in question.

I’m interested in this data in two categories. The first is votes as a percentage of views. Did the content in question prompt people to rate it more frequently or less frequently than the average for the site in question? A higher than average vote frequency would tell me that, good or bad, this content provokes a response. A lower than average vote frequency would tell me that the information was viewed more passively.

The second category I am interested in seeing is the frequency of votes for each of the five stars. You can reach a 3 star rating in three basic patterns:

• The majority of voters gave the content a 3 rating, while a small percentage voted higher or lower. This tells me the content in question prompts a lukewarm response. It prompted people to vote, but they didn’t feel strongly about it. This would look like a curved line in the shape of a frown on a graph.
• The majority of voters gave the content a 1 or 5 rating, while a small percentage rated the content 2, 3, or 4. This tells me that the content is polarizing; that it prompts a strong response from different groups within the larger site community. This would look like a curved line in the shape of a smile on a graph.
• Voting was equally distributed across all the ratings options. This would look like a straight line on a graph. I’m not sure quite what this would tell me, but it would make me think.

A high or low star rating would manifest as a steep curve, running either down left to right for content that the community did not like, or up left to right for content the community responded positively to.

In a user interface showing the vote totals would be awkward. But a graphic representation, something simple like the five-star visual, would tell you which of the five vote patterns led to the final rating. This could be a simple line curve or something that looked like an audio EQ graphic.

In my focus group of three colleagues is any indication, however, I am unlikely to see this type of information any time soon (think a sharp curve running from the top left to the bottom right). Consensus is that users won’t care; it is more information than they care about.

Three Social Trends Behind Social Media

Why the rise in use of social media tools and the glut in coverage? The increase in coverage is part topic pile-on, a me-to rush to what is hot. It is also part reality, the trend is real and the dialog around what it means is important.

But why the trend? Hw did we get here? And what do we need to understand to navigate in this space?

I think (I hope) the technical reasons are known. The proliferation of cheap, easy-to-use tools that rely on standards, such as RSS and tags, to work together has allowed for the explosion in user-generated content and online social networks.

But what about the social reasons? Why are people using these tools in the manner that they are? I see three trends that have been driven by the Internet and have also driven the social media trend.

Exhibitionism.

Far more people believe their personal experience and point-of-view not only should be made available to others but will be valued by others than at any time. The examples are everywhere, from “American Idol” to YouTube to Flickr. It is more than just shooting for 15 minutes of fame. People expect are growing to expect a sustained public voice. It has become part of the fabric of some people’s self image and self-worth.

Voyeurism.

This is a natural companion trend to exhibitionism. People enjoy watching the extremely personal content generated by their peers and of celebrities, public officials, and business leaders. They not only enjoy it, the feel it is their right to see it.

The Decline of Formality.

With the trends in exhibitionism and voyeurism comes a decline in formality and civility. Because people feel that their voice counts they expect direct access to others, no matter who they are. They expect dialog with elected officials, business executives, their physicians, and others in a way that we could not have imagined even 15 years ago. Bloggers write open letters to CEOs, calling them by their first name and inviting them to backyard barbeques. And that is a tame example.

With this erosion of formal distance has come an erosion in civility. Online discourse is more than just conversational and informal, at times it is shockingly uncivil. This can not be blamed solely on the ability to remain anonymous. More and more online anonymity is less feasible, and in a society that values exhibitionism it is less desirable.

These trends fuel the growth of social media and consumer generated content. They also challenge the norms of organizations, executives, public officials, and the communications professionals that advise and support them. But it is the new reality, one that requires our immersion, understanding, and counsel.