MySpace today announced a new open-source project called Qizmt, a distributed computation framework developed by its data mining team.
Qizmt is based on the MapReduce distributed processing framework, well-known as a core part of Google's search indexing infrastructure. Qizmt, however, runs on large clusters of Microsoft Windows servers, an interesting sidebar to a computing style we most commonly associate with commodity Linux machines.
MapReduce is a programming model and an associated implementation for processing and generating large data sets. Users specify a map function that processes a key/value pair to generate a set of intermediate key/value pairs, and a reduce function that merges all intermediate values associated with the same intermediate key.
I spoke with Java architect and distributed systems expert Eugene Ciurana about MapReduce and he contends that "indexing large amounts of unstructured data is a difficult task regardless of the technologies involved. MapReduce provides a simple, elegant solution for data processing in parallelized systems."
As more sites move to manage large data sets, the uptake of frameworks like MapReduce and projects like Hadoop is sure to grow. And along with the growth of the data is the growth of the market opportunity. Open source is a great way to expand and enlarge the adoption curve as users figure out the best way to use these new tools.
Qizmt is currently being used in the MySpace "People You May Know" feature, and will soon expand to user recommendations and other new areas.
Follow me on Twitter @daveofdoom.
Funding for virtual worlds has grown dramatically over the last year and companies need to find sustainable revenue models. Transactions of virtual goods allow for new cash flow into both subscription and nonsubscription sites.
But some users don't like the idea that you can simply buy something to affect the game in your favor. Accordingly, games need to be very clear about the purchased goods unfold into the game.
The team at Champions Online have outlined how microtransactions will surface in the game in their State of the Game blog post.
... Read more
Widgets, portable pieces of Web code, have become synonymous with interactive Web page components, often Flash-based games and ads can stick out like a sore thumb. Functions are great, but they need to be seamless.
Instead of just offering a page function, the widget technology is turning out native applications that blend seamlessly with newsfeeds and spread virally through friend lists. Accordingly, the w-word had to go and this morning iWidgets became Transpond. Transpond, a word that actually doesn't mean anything, calls to mind words like "translate" and "respond," more positive connotations than the has-been widget.
Widgets have moved to the wrong side of the hype cycle while apps have their own catch phrase ("There's an app for that.") Meanwhile, the underlying trend that powers what Transpond founder Peter Yared calls the "the atomization of the Web" remains strong.
Transpond offers an easy-to-use platform for creating native applications for Facebook, MySpace, and iGoogle and it's been humming along since its launch (as iWidgets) last summer. The company has big-name customers including CBS, CNN, Lifetime Television, and Revision3, all of whom had turned to the platform to get their content onto social networks.
Content publishers, marketers, and businesses can no longer slap up a Web site and expect to have an audience. Content has to find its audience wherever they happen to be, whether it's hanging out on Facebook or fiddling with their iPhone. Be it via widget or app, delivering the right content in the right way (with a bonus for interactivity) is the only thing that really matters.
Follow me on Twitter @daveofdoom.
Some interesting data from Nielsen suggests that Twitter, despite the hype and meteoric growth, appears to have a user loyalty problem, an issue not suffered by Facebook or MySpace, the two behemoths of social networking.
Considering the viral nature of Twitter, I was a bit surprised to see that users weren't more loyal. On the other hand, sites like Facebook and MySpace offer a lot more functions that facilitate communication on many levels, not just through messaging.
Currently, more than 60 percent of Twitter users fail to return the following month, or in other words, Twitter's audience retention rate, or the percentage of a given month's users who come back the following month, is currently about 40 percent. For most of the past 12 months, pre-Oprah, Twitter has languished below 30 percent retention.
Is this Twitter's Achilles' heel, where there aren't enough reasons to come back to the service, or, is audience retention naturally lower because Twitter only offers one thing to do in comparison to the other services?
The chart below shows that MySpace and Facebook both had higher loyalty levels at the same reach.
I think it's an easy argument in Twitter's favor that it has significant reach with significantly fewer features than the comparative sites. Of course, loyalty matters a great deal if and when the company ever decides to monetize the user base.
I hardly ever click on banner ads, but today I was beaten into submission by the NY Times to find out more about MySpace Hypertargeting. I still can't figure out why the banner kept showing up for me...my only guess is because I read the technology section.
MySpace Hypertargeting Ad
(Credit: MySpace Hypertargeting Ad)From the press release:
"Our mission with HyperTargeting by MySpace was to build an ad platform that translates our massive amounts of self expressed user data into highly-targeted, interest-based segments, enabling us to better serve the exact right ad to the right person at the right time," said Michael Barrett, chief revenue officer for Fox Interactive Media.
What bothers me about both of these "services" is that they don't do anything for the user--they only help the advertiser. So, you use the service (primarily for free) knowing that you will get ads, which feels OK until it starts getting a little weird. For example how would advertisers know personal details and why should they be allowed to dig deeper into profiles while not expanding users rights to reject this behavior or pay their way out of it. Users are not notified that anything has changed and they keep giving advertisers more data without even knowing it. And even if users are aware of the tactics do they really understand the implications? Seems unlikely.
I have to go with Facebook Beacon as far creepier than MySpace Hypertargeting, although I have to think that MySpace has a much younger user base which makes me feel weird. Let's call it 60/40 that they are both highly questionable at this point.
- prev
- 1
- next
