Archive for August, 2009

Anatomy of a Bad Tweet

Thursday, August 27th, 2009

Why You Should Not Tweet Your Headlines

I am starting to feel like a hater when it comes to the NC Times use of social media. I think that they are sitting around in some conference room thinking up new ways to irritate me. However, many people rely on the same tactic used by the NC Times when tweeting. They merely retweet the subject of their post without considering the usefulness or retweetability of their update. Hopefully by pointing out their mistake I can help you improve your tweets and increase your follower count.

Today I received the following tweet on my mobile phone:Bad Tweet

First I will break down the incorrect elements of this tweet and then I will put it back together in a form that more suited to social networking.

Problematic elements of the tweet above:

  • Useless hashtag: The NC Times should not use a hashtag with their username on all tweets. This is redundant information. The @username construct is more powerful than a hashtag on Twitter. Hashtags are more properly used as subordinate labels.
  • Useless geotag: Useless may be incorrect terminology. The REGION: label above is meant to signal who might be interested in this story. Unfortunately Twitter offers no capability to use a label in this format. The more appropriate thing to do would be to use separate Twitter accounts for stories of limited interest and allow people to follow segments of interest.
  • Unnecessary words: When this tweet is taken in context, the words brush and camp are not needed. At the time of this tweet it was generally known that there were brush fires on Camp Pendleton. The intent of the story was to provide an update on the fires. The majority of people in the region would understand Pendleton to mean Camp Pendleton.
  • Unnecessary punctuation: Both the quotes around the headline and the parenthesis around the shortened URL are not required. These are elements of style more appropriately reserved for formal writing. The parenthesis also include parasitic spaces to separate them from the link.

When we remove the useless and unnecessary elements of the tweet above the tweet goes from 80 characters to 38 characters. We have removed an astounding 52.5% of the tweet.

The measure of success of a tweet is retweetableness. We can compute the maximum size of a tweet based on the following formula:

Tweet Length Calculation

Therefore @nctimes could be composing tweets up to 127 characters long. This tweet falls well under that limit at 80 characters long. A tweet should not needlessly use that much space, but the second factor to consider is completeness of the content.

Our new 38 character tweet: “fires on Pendleton http://bit.ly/uBG5r” really doesn’t tell us anything that isn’t already known.

Probably the most important information in the article is the danger the fires present. That gives us the following tweet, “Two Pendleton fires pose no threat to structures  http://bit.ly/uBG5r”. This new tweet is 68 characters long. Suddenly we have a tweet that actually gives us a status update and it is still shorter than the original.

We could add more details and stay within our optimal length, “SD Sheriff’s helicopters and back fires used to fight two Pendleton fires; no threat to structures http://bit.ly/uBG5r” is 118 characters long and captures most of the important details of the story. This tweet is much more likely to be retweeted.

In business we are looking at social media as a means to drive traffic to web sites or brick and mortar stores to increase sales or advertising revenue. It may seem like a good idea to depend on teaser tweets to get people to click through to your site. This may work occasionally if your content is especially compelling and useful, but in most cases this is not a good strategy. Your strategy should be to provide valuable content and build up an actively listening follower base. Your reward will be brand loyalty due to the enhanced reputation that your social networking presence is providing.

Innovative Sandwich Ordering Interface

Thursday, August 13th, 2009

I love innovative user interfaces, not just user interfaces on computer software, but user interfaces on electronics devices and mechanical objects from cars to can openers. But I also like when businesses innovate their user interfaces.

Sandwich shops abound. For the most part they subsist on location, brand recognition and loyalty programs. After all, a sandwich is pretty much a sandwich. There are specialty sandwich shops which have a preset number of sandwiches, typically named after local celebrities or locations, and there are run of the mill and chain sandwich shops that may offer base sandwiches, but really allow you to build the sandwich from the ground up selecting toppings during the process.

The old model of ground up sandwich making is plagued by inefficiency. The sandwich artist forced to wait at each step of sandwich making for the customer to provide direction and unable to plan for the end product because the requirements were not completed when designs began. Customers stare at tubs of white cheese being asked to pick with little knowledge whether the provolone is round or square or consider a tub of diced peppers wondering whether they were jalapeños or serranos. If you are a computer user, like me, you find this cumbersome

On my first visit to Which Wich in the Carlsbad Forum I found a new twist on this build to suit model. Customers create orders themselves on preprinted sandwich bags that take them through the sandwich construction process. The advantages are numerous; the customer can take as much or as little time as he likes creating his sandwich because he is not holding up the line, there is less likelihood of a sandwich being built out of spec because of a communication error, additional cost items are clearly disclosed and the sandwich builder knows at the outset what will be going on the sandwich increasing build efficiency and decreasing aggregate customer wait times. They also have a flat pricing model with most sandwiches offered at the same price and only a few upgraded items.

If prefer ordering at Burger King electronic kiosks over ordering at the counter because of the clearly spelled out menu options then you owe it to yourself to give Which Wich a try and experience their innovative user interface experience.

OK, how can you do a restaurant review without talking about the food? I love food, especially free food, but really most food. I ordered the “Wicked” which is their signature sandwich sporting 5 meats and your choice of 3 cheeses. I found the sandwich to be a bit salty, but that was probably the massive amount of meat and my choice of toppings. I will definitely go back and try something a bit more simple.

What I liked best was the size of their sandwich. I am tired of places giving you a giant roll with a skimpy piece of meat and a single translucent piece of cheese. I am a huge bread fan, but on a sandwich the bread is a canvas that should support the work of art built above it. Which Wich’s bread was toasted excellently and was the right amount to provide a solid structure for the other ingredients without getting in the way. The sandwich held together beautifully and was evenly constructed.

Revisiting Twitter’s Monopoly

Friday, August 7th, 2009

AT&T did it as Ma Bell, Microsoft did it, AT&T and Apple are doing it again, it seems monopolies of one form or another are all the rage today and everyone from the FCC to David Pogue wants answers. But who is crying out against the Twitter monopoly?

Twitter’s closed social network is a monopoly and this week we have two major demonstrations of why this is bad for everyone.

First, because there is no Twitter alternative, there is no recourse when Twitter is taken offline by a DDoS attack. Months ago Barrett Lyon was pointing out Twitter’s vulnerabilities and arguing that as a communication service Twitter had an obligation to provide a better network infrastructure. Obviously Twitter, as a money losing proposition, has to balance survival with investment, but in the long run competition is good for technology and business.

Second, there is no alternative to the unfiltered mess that is Twitter. As a result we are starting to see bans on Twitter. Whether it is the Marines banning social networking, the NFL banning tweets from the sidelines or your own company banning Twitter in the workplace to protect trade secrets the result is the same, all or nothing. Twitter being offered only as a monolithic service provides no opportunity for enterprise monitoring and filtering.

I have argued in the past that an appropriate business model for Twitter would be to sell their software after making it conform to open microblogging standards following in the footsteps of companies like sendmail. They could also sell Twitter as a service. A network of microblogging servers running different software would be more fault tolerant and would allow enterprise filtering of Tweets, permitting open communication while protecting everything from trade secrets to national security. It would allow consumer choice of providers and encourage innovation and reliability.

The NC Times New Look

Thursday, August 6th, 2009

A comparison to the NY Times

This review compares the site redesign done at the NC Times to the NY Times. It should be known that the NY Times spends oodles of money on their electronic assets and has in the past developed entire programs for the display of their news.

A screenshot of the North County Times website.

Screen shot of the North County Times

Screen shot of the New York Times website

Screen shot of the New York Times

These two screen shots show the pages in a standard Firefox window at 1024×768, the most common display size currently in use.

Both websites are displayed with a horizontal scroll bar, this is an artifact of replicating the screen size. The scroll bar would not be present for a user full screen on a 1024×768 display. The inclusion of this scroll bar does affect the percentage numbers below.

I have left the light blue-gray box on the top of the NY Times page even though it can be removed.

Category NY Times NC Times
Number of Headlines 10 5
Number of Article Words 48 33
Number of Pictures 2 1[1]
Traffic No Yes
Weather No[2] Yes
Content Begins ~ 350 px (57%)[3] ~ 380 px (62%)
Number of Columns 5 3
Widest Column of Text 340 px (caption)
150 px (story)
600 px
Ads 3 to 4 1
Ad Space 180×90 (2)
80×30 (1)
340×80 partial (1)
740×100
Ad Space Total 62000 sq px (10%) 74000 sq px (12 %)


What we can conclude is that the home page of the NY Times is able to convey more news and use more pictures. The NY Times places more emphasis on their content by having the navigation along the left hand side, rather than at the top of the page.

The most important difference is in the layout of the columns. By using many narrow columns the NY Times is able to present more headlines and has more story content as well.

The North County Times does have a dynamic element that permits the display of more than one picture on the homepage. The NY Times picture element is static and related to the story content. The placement of the dynamic picture navigation control results in picture captions not being immediately visible and therefore the pictures lack context.

When discussing ad placement, the NY Times is able to display 4 ads. Two of those ads appear to be linked and display the same content. One of their ads is mostly off the display. The NC Times shows a slightly larger single ad, but the space allocated for ads is actually significantly larger and not in use in the screen shot.

While both of these sites change frequently, this review attempts to address the major site elements to evaluate the recent NC Times redesign. I am not impressed with the redesign and hope that the NC Times will continue to attempt to improve the site with a mind towards increased usability.

[1] Five pictures dynamically rotate through one space.
[2] Available after personalization.
[3] ~325 px (53%) after personalization

NC Times Redesign

Wednesday, August 5th, 2009

The North County Times or NC Times launched a redesign of their site, and while I am no design expert I have criticized the functionality of their site in the past. It’s important then to revisit past criticisms and to see what the upgraded site has to offer.

My biggest complaint with the NC Times and the other newspapers is the walled garden approach they have taken with their content. Not only do they lock down the distribution of the content they create but the content that users on the site create in response. They do this to preserve ad revenue, but in the end they are competing against services who have figured out how to monetize content through syndication.

Results of my initial 5 minute evaluation are not good. While the site loads much faster and has an updated more modern look to it, the usability is poor because of the large type reducing the amount of content available without clicking or scrolling. This is exacerbated by the large amount of space reserved for ads and the masthead. While the large drop down auto-dealership banner advertisement is gone, and the site no longer crashes my mobile browser, the site still does not support alternative browsing via mobile devices in any real sense. On my phone I need to scroll halfway down the page before I get to the headline for the story.

The site now has breadcrumbs that improve navigation and the new menu bar navigation is cleaner than the old style, however key pages that were very useful are as far as I can tell completely gone. One I will specifically miss is the regional columnists page that provided at a glance the subject and date of each columnists most recent post.

RSS feeds appear to be the same clunky system that existed before. One really odd behavior is that the RSS icon on each section home page links to an RSS explanation page rather than being an actual RSS link. Of course they also didn’t bother to put RSS links in their page headers.

One of the most important features of the modern newspaper website is the ability to handle trackbacks and pingbacks. It will be interesting to see if this review is linked back to the comments for the announcement of the web site redesign. One really foolish thing that was done was to remove the comments from the story page itself into an alternate tab. Separating the comments from the story is one symptom of the newspaper arrogance that their content is somehow better than user generated comment.

One really weird aspect of the site that I find interesting occurs on the homepage. At the bottom of the main column appear objects that look like widgets providing a glimpse into each of the main sections.

This content appears on the home page and looks like a widget.

This content appears on the home page and looks like a widget.

Unfortunately this content is not dynamic, clicking on any of the hyperlinks result not in the expected dynamic preview behavior of a widget, but an actual navigation to the story or section clicked.

While there are some positive things about the redesign, overall the NC Times took some steps backwards in usability and did not fix some fundamental technology problems. I believe this change will be yet another milestone marking the decline of the North County’s most important media asset.

Update:

As expected pingbacks and trackbacks do not register as comments. However we were informed that a mobile site exists:

ACE said on: August 5, 2009, 5:58 pm
We do have a mobile-optimized site at http://www.nctimes.com/mobile. It is not a default for mobile devices out of respect for iPhone users, who would then be limited to it. If you have mobile problems, let us know at website@nctimes.com. — Ace

While I agree that auto-detection can be problematic, I guess that the NC Times creators have never seen pages for m.twitter.com and other professional web sites. If you look at the bottom of http://m.twitter.com you will find a line that says, “View Twitter in: ” with a button that toggles between ‘Standard’ and ‘Mobile’.  While the lack of RSS feeds pointing to the mobile site is problematic, the nonstandard use of a subdirectory versus a subdomain is inane, the most wrong headed part of their mobile site is a complete lack of advertising.