http://www.mediainfluencer.net/2008/04/two-tales-of-user-centricities/

as well as here:

http://www.mediainfluencer.net/2008/05/from-misapprehensions-to-alternatives/

and for completeness, also addressed this in comments on your other post:

http://blog.joeandrieu.com/2008/07/12/towards-user-driven-search/#comment-1512

Strawman alert! Strawman alert! Actually I see a slavering corporate beast looking to make money off-of all my search history, to be desireous of spying upon me: “All that untapped intention- and attention-marketing information, it must be mine bwahahahahahaha!” So you see, what I am talking about is the mindset of those who wish to build a new business atop other peoples’ information.

I’m not suggesting that it must be anyone’s, I’m suggesting that it is invaluable and therefore users would benefit from tools to manage it. You’re disposition suggests that building a business is evil and therefore any quid-pro-quo for helping a user manage their searches is also inherently evil. Which is pure rubbish.

“All these people, producing this good stuff and not letting us use it to sell them stuff getting benefit from it – how tragic and uninformed they are, we must help them.”

If you are satisfied with your ability to search the web in its current form, User-driven Search offers no value for you. For those of us who find the trillions of results on Google to be a bit unwieldy, there is plenty of room for improvement.

In what way would this be Liberation, precisely? For instance, AdBlockPlus is liberation in my book – unshackling me from crap I am otherwise forced to endure. Google goes to great lengths to ensure that the crap is me-centric, to be sure, through contextualisation and whatnot. But it is still crap.

AdBlockPlus is a violation of your social contract and terms of service. You may not like that your website of choice has chosen a business model that offends you, but it doesn’t give you the right to access their content without addressing the quid-pro-quo they clearly expect you to participate in. I expect you don’t find that a compelling argument, but that’s ok. Hacking your way around capitalism isn’t innovative, it’s just passe.

In contrast, giving you a way to take control of your search related data definitely liberates you from the lock-in at Google.

To whose actual benefit, and for what reason would I want to do this, given I am of the AdBlockPlus mindset outlined above?

Regardless of your predilection for hacking your way past the TOS, the reason you would want to bundle your search data and send it to a vendor is for better search results. Your question is essentially the same as asking why you would want to tell Google what you are looking for online?! My Goodness! Then someone would know what you’re doing!! And the answer is the same: because if you don’t tell someone about your search, nobody can help you find stuff.

Doubtless; you make a good case for (eg:) Google to refine its search algorithms to profile user-searches and start trying to second-guess the user; and I agree with an implicit proposition that the user should be able to download/access their search history. But given that I’ve just stated the concept in terms of “What Could Google Do?” I have to ask: how is any of this user-driven or VRM-ish?

Because it isn’t about Google. It’s about giving individuals the power that is, in a limited fashion, currently locked up in Google’s silo. Why should only Google have access to your Search history? Why shouldn’t you be able to edit it and move it around as you Search? Why shouldn’t you be able to send it to eBay or Amazon or Schwab or the USPTO and have them use it as an alternative entry point for search results and navigation? That’s why it is user-driven. Because it puts the power to manage your Search in your hands.

Yes, Bittorrent would not exist without the content which users provide; theoretically the Google search function *could* exist without users making search queries, although they might not continue to exist for very long…

Actually, the types of statistical analysis and recommendations that are likely to be made from User-driven Search data would not at all be possible if there were no users.

… for whose benefit? …

If you don’t appreciate the benefit, you don’t need to be a user. Contrast that with the ad networks’ tracking of your online behavior or Phorm or NebuAd’s deep packet sniffing to give ISPs behavioral tracking capability. User-driven Search only works if the search results are better. How hard is that to follow? Better search results is a pretty straightforward benefit.

Yes. So you are proposing that users are masochists who will skim their own search histories for clues about their deepest darkest desires, and use that deep self-knowledge to request advertising for [whatever] – britney spears albums, maybe?

No, what I propose is that Search results can be improved if users have direct control over and contribute to the information used to generate results. No self-knowledge is required. Just activate a tool that helps organize your searches, and choose which Search Providers you trust. The suggestion that the only valuable output of a search is advertising is just bait. Keep it for the cock fights.

Actually I have it switched-off for privacy reasons, plus I wonder if “most people” will have that, since the proposition implies that “most people” (say, more than 50% of internet users) have got a Google account, which I find hard to believe.

For the pedant in you, let me clarify the proposition: “most people who use Google accounts probably have their Search History activated” Further, I would suggest that a large enough number of people have cookie-activated accounts at the largest Search providers that it just may be “most” people using those search services are getting personalized search results today.

I love the way you say “WE CAN EXTRACT” and “THEIR OWN TERMS” – who is your notion of “WE” in this context, Joe?

That’s definitely a typo. Of course if it is “We” then it is “our”. We is “we the users” of search services.

Yeah. I am just thinking that the added value you are here proposing atop search, does not address customer wants. The tasty ice-cream you are suggesting is also an effective floorwax.

Again, if you are happy with the search results you get today, then don’t use User-driven Search. But I have a feeling a lot of folks will be happy to see improvements.

In fact, take a look at this research done by Microsoft: http://blog.joeandrieu.com/2008/03/18/microsofts-searchbar-an-integrated-tool-for-complex-searches.

There is plenty of room to improve Search and it is going to start by combining and manipulating exactly the sort of data I’ve been talking about.

I wouldn’t, in the same way I wouldn’t try to make a kosher bacon-double-cheeseburger. The result would either be not-kosher, or not-a-bacon-double-cheeseburger.

Again, if you find Search too offensive for your sense of privacy, don’t Search online. However, I would bet that you have actually told Google what you are looking for, sacrificing your dearly loved privacy for a few mere scraps of search results.

So when you say “User-driven systems create value inherently” you mean that user-driven systems have the inherent property of creating-value; which given the definition that the user’s input creates the value of a user-driven system, is something of a tautology.

No, I didn’t define user-driven systems that way. You appear to be. I think that’s a nearly useless definition. The user-as-chef metaphor had more legs than that. However, it is a reasonable observation: If you put users in charge, they will create value. User-driven systems are about putting users in charge. It doesn’t mean they have to create the value, just that they can.

I would be very careful to avoid misrepresenting Adriana’s position as a quest for customisation; it’s vastly different and far larger than that.

Your care is noted. I would request similar care in understanding my words. I said “I don’t believe ‘customization’ is the end-all-be-all of user-driven, where it is at the core of Adriana’s usage” and I stand by that.

Quoting Adriana:

Giving me ingredients, utensils and a recipe suggestion and letting me get on with it, leads to user-driven design- it can still be meant to become a tuna salad but I get to put it together, determine the proportions, skip or add ingredients.

The metaphor clearly points to the user customizing the salad as they make it, determining the proportions, skipping or adding ingredients. This is the core argument she makes to explain how “users add value” to the system. It’s clear, accurate, but limiting.

Furthermore, I’d argue that simply “adding value to the process”–the core test of a user-driven system in Adriana’s post–is insufficient to deem anything user-driven. It is easy to let users add value. AOL let users post in forums and send email to each other and chat. Did that make AOL user-driven? No. The ability of users to control the content and functionality on our own websites is what makes the World Wide Web user-driven. And precisely why AOL never was.

Imagine Twitter without users. It’s easy if you try. It would simply not exist.

That doesn’t make it user-driven. It makes it user-dependent. Until a system hits the “A” in NEA systems, it can’t be truly user driven. That “A”, you may recall, stands for “Anyone can improve it.” Twitter is just another pretty silo.

Ah, but now you are conflating User-Driven with DP and perhaps VRM. It’s a different quality.

DP is a requirement for user-driven systems. If you can’t get your data out, it violates control and authority and therefore is not user-driven.

Clearly we disagree on what user-driven means. That’s fine. It’s even healthy. We’ll let the market sift through the details. Meanwhile, I’ll note the difference and continue to clarify what I mean by user-driven, because of course, the user-driven media I work in gives me the power to do exactly that.

If you think of Firefox’s browser history as spying on your activity, you’re right. And if you think of advanced features on the client side as “Clippy the paperclip”, you’re right again.

Strawman alert! Strawman alert! Actually I see a slavering corporate beast looking to make money off-of all my search history, to be desireous of spying upon me: “All that untapped intention- and attention-marketing information, it must be mine bwahahahahahaha!” So you see, what I am talking about is the mindset of those who wish to build a new business atop other peoples’ information.

Currently, the entire web is watching where you surf and you have virtually no control and no way to leverage it for your own value.

“All these people, producing this good stuff and not letting us use it to sell them stuff getting benefit from it – how tragic and uninformed they are, we must help them.”

Giving users control over that information and providing an explicit means for direct improvements in their search results is user-driven at the very core. The whole point is to liberate users from the isolated data silos at Google and Doubleclick and NebuAd

In what way would this be Liberation, precisely? For instance, AdBlockPlus is liberation in my book – unshackling me from crap I am otherwise forced to endure. Google goes to great lengths to ensure that the crap is me-centric, to be sure, through contextualisation and whatnot. But it is still crap.

giving them a tool that lets them bundle their behavioral and explicit Search data into a representation that they can edit and release on their own terms.

To whose actual benefit, and for what reason would I want to do this, given I am of the AdBlockPlus mindset outlined above?

Having “little search-turds recycled into composty goodness” is precisely what is happening out there, on the Internet, currently, with essentially no input from the user. Your phrasing is perhaps belittling, but you’re missing the point. The way that we search, what we look for, what we find, what we keep, all of these comprise a better representation of what we are actually looking for. The paltry keyword started losing its glamor when Google started personalizing search results based on your Search History. Given that such tracking actually has the potential to improve our search experience, isn’t it time to give users control over it?

Doubtless; you make a good case for (eg:) Google to refine its search algorithms to profile user-searches and start trying to second-guess the user; and I agree with an implicit proposition that the user should be able to download/access their search history. But given that I’ve just stated the concept in terms of “What Could Google Do?” I have to ask: how is any of this user-driven or VRM-ish?

As you mention in the comment on the prior post, user-driven suggests that the value is, at least partially, provided directly by the user’s participation in the system, such as with BitTorrent.

Yes, Bittorrent would not exist without the content which users provide; theoretically the Google search function *could* exist without users making search queries, although they might not continue to exist for very long…

It is precisely the editability, compartmentalization, and selective disclosure that makes User-driven Search so valuable. Without the user to vet and refine the Search data,

… for whose benefit? …

all you really have is an endless jumble of attention data with no direction and no user feedback. Which is precisely what DoubleClick (now Google) and NebuAd work with.

Yes. So you are proposing that users are masochists who will skim their own search histories for clues about their deepest darkest desires, and use that deep self-knowledge to request advertising for [whatever] – britney spears albums, maybe?

Of course, if you’d prefer to believe that keywords are good enough, then feel free to opt-out of next generation search, which I realize you may already do. In contrast, most people, I believe, have Google’s Search History enabled

Actually I have it switched-off for privacy reasons, plus I wonder if “most people” will have that, since the proposition implies that “most people” (say, more than 50% of internet users) have got a Google account, which I find hard to believe.

and I expect they will continue to benefit from innovations in “composty goodness”. They just won’t have it in any user-driven way until we can extract that Search History in a meaningful way and re-use it on their own terms.

I love the way you say “WE CAN EXTRACT” and “THEIR OWN TERMS” – who is your notion of “WE” in this context, Joe?

Finally, “won’t really leak stuff” can be formally bound in access policy and data rights agreements. Of course, today, Google is free to hand over your search history or YouTube viewing history to whomever they please. There are neither legal nor contractual restraints to protect user’s privacy. However, with a fully implemented User-driven Search solution, explicit, contractually binding agreement to data rights policies can and will be required before releasing search data to potential vendors.

See above comment regards “deep self knowledge”.

I think you’d agree that technology-based DRM is a waste of time. But legally enforceable contracts with Search providers is another thing altogether.

Mmmm…

At the end of the day, if you want someone to help you with your search, you have to give them something to work with. The point of User-driven Search is to make that transaction seamless, painfree, entirely under user control, and bound to non-repudiatable data rights agreements.

Yeah. I am just thinking that the added value you are here proposing atop search, does not address customer wants. The tasty ice-cream you are suggesting is also an effective floorwax.

If you still think that misses the opportunity for User-driven Search, what would you suggest to make Search truly user-driven?

I wouldn’t, in the same way I wouldn’t try to make a kosher bacon-double-cheeseburger. The result would either be not-kosher, or not-a-bacon-double-cheeseburger.

[Continuing the thread from the other blog comment]

Re: inherent, it is the value-creation of user-driven systems that is inherent. To the extent that systems refuse to be user-driven, they are leaving value on the table.

So when you say “User-driven systems create value inherently” you mean that user-driven systems have the inherent property of creating-value; which given the definition that the user’s input creates the value of a user-driven system, is something of a tautology.

As for user-driven search, that’s actual the term we used in our provisional patent filing in 2006. I liked Adriana’s distinctions around it, which her post credits to Bob Frankston. However, the user-as-chef remains, IMO, a fairly limited metaphor for user-driven systems. I think we might be in agreement on that, as I don’t believe “customization” is the end-all-be-all of user-driven, where it is at the core of Adriana’s usage.

I would be very careful to avoid misrepresenting Adriana’s position as a quest for customisation; it’s vastly different and far larger than that.

So, we may still disagree about what user-driven means, but I think we are in agreement that I’m talking about something substantially different than Adriana.

Oh yeah. I am not sure that that is good news for you, alas :-/

I agree that Google is partially user-driven, but it is the ways in which it is not user-driven that are the interesting things to talk about. Which was the point of the post.

Mmmm…

I’m not sure why Twitter is user driven.

Imagine Twitter without users. It’s easy if you try. It would simply not exist.

I certainly can’t easily take my Twitters with me. It’s a silo pure and simple. one in which they have demonstrated a willingness to shut down API features at will.

Ah, but now you are conflating User-Driven with DP and perhaps VRM. It’s a different quality.

BitTorrent is definitely user-driven That’s a good example of a standard protocol enabling users to create immediate value. And we don’t even have to write our own client to use it.

…except that, for at least one person, they *did* have to write their own client; and in fact the abundance of clients suggests that many folk actually *did*.

Currently, the entire web is watching where you surf and you have virtually no control and no way to leverage it for your own value. Giving users control over that information and providing an explicit means for direct improvements in their search results is user-driven at the very core. The whole point is to liberate users from the isolated data silos at Google and Doubleclick and NebuAd, giving them a tool that lets them bundle their behavioral and explicit Search data into a representation that they can edit and release on their own terms.

Having “little search-turds recycled into composty goodness” is precisely what is happening out there, on the Internet, currently, with essentially no input from the user. Your phrasing is perhaps belittling, but you’re missing the point. The way that we search, what we look for, what we find, what we keep, all of these comprise a better representation of what we are actually looking for. The paltry keyword started losing its glamor when Google started personalizing search results based on your Search History. Given that such tracking actually has the potential to improve our search experience, isn’t it time to give users control over it?

As you mention in the comment on the prior post, user-driven suggests that the value is, at least partially, provided directly by the user’s participation in the system, such as with BitTorrent. It is precisely the editability, compartmentalization, and selective disclosure that makes User-driven Search so valuable. Without the user to vet and refine the Search data, all you really have is an endless jumble of attention data with no direction and no user feedback. Which is precisely what DoubleClick (now Google) and NebuAd work with.

Of course, if you’d prefer to believe that keywords are good enough, then feel free to opt-out of next generation search, which I realize you may already do. In contrast, most people, I believe, have Google’s Search History enabled and I expect they will continue to benefit from innovations in “composty goodness”. They just won’t have it in any user-driven way until we can extract that Search History in a meaningful way and re-use it on their own terms.

Finally, “won’t really leak stuff” can be formally bound in access policy and data rights agreements. Of course, today, Google is free to hand over your search history or YouTube viewing history to whomever they please. There are neither legal nor contractual restraints to protect user’s privacy. However, with a fully implemented User-driven Search solution, explicit, contractually binding agreement to data rights policies can and will be required before releasing search data to potential vendors. I think you’d agree that technology-based DRM is a waste of time. But legally enforceable contracts with Search providers is another thing altogether.

At the end of the day, if you want someone to help you with your search, you have to give them something to work with. The point of User-driven Search is to make that transaction seamless, painfree, entirely under user control, and bound to non-repudiatable data rights agreements.

If you still think that misses the opportunity for User-driven Search, what would you suggest to make Search truly user-driven?

“Honest. We swear.”

Again in this scenario, exactly as before, the user is in the position of supplicant, or at best is having their little search-turds recycled into composty goodness which someone else profits from and/or sells on their behalf.

How is this “User Driven” as-per the comment in the previous posting?