Print this article
Seth Godin had a recent post based on the the Abraham Maslow quote, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail". This a rather famous quote that matches well with something I've noticed in IT. It seems that we often become enamored with the latest technology and treat it as a "hammer" - it can solve any problem and is always the right solution in every situation [Rant Alert!].
The most recent (and perhaps the most extreme) example of this Apple's iPhone. The iPhone is a great product and can do a lot of things and a lot of people really like it. Many of them extol the its virtues as the technology that meets all of your communications needs in a way far surpasses any competing technology. It is simply the right tool for all situations. Personally, as good as it is there some applications when other technologies may be more appropriate.
My goal is not to bad-mouth the iPhone and I say this for a number of reasons:
- I'm sure the Apple disciples will contact me to let me know that there really is not a problem, Apple is the best technology for every situation after all.
- As I said, Apple is only the most recent and perhaps most extreme and wide-spread example. I've seen this before with other technologies and software applications.
- It really is a good product although not necessarily perfect for every situation.
Maybe is that we are so intent on selling our product and making the sale (by getting people to embrace the technology) that we "spin" every aspect to be perfection. Sometimes I think politicians learned their spin techniques from IT. Maybe it is because if we only have to support one solution our life in IT is a whole lot easier, not that our job is to make our lives easier.
The reality is that we probably should just honestly describe our technology. It does some things extremely well and while it can do other things too, perhaps there are better answers for that particular situation. People might find that approach refreshing, at least I would.
In the situation where we need to use less then optimum technology due to cost, supportability or the need to comply with standards let's just say so. People may not like that answer but I think they will appreciate the honesty.
Well, that's my rant now please excuse me while I go look for an old Peter, Paul and Mary record.
"Hammer" photo by Darren Hester
If this topic was of interest, you might also like these:
Hurricane Ike hit the Houston-Galveston area pretty hard. I live north of Houston, about 80 miles from the coast. We had hurricane force winds that knocked down more than 700 trees in our neighborhood, crushing cars and homes and cutting off power for 9½ days. Trees can pack quite a wallop when they come crashing down (I got a new skylight courtesy of one of them). Despite all of this, we all realize how lucky we are compared to those closer to the coast who lost everything.
In terms of dealing with these types of disasters this, as we say in Texas, "wasn't my first rodeo". I've had to deal with a personal catastrophe (a house fire) and one other corporate catastrophe (fire at the corporate headquarters) before. However, Hurricane Ike was the first where I had to deal with disaster on both levels and where the disaster is so wide-spread. Here are my observations and some lessons learned:
Power: Electricity is the lifeblood of IT. Without it we are simply out of business. The power companies do a fantastic job of working around the clock to restore power, but in a large disaster there is only so much they can do. If you don't have standby generators or redundant power sources for your business I'd suggest that you seriously consider them. On a personal basis, a home generator does come in handy. I fired up Schaffner Power & Light shortly after the hurricane and cannot imagine being here without it.
Internet: In a major disaster you can pretty much forget about the Internet. Not only do you not have power, but in many cases Internet service may be out, too.
.
Cell phones: It is hard to imagine modern life without cell phones, but go through a hurricane and you quickly remember. Due to power outages or tower damage, cell coverage may be spotty or non-existent. Texting seems to go through better than email, which is better than phone service, but all can be a very iffy propositions.
Phone: I've always been a big fan of POTS (plain old telephone service) lines because they always seem to work. Can you remember the last time you were without dial tone for an extended period? Few things in technology are as reliable as POTS, but in a major disaster even this can fail. It's not fair to expect phone service to work without fail, but when things are this reliable it is easy to forget they are not invincible.
Television/Radio: These are probably the best sources of information since they are current. The downside is that they are dependent on power so you better have battery-powered units, a generator or a hand-crank emergency radio. Also keep in mind that your battery-powered TV may be useless next year with the switch to all digital broadcasts unless you also have a battery-powered converter.
Newspapers: Surprisingly, newspapers turned out to be the most reliable source of information. About 9:00 AM Saturday morning, with the hurricane still in progress, a few neighbors and I went out to check on the safety of other neighbors whose houses had fallen trees inside them. Walking back in I was surprised to find the Saturday Houston Chronicle had been delivered! I presume someone had delivered it very early in the morning before the hurricane came in, but it was still impressive. Newspaper delivery was the only communications method that worked without fail during the entire period. It just points out what can be done with relatively simple technology supported by dedicated people.
Here are the IT lessons I learned from Hurricane Ike:
Technology will fail. The more complex a technology is the more fragile it is. While complex and interdependent technologies work when the support structure is working properly, only one small glitch can bring it to a screeching halt. Simple is better; simple works.
Planning is critical. Think about everything that could possibly go wrong and figure out what you would do. Then figure out what you do if that plan doesn't work. Recognize that things will happen that you never thought possible and plan for that. Finally, test your plan as best you can to discover its flaws beforehand.
Your infrastructure folks are undervalued. Remember the folks that you keep locked in the back room and to whom you occasionally slide a pizza under the door? They're the ones that will get you back in business. They're the ones that will work long hours to restore service, even while dealing with disaster issues at home. Give them the respect, support and treatment they deserve.
Redundancy is critical to communications. In a disaster it is impossible to over-communicate. Phone hotlines are nice but not everyone will have a working phone. The same is true for updates on Web sites; not everyone will be able to access the Internet. For a period of time, the newspaper was my only means of communication, and that's only a one-way communication. I could not use the Internet, my cell phone (including text and email) did not work, the phone lines were down. Plan for multiple ways of communicating, including such things as phone trees (I call five people who each call five people, and so on.) or arrange to have people go out and physically check on others.
Continuity planning is more than IT disaster recovery planning. It is great that the data center is operational and your ERP is up and running, but it may not mean much if the factory cannot produce and ship or the accounting group has no place to work. IT needs to work with the business to make sure the business is operating, not just the IT data center.
This article is also posted on Forbes.com. Feel free to join in the discussion either on this site or at Forbes.com
"Banner Yet Waves" photo by baldheretic
If this topic was of interest, you might also like these:
Last month Laurie Orlov had an interesting article on CIO.com. Her article "Why Specific Tech Experience Shouldn't Define the CIO Resume" has been rattling around in my mind (as things so often do) since then.
Laurie was commenting on CIO job descriptions "that demand skills in configuring servers, designing the website, creating a long-term strategy, 20 years of experience plus a deep track record in a subbranch of financial services. Or that specify knowledge of an arcane, perhaps obsolete technology." I can relate to this as I've seen job description calling for the CIO to have specific programming skills in the latest technology and even list specific programming languages. In short, these types of job descriptions focus on tactical, technical skills.
The irony in all this is as Laurie correctly points out is that "They want CIOs they can understand (no techno-speak, please) and who understand business. So even if a CIO enters with a laundry list of technical experience that matches what the company asked for in the job description, chances are she's going to spend virtually no time in the new job using those skills."
The part of all this that been rattling around in my mind is -- Why? Why do people write these kinds of job descriptions. After giving it some thought, the answer that I come to is rather straightforward and simple -- they don't know any better! I'm not trying to be mean or belittle anyone but state this very plainly. The people that write these job descriptions (probably someone in Human Resources) and the hiring managers don't really understand what a CIO can or should do.
We can argue about who's fault this but that is not helpful. Rather than argue about fault we should ask the question -- What can we do to change this so people understand what CIOs do?
Here are my suggestions:
- Drop the jargon - I previously mentioned a conversation with Kim Denney, President of Air Liquide America who indicated, the business folks are looking for IT people "that talk like the rest of us." I previously suggested Schaffner's Rule of Communications to Someone in a Different Profession:
When speaking with someone in a different profession, do not use the jargon and acronyms of your profession. Only use the jargon and acronyms of their profession.
- Understand the business - We need to understand the business of our company not just the IT aspects. Who are our customers? What are the business drivers? Company leaders want to feel comfortable that we understand their needs before they will consider listening to us on strategic items.
- Talk in terms of value not just cost - IT is pretty good at explaining what things will cost but that is not enough. Company leaders are sensitive to cost but they view it relative to the benefits, i.e., the value. We need to be more proactive in explaining projects in terms of value.
- Focus on what can be done rather than what can't - We often tell people what they can't do. You can't go to non-business websites. You can't keep more than xMB of emails in your inbox. Let's focus more on what they can do. Yes, maybe its spin but lets work toward getting people to think of IT in positive terms rather than just the technology police.
- Show IT can help - Technology has tremendous potential to change the way people do business. Let's become evangelists in showing them new possibilities to make their jobs easier, to lower their costs and to sell more.
- Don't get hypnotized by the shiny new stuff - Everyone always wants the latest technology but we need to look at this not in terms of how "cool" it is but what does it provide to the business and the articulate to the business. One of my favorite IBM commercials may have said it best:
- It is not about us - We put a lot of effort into being efficient to lower our costs. However, I believe it is more important to focus on making our customers more effective. It doesn't matter if the HelpDesk is efficient is it is not providing the needed service.
Those are my suggestions on what we can do to get people to think us as more than just terms of wires and circuit boards and instead start thinking of us in terms of how we add value to the business. After all that's what the CIOs job is really all about, isn't it?
What are your suggestions on how we can better explain the CIO role to company leaders?
"geekyderek" photo by penmachine
If this topic was of interest, you might also like these:
As some of you may know I live just north of Houston and we've had some interesting days lately. I appreciate the notes of concern and I'm happy to say that we are all ok.
We "hunkered down" and are now in the process of cleaning up after Hurricane Ike. There was some damage to the house but we got a crane in today to remove a tree from my new skylight (courtesy of Ike) and things are progressing. Phone, internet have returned although no power yet other than what is provided by Schaffner Power & Light.
Due to the clean-up and catch-up efforts I may be slow in responding to comments and such. My last Monday's post was preset for publishing as is next Monday's so you may not hear from me for awhile.
The hurricane did present some new perspectives on technology reliability which I hope to write about soon.
Well it's back to the bunker for more cleaning.
About 2 weeks ago Google launched a beta (pre-official release) version of "Chrome" their Internet browser and it has created a lot of buzz in the IT world. The big question is whether or not Chrome offers enough to make people want to make the switch from other browsers, such as Internet Explorer (IE) and Firefox.
I like Chrome for personal use but I think it will struggle to gain a foothold in corporate environments. Let's start by looking at the 3 big things Google claims as Chrome's advantages--speed, security and stability--and then move to other factors.
Speed - Chrome is being touted as faster than other browsers, and I've seen some reports where people have said it really is faster. Admittedly, my test experience wasn't a controlled laboratory study, but I'm just not seeing a big improvement in speed.
It's certainly not any slower than IE, but I don't notice any particular speed improvement over IE either. For me, when you claim faster speed, it should mean noticeably faster, something that is obvious and doesn't need a chronograph to measure minor differences.
Security - Google claims that it was able to design Chrome for the Internet as it exists today, not as it was years ago. So rather than creating patches as new threats and usage of the Internet evolved, Google says it designed a more robust security architecture. There is a certain logic to this; the basic flaw, however, is that the Internet is not static. Just as IE has had to adapt, so will Chrome.
Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) has always claimed that IE has excellent security, something it touts with a straight face every time it issues a new security patch. I expect that we will see the same with Chrome. In fact, within hours of Chrome's release, there were reports of possible security flaws.
Stability - Chrome uses what Google calls a "multiprocess architecture," which allows Web pages to continue to function even if one or more pages crash. While in the past, one crashed page might crash the entire browser, now the problem would be contained.
Since Web pages only crash when you don't want them to, I wasn't able to personally test this. I hope it works as advertised, as this could come in very handy at times. There is, however, a price to pay for to this: Chrome does use substantially more memory than IE to provide this functionality, and it could be a problem for users with older hardware.
Nice Features - One of the features that I like the best is the "most visited page." When you open a new tab, you see a screen shot of the sites that you visit most often. It's like having your most-used bookmarks displayed for easy use. I've found this very handy when researching topics and going back and forth between different sites, and you can also set Chrome to open to "most visited" rather than one particular page.
The browser also offers a number of other nice features, such as "Paste and Go." When you place the cursor in the address box and right click you have a choice of "Paste" and also "Paste and Go." "Paste and Go" combines "Paste" and enter, saving me one key stroke. Maybe it's not a big deal, but I must say I like it--and it indicates that Google has really thought about how people use a browser.
Some Sites Don't Support Chrome - You may find that Chrome works well on many of your favorite sites. But if you have a problem with a site and call its Web site support, you may find that the site doesn't support the use of Chrome.
And support for new browsers is often slow in coming. Firefox was launched in 2004 and now has about 20% of the market. Yet it was only a few weeks ago that Bank of America, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, announced that it would officially support the use of Firefox on its site. Until Chrome gains some significant market share, you may need to hang on to IE as a backup for those sites where Chrome doesn't work well--or at all.
Some Sites Only Allow IE - Do you like to play games on MSN? If so, don't plan on using Chrome (or Firefox, either). If you go to the Games section with Chrome, you'll get a message stating "Important Note: Your browser or operating system does not meet the minimum requirements to play on MSN Games. You may be able to download games for offline play; however, the online games can be played only with Internet Explorer version 6 or later, and Windows 2000 or later."
Microsoft, which likes to play hardball, is obviously not going out of its way to make it easy to use a competing product.
To be fair to Microsoft, you may find this on other sites, too, as developers sometimes design only for IE because it is the most commonly used browser. Over time--and as the usage of Chrome and Firefox increase--I would expect this to become less of an issue, although it may never disappear completely.
Finally, there are a couple of issues that are important to corporate users: How well will Chrome work with Outlook Web Access, and will it show "presence" with Microsoft's Unified Communication?
Outlook Web Access (OWA) - Many corporate users find OWA a simple way to access their e-mail when they don't have access to their work computers. Just open up a browser window on any computer, cruise to your site and you are in.
Chrome does appear to work with OWA, but you'll note some differences, such as no preview window. Chrome also gives you fewer calendar options. It only lets you choose daily or weekly views, compared with IE, which gives you the option of a monthly view.
Presence - If your company uses Microsoft's Unified Communications technology, you may be familiar with the "jelly bean" that indicates the status or "presence" as indicated by the colored icon that appears next to a person's name in an application. Unfortunately, this doesn't work with Chrome, which displays everyone as "presence unknown," as if the browser was outside the company's network.
Still, after testing Chrome, I have to say I like it and will use it--for personal use. It fits well with the way I use the Internet. In the corporate world, however, I suspect that Chrome will have more difficulty being accepted.
The biggest obstacle is that there does not appear to be an overwhelming reason for corporate IT to make the switch. The issues with OWA and presence, coupled with the potential for increased support requirements, gives corporate IT a strong incentive to stay with IE.
Companies that grant users administrative rights on their PCs (thereby allowing users to download Chrome on their own) will find the IT groups less than enthusiastic about the additional support load. I suspect when they get a question like, "Why don't I get a preview window in OWA?," the standard response will be, "Although Chrome works for many applications, we don't provide support for those areas where it doesn't work. You'll need to use IE for that aspect."
There is a lot of talk about the impending "browser wars" focusing on the operating system for the new generation of Web applications. With IE's dominant market share and Microsoft's position in the corporate computing environment, Google and Chrome have their work cut out for them. What they've done is nice, but I think it will take much more to make significant inroads to IE's market share.
This article is also posted on Forbes.com. Feel free to join in the discussion either on this site or at Forbes.com
If this topic was of interest, you might also like these:
User-written Access databases (and other similar applications) always present a number of issues for IT. Issues of on-going support, documentation, testing, Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, security, backup, licensing, disaster recovery and so on. They represent all of the challenges that we continually work to minimize.
Some in IT view Access databases as the root cause of these issues and therefore the solution is clear. Let's solve the problem by outlawing Access databases and limit user ability extract data from or to update data in the ERP systems other than through IT provided means. No more user-written systems, no more issues.
Others view these user-written systems as a symptom of a larger issue. The larger issue being that users take this route because IT doesn't give them a better alternative. They don't feel IT is responsive enough to their needs and therefore they must take matters into their own hands. Those that believe the Access database as a symptom issue don't believe we can ever eliminate them (users will always find away to meet their needs) until IT resolves the issue of responsiveness thereby providing a better alternative to users?
How do you view Access databases? Are they the root cause of the problem or are they symptoms of bigger issues?
"Help" photo by Cobber99
Got a question you'd like me to post for future discussion? Email it to me using the "Email Mike" link in the left hand column.
If this topic was of interest, you might also like the other posts in the IT Question category.
Cloud computing has been getting a lot of attention lately. Like the other current hot topic, Web 2.0, it's a loosely defined term. Generally, it refers to accessing information technology services such as data storage or applications in the Internet "cloud" without control of the underlying support infrastructure.
Chances are that you've used cloud services on a personal level, if not on a corporate level. Do you have a Yahoo! or Gmail e-mail account? It's a form of a cloud application. Do you store your photos on Flickr? Are you--or your kids--on Facebook? That's right, more cloud services.
So you've already got a lot of personal data stored on the cloud, and you assume the you own and control it--but do you? Depending on what was in the user agreement that you clicked through without a second thought when you signed up for the account, you might find that you've already ceded control of all that data. For example, Facebook's Terms of Use agreement states:
"... The Company may, but is not obligated to, review the Site and may delete or remove (without notice) any Site Content or User Content in its sole discretion, for any reason or no reason, including User Content…"
and
"…grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing."
Flickr has similar terms and also indicates that there is no right of survivorship and the account is non-transferable. Remember all those precious family photos that your tech-savvy grandmother posted on Flickr? Well, they could be lost forever when her account goes "inactive" if she should die without having kept a copy. I post my photos on Flickr but I keep copies on my PC.
At this point you may be thinking "I'm glad my company isn't doing anything in the cloud." But as sportscaster Lee Corso might say, "Not so fast, my friend!"
Does your company use a payroll processing firm? Are your 401(K) contributions handled by an investment company? Does your sales team use Salesforce.com? Put away those sunglasses: It's getting "cloudy."
A big and obvious difference between personal and corporate examples is that the personal ones are free, except perhaps for the rights we forego. Corporate cloud applications typically come with a fee--and tighter legal rights and protections. While this is obviously comforting, it doesn't mean that all the risks are gone.
When we in-source data center operations properly, we put in place strong processes to address all our corporate concerns about backing up important data and ensuring the reliability of services. But when we go to the cloud for services, we shouldn't just assume that the provider has done all that work.
As the IT providers for our companies, we must perform the proper due diligence to make sure such processes are in place--whether in our own data centers or the cloud application provider's data center.
Recently Gmail suffered an outage, as did Amazon's Simple Storage Service (S3). A few years ago Salesforce.com had a significant outage. At first blush, these disruptions seem to be strong arguments against relying on cloud services.
But you've got to look at such problems in perspective: Yes, a service outage can disrupt our business. However, can we truly say we can do better in-house?
There is always a certain amount of fragility in technological environments. Arguably, large operations such as Google, Amazon and Salesforce, equipped as they are with a wide array of resources, may be better able to address this fragility than any individual company. No solution is without risk, but business is all about managing risk.
Yet even the rules of thumb that we use to manage risk are changing. Cloud computing can be seen, for instance, as a variant of outsourcing. And the time-honored guideline for managing the risk of outsourcing has been to only outsource transactional, non-core functions. Strategic and core functions should be kept in-house.
What is core to your business? Is your sales data strategic? Are patient medical records strategic or core to a doctor's office? The answer to both is, of course, a resounding yes.
Does that mean you shouldn't use an application like Salesforce.com or a storage service like Amazon S3?
I'd argue that the rules are all in flux. What matters is who controls the data.
Cloud computing offers a number of attractive features like no capital outlay, scalability, no (or less) personnel and infrastructure to manage and variable pricing--you pay for what you use. In some cases the service provider can offer better service than we can in-house. But as IT providers, the data still stops with us. So read all that fine print in the Terms of Control--and make sure that you stay in control, no matter where your data resides. Don't forget to conduct a full due diligence of their capabilities. To be fair you should also conduct that same due diligence against your own capabilities. It is only until you have all the facts that you can weight the risks and with the advantages and make the proper decision.
This article is also posted on Forbes.com. Feel free to join in the discussion either on this site or at Forbes.com
"a lonely cloud" photo by jasoneppink
If this topic was of interest, you might also like these:
- Outsourcing Your Reputation
- Hiring the Right / Wrong IT People to Achieve Alignment
- Keeping Data Accurate
- Or the posts in the "Strategy & Management" category.
Last Saturday I mentioned that I had done some search engine optimization (SEO) changes on my blog. I also promised, time permitting, to explain how I did this since some of you may find yourself in the same situation. Here it is.
Fair warning - this won't be my typical conversation or whatever you care to call it. Rather it is a more instructional article on how to add code to your TypePad blog for search engine optimization (SEO). If this is of interest, read on.
TypePad provides the ability to add "keywords". You won't see where to enter these on the default post page. A help article states "On the Post Page, click on the "Customize the display of this page" link. Under the Post Screen Configuration section, select "Custom" and then enable Keywords to include the field on the page."
You may suspect that "keywords" is used for search engines as this is the common use of the term. However, closer reading of that help article indicates "The most common use for keywords is to search for posts within the application." Take a look at source for your main blog page or an individual post (in Internet Explorer use menu options View/Source, in Firefox it is View/Page Source) you will see that the only keywords that show are the ones you entered Publicity/Configure page when you set up your weblog. So all those keywords you've been dutifully entering don't help with SEO.
Fortunately, David Weiss at TypePad Hacks came up with a solution in his post A Creative TypePad SEO Hack. In this post he show how to re-purpose this field so that the keywords you enter actually show as keywords for SEO. What a fantastic solution.
David's approach is a simple one line change meta names line in the head-common module. You'll need advance templates to change this. You'll also need to added this modified module to head-individual module and subsequently add that modified module to the Individual Archives module. David's post and comments describe this in more detail so I won't try to repeat it and suggest that you refer to his article.
I applied a different wrinkle to this by a different approach to the meta name change. After reading David's post I was about to add keywords by copying the Technorati tags in the the keyword field and re-publishing every post. Time consuming to say the least.
I was going to use the Technorati tags since they are in effect keywords for Technorati so my keywords for search engines would be the same.
Before adding any new code to your templates I strongly recommend creating a copy that you can revert to in case of problems. I'd also suggest you set up a test blog to see how your code changes will work before going live on your real blog.
Being the lazy type I decided that instead of re-purposing some code it would be easier to multi-purpose some instead by reusing the Technorti-tag module code. The Technorati tags would work the same as before plus be used as keywords.
In the head-common module I changed the line of code to:
< meta name="keywords" content=" < MTEntryTags glue=", " > < $ MTTagLabel $ > < /MTEntryTags >" / >
[spaces added before the greater and lesser than symbols so it will show in the post]
This worked very well as I now in a few seconds have all the keywords I've wanted on my post.
I know there is some debate about how important keyword meta tags are in SEO and it would appear that they are not as significant as they used to be. However, in the past few days that I've been using them it seems based solely on anecdotal observation that they have helped in how my posts show up in Google searches. Maybe this observation is only a placebo effect, who knows. On the other hand since this is so easy to do why not do it?
Give a try, and again many thanks to David Weiss for this tip.
Last Saturday I mentioned that I had added a way for you, the reader, to rate my articles and give me some feedback. There are a number of these services available but I chose to use Outbrain as I liked their features. I did mention that although they made it easy to install if you used basic templates in TypePad it was not quite so easy if you are using advanced templates. I also promised, time permitting, to explain how I did this since some of you may find yourself in the same situation. Here it is.
Fair warning - this won't be my typical conversation or whatever you care to call it. Rather it is a more instructional article on how to add code to your TypePad blog to include the Outbrain rating system. If this is of interest, read on.
The Outbrain rating system is setup to be easily added to your blog via a widget. If you are using TypePad's basic templates adding the Outbrain widget is straightforward and easy. Simply add it via the instructions on their website.
If you are using TypePad advance templates as I do, you can't add the widget directly. You have to get the code and add it to your templates. The problem is that when you"claim your blog" and indicate that it is a TypePad blog you cannot find the code you need. When you go to the support function you may find a response to a query about how to add it to advanced templates that basically states working with advanced templates is complex and please email the support group for more assistance.
I emailed support (twice) and got no response so I posted another question on their support forum and did get a response. "Kate" was very friendly and tried to be helpful and took a look at my code but I'm not sure she was fully familiar with the process. Being the impatient type I continued to search and found clues that allowed me to figure out how to get the code. I'm sure Kate would have gotten back to me with the solution if I had waited but adding their widget should not be an individual exercise every time. Other "add-ins" make it easy to find the code, I'm not sure why Outbrain doesn't. Once you get the code adding it isn't hard and you can be set in just a few minutes.
The trick to getting the code is that when you claim your blog indicate "Other" rather than "Typepad".
When you click the continue button you go to another page select your language and click continue again. At this point you see 2 snippets of code.
Before adding any new code to your templates I strongly recommend creating a copy that you can revert to in case of problems. I'd also suggest you set up a test blog to see how your code changes will work before going live on your real blog.
The first code snippet will look like:
You can follow the instructions but I would offer 2 suggestions. First, I would go to the Design page and "Create a new template module" and copy the code into it. You can then include this where you want it using the following include statement.
< $MTInclude module="puttemplatenamehere"$ > (remove the spaces before and after the dollar signs - I added them to make sure the command would appear in this article)
Second rather than entering the URL each time use the MTEntryPermalink tag:
var OutbrainPermaLink='<$MTEntryPermalink$>';
This will automatically enter the permalink for you with every new post.
Scrolling down on the Outbrain page reveals the second code snippet.
Install this as instructed. I added this to the Main Index Template as follows:
When you've completed this publish the changes in TypePad. Once it has been published return to Outbrain and go to the "Manage Blogs" via the link in the left column. Scroll down the Manage Blogs page to the section of "Pending Blog Claims". Find your pending blog claim and select the "Check Now" link. This may take a few minutes and you may have to retry waiting for your changes at TypePad to take effect. Once this completes you are all set and your rating widget should appear.
Once your blog claim has been accepted you should see the widget appear on your blog. If you don't see it you may want to try placing it in a different part of your code.
Good luck - I hope this helps.
Last week American Airlines (AA) launched mobile broadband service, Gogo™ provided by Aircell on certain select flights - " . . . customers traveling on American’s Boeing 767-200 aircraft can access complete coast-to-coast coverage on nonstop flights between New York and San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles, and New York and Miami." Delta and Virgin Atlantic have also signed with Aircell and will be offering service soon.
AA announced "Aircell will charge $12.95 on flights more than three hours, which include American’s Boeing 767-200 flights. Each paid Gogo session includes full Internet access. Cell phone and Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) services are not available. "
As an IT guy I guess I should be happy about this but the truth is that while I accept this as an inevitable event I actually have mixed feelings about this. I fully admit there have been times in the past when I really would have liked to have had access especially on long overseas flights. However, since Aircell use ground towers to transmit their signal we still won't have it on overseas flights.
The reason for my mixed feelings? Over the past few years air travel has become much less pleasant. It's more like flying the "unfriendly skies" to paraphrase and mix airline metaphors. I'm sure we've all seen the stories chronicling assaults on the cabin crew and assaults by the cabin crew. Recently the hot news in Houston was the trial of a co-pastor of a local mega-church being sued by a flight attendant for allegedly assaulting her over a spilled drink in her first-class seat (the jury found no assault took place).
While most of us have probably never seen things as extreme as this I'd be willing to bet most would agree that both passengers and crew have become less civil and sometimes down right rude. The economics of the airline industry have, I believe, had a role in late flights, lost luggage, low (or reduce) pay for employees, layoffs and increased fees for things we use to take for granted. All of this has really made air travel less appealing.
Charging for Internet access is clearly being done for revenue generation purposes but will I'm afraid, make the travel experience even less enjoyable. It will be interesting to see how the airlines handle situations like:
- somebody will be surfing porn sites (you just know this is going to happen)
- someone will object because the consider the site their seat mate is viewing (e.g. Sports Illustrated swimsuit) to be porn
- someone will pay the $12.95 only to have the person in front of them put their seat in to full recline making it virtually impossible for them to use their laptop
- since a lot of laptop users don't regularly use earphones I'm sure someone will object to having to listen YouTube videos
- someone will pay the $12.95 and then the service will go down and they'll be upset when told they'll have to contact Aircell when they land, the airline won't assume any responsibility for service delivery.
Aircell has a video on their website dealing with "Inflight Etiquette" but I doubt how many people will actually view it much less take it to heart. As Rodney King said so eloquently:
"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?...It’s just not right. It’s not right. It’s not, it’s not going to change anything. We’ll, we’ll get our justice....Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we’re all stuck here for a while. Let’s try to work it out. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to work it out."
Sometimes the best part about a flight is that you cannot work easily. It can be a refreshing time to relax, think or perhaps just read a book. The idea of even more people clicking away on their laptops and having to listen to what they listen to is not that appealing. My fear is that cell phones on flights won't be that far away once the airlines get a taste of this potential revenue stream. The problem is that although I don't have to participate I'm captive in the environment with those that do. No doubt some perceptive marketing person at the airlines will figure out we can charge people more to sit in a no internet and no cell phone area while at the same time charging others to use internet and cell phone. A fare increase without increasing fares. I'm sure they can hardly wait.
A little over a year ago I made "Some Technology Suggestions for Airline Customer Service" It may be a personal preference but I'd rather see the airlines apply technology to those types of things instead of Internet access.
How do you feel about Internet access on planes? If you've been on a recent AA flight and used Gogo I'd love to hear your opinion of it.
"looks like an ad, no?" photo by Magitisa
If this topic was of interest, you might also like these:
This past week or so I've been busy making some changes to this blog. Some are cosmetic, some are new features and some are just "behind the scenes" kind of changes. I hope you like them and I welcome any comments. Listed below are the more significant changes.
Back on August 12th in an effort to make things easier for you to read the articles I've set it up so that you can now easily see my articles on your cell phone or mobile device. The folks at Mofuse made this a very simple process for both of us. Simply click on the Mobile badge and enter your phone number or browse to http://BBLandA.mofuse.mobi/ Give it a try.
I've also added a way for you to give me feedback via a quick 5 star rating system. But please don't hestitate to also leave comments. The rating sytem is from Outbrain. Once in place is very simple to us, just click on the rating you choose. Installing it however was a different manner. Outbrain provides widget for your blog if you use the standard formats. However, if you use "advanced templates" on Typepad it gets very tricky. Unfortunately, Outbrain doesn't provide a lot of guidance on how to adapt advanced templates. I did contact the support staff and they did provide some help but ultimately I had to figure it out on my own. Time permitting I'll write a separate article on how to do this.
I've joined MyBlogLog and have added a widget showing recent visitors to stay connected with MyBlogLog visitors.
In an effort to improve readability I've changed the format and theme. This include a new look and shifting the sidebars to the right side with the content on the left. There were also a few other cosmetic changes.
The final change was a "behind the scenes" one. I modified my blog to use the Technorati tags as keywords for search engine optimization (SEO). For those of you that have your own Typepad blogs you may be aware the the "keywords" section of your post doesn't really have anything to do with SEO. However, thanks to David Weiss over at TypePad Hacks I found a way to add SEO keywords. Check out "A Creative SEO TypePad Hack" for more information. Time permitting I'll also post more details on this for those of you that are interested.
As always I'd love to hear your comments on ways to improve. Thanks for reading.
Your best customers don't want to come to your Web site.
If this isn't true now, it will likely be true in the future. This especially applies in the business-to-business arena, but is also true, perhaps to a lesser extent, in the business-to-consumer arena. Upsetting, isn't it? And you probably think I'm crazy too.
Here you've spent all that time and effort developing your site and I'm telling you that your best customers don't want to come see it. You put extra effort into making it look good and easy to navigate. You've probably loaded it with all kinds of goodies--up-to-date information, order tracking services and perhaps even some useful applications. What's not to like?
To be sure, you've probably made all the right moves and really do have a good Web site. The thing is, competitors have good Web sites too. Having a site is no longer unique and competing companies' sites often have many of the same features.
The frustrating thing about technology is that it is very difficult--some would say impossible--to maintain a technological competitive advantage. The competition can do the same things you did. And if you were the trailblazer, rivals might be able to learn from what you did and accomplish it more quickly and less expensively. Sad to say, life just isn't fair.
The good news in all of this is that customers want all of that information--they want those cool applications--they just don't want to come to your Web site to get it. They want you to deliver it to their Web sites or intranets.
Like it or not, our customers deal with lots of suppliers. Some are our competitors and some are in completely unrelated fields; all of these suppliers have Web sites with lots of useful tools and information. As much as we'd like our customers to come to our sites, allowing us to capture all the good marketing data, we have to keep in mind ours isn't the only site they will go to.
If we were the only ones out there, it wouldn't be a big deal. But when they have to go from vendor site to vendor site to collect all of the information they need, it can become a real burden.
What customers prefer is for us to deliver the information directly to them. EDI and trade-partner arrangements have done this in some of the more routine, data-intensive areas, such as purchase orders and advance-shipping notices. But what about looking up a drawing or a manual or the current status of their orders?
This is where some of those Web 2.0 technologies can help. What if you used an RSS feed to update an order status? Or how about a widget for your intranet that allows you to check your inventory status while you're on the phone with the customer? Perhaps a widget to look up spare parts for a certain model number? A few weeks ago I talked about these types of applications in "Why Companies Need Web 2.0." The possibilities are endless.
Sure, you can coast along and wait until someone else does it first or your customer asks for it, but do you really want "me too" to be your strategy? The downside is that our customers only want to allot a limited amount of real estate on their intranets for vendor-supplied information. If customers are already getting information they need from your competitor, what incentive do they have to add your information?
In "Why Companies Need Web 2.0," I suggested that you need to consider using Web 2.0 to meet employee and customer expectations. Now I'm suggesting that you'll need Web 2.0 to remain competitive. Is this reason enough?
This article is also posted on Forbes.com. Feel free to join in the discussion either on this site or at Forbes.com
If this topic was of interest, you might also like these: