I first stumbled on to LinkedIn two years ago when asked to find a creative way to fill a difficult opening.
It didn’t work, but it was moderately addicting to use so I continued to update my profile and add connections.
Linkedin is an important part of my strategy to maintain a neatly manicured internet identity. It’s the only real front page result from a google of “Chad A. Hanson”
I have had some positive experience with this site.
I have connected to some old classmates, but frankly I talk to them just as little now as I did before LinkedIn.
I recently found a speaker for our company retreat by spamming my LinkedIn contacts.
Useful, but not more so than my outlook contacts.
Before the SIOP conference I created a semi-official SIOP group. Which holds some promising networking potential. But due to the poorly designed functionality of LinkedIn groups all I really get is five emails a week and an excuse to check my profile.
Linkedin does have some real value for maintaining and building a network and promoting your “googleability.” However, be careful not to over connect. As a general rule you should have at least spoke on the phone with your connections.
I plan on purging some of my connections those I never met or no longer remember.
No offense.
Posted in I/O, Technology
So I had a minor website related disaster.
I’ve switched from Frontpage to Dreamweaver and I’m going to try again.
Posted in Rants, Technology
After firing up my favorite website in the whole wide world Google and rubbing my eyes I went into troubleshooting mode.
I cursed Bill Gate’s name while trying to figure out what silly IE7 setting I must have screwed up for the background to be black.
After realizing that it was the benevolent folks at Google and not the henchmen at Microsoft I pondered why I assume that Google is so good and Microsoft is so evil. An opinion I believe is shared by most. (correct me if I’m wrong)
Both companies give us tools we use everyday. Google with its magical search engine and many other magical tools. Microsoft with Windows, Office, and a variety of other tools that the absence of would cause society to collapse.
Perhaps its a money thing. I’ve never given a penny to Google, but I’ve paid a small fortune to MS over the years.
This Google”black out” shows that Google has somehow has built a rock-solid reputation using arguably less technology. MS on the other hand is and probably always will be cursed. Despite that without Windows I wouldn’t have the faintest idea how to find Google.
Google seems to have well thought out risking its reputation:
Why did Google choose this specific organization?
We believe in doing our part to help combat climate change, and found the Earth Hour initiative to be a timely, important event. Further, we think the “lights out” idea’s individual-centered nature is something that millions of people worldwide can participate in. In short, we really like it. So we did something about it.
In fact, this bold move will probably only strengthen Google street cred.
I guess this goes to show that a good corporate reputation can’t be bought no matter how many schools of the future you build.
Caution should also be taken when blindly trusting organizations collectively seen as benevolent. What is to stop them from making the whole site red to advertise Macy’s red tag sale … for a good cause of course.
Posted in Rants, Technology
On occasion I hear software vendors claim that their software is “intuitive”. They are of course implying that it just so simple anyone can do it.
On the other hand I sometimes here complaints that so and so software is not “intuitive” meaning its too hard.
Perhaps I am nitpicking at at vocabulary but it seems to me that no software can be intuitive.
Software skills are not inborn (well at least not yet) so we all must learn the basic skills needed to stumble our way around technology.
Most of my generation was raised on the Apple ][e. A fine machine but not really anything like my fancy new Vista laptop. Today’s kids have been raised on the past few generations of MS and Apple OSs.
My point being that what is intuitive to me isn’t always intuitive to others. It all boils down to what software each individual has had experience with. The broader the experience the more software will seem intuitive.
On the other hand maybe there is an underlying common software psyche, a blend of the most common software over the past few years.
Posted in Technology
