It’s getting a bit dusty in here. Time to sweep the old cobwebs away.
I can’t believe it’s near on 4 years since I last posted here. Looking back at my posts and even some of the recent comments it feels great to see that some of what I had to say then is still of relevance and use. And it’s inspired me to try to start again.
Also, to be honest, I’ve noticed a large increase in spam comments getting through recently which prompted me to log into WordPress to clear them out.
Back in the day I had 2 blogs: Alan Buxton’s eSourcing Place, where I blogged about eSourcing from the point of view of being the guy who headed up the product at TradingPartners; and Golden Pebbles where I would get more technical. I imagined the audience would be pretty different for both. And at one point they even had their own domain names.
I’ve now combined the two into one and look forward to blogging here a bit more regularly than once in 4 years. See you around.
All the best
I’ve always thought that auctions work best if they carry on while bidders are happy to bid. Most offline (and online) auctions I am familiar continue until no more bids are received – just like the way the standard procurement reverse auction works.
On the other hand eBay is notable for always finishing an auction at a predefined time. This encourages bid sniping where potential buyers tactically try to wait for the last possible moment to get their best bid in. So I was fascinated and entertained to read in “The English Year” by Steve Roud about traditional buying auctions which rely on a fixed time to end rather than continuing indefinitely.
In a candle auction a candle was lit and bids were accepted until the candle went out. Or a pin would be put in a candle and bids would be taken until the candle burned down far enough for the pin to drop out. Apparently this was an officially sanctioned way of running auctions in the 17th century and Steven cites examples where candle auctions still take place in England (on the 6th of April at Tatwell, 13th December at Aldermaston).
Other weird and wonderful (to modern readers) auction types Steven cites are
- The Running Auction that takes place in Bourne, Lincolnshire on the Monday before Easter. This is to auction grazing rights on a piece of land, and bids are accepted for as long as it takes for 2 children to complete a 200 yard race, and
- An auction at Wishford in Wiltshire that takes place on Rogation Monday, also for grazing rights, in which “[b]uyers are summoned by the church bell, about fifteen minutes before sunset, and the parish clerk walks up and down between the church porch and gate while the bidding takes place. As soon as the sun dips below the horizon, he strikes the church key on the gate, and the auction is over”.
Looks like eBay’s approach has a good historical pedigree
The serious point, though, is that these types of auctions that tried to fix a specific end time eventually died out to be replaced by open-ended auctions.
One of the principal devs here had heard good things about Tellurium, a testing framework that sits on top of Selenium, so I decided to take a look. Unfortunately the “getting started” material is a bit vague at best and incomplete at worst so here is a quick checklist of the activities I had to go through to get Tellurium tests to pass on my Netbeans installation.
From http://code.google.com/p/aost/downloads/list get http://aost.googlecode.com/files/tellurium-core-0.6.0.jar
Extract these into a lib folder somewhere and replace the groovy version 1.6 file with the groovy-all-1.6.4.jar from http://groovy.codehaus.org/Download
Now follow the instructions at http://code.google.com/p/aost/wiki/CustomTelluriumNetBeansProject (but obviously make sure you include all the jars you downloaded, not just the ones listed).
I’ve recently started at Rated People as their Technology Director.
I find the company fascinating for a bunch of reasons:
- They are a marketplace that allows people to find tradesmen very easily. It’s shocking how easy for the user it is, in fact – and I speak as someone who has used the service as a user. The model is pretty similar to MFG.com - regular readers will know I’m a fan.
- But even better than the traditional online marketplace idea, Rated People is more like a dating agency. I don’t go on the site and choose from hundreds of plumbers. The system chooses the best plumbers for me based on my location, budget etc.
- The upshot of all of this is that the ratings system on Rated People is the best I’ve come across. It is the hardest to fake. Amazon’s ratings are useless – as a manufacturer I could easily hire plenty of people to post positive reviews of my goods. Even on MFG.com I could register myself as a supplier, create a number of fake buyer accounts, award myself some contracts and give myself a great rating. On Rated People you can’t just do this.
- It’s still sourcing!
On a “small world” note, I was out with one of the guys last night and found out that he once used to be a buyer at Brakes where he used to run their reverse auctions and was involved in the early incarnations of Trade Interchange.
Received wisdom on the web is that if you are running a business you should own the .com domain name or else you are doomed to being an also-ran.
So I was surprised to read The Sunday Telegraph Stella Magazine’s (8th March 2009 – yes it was a slow Sunday) article on “the great eccentrics of world fashion”. Some are listed alongside URLs:
Susie Bubble of http://stylebubble.typepad.com
Tavi Gevinson of http://tavi-thenewgirlintown.blogspot.com
Diana Pernet of http://ashadedviewonfashion.com
Yvan Rodic of http://facehunter.blogspot.com
Out of these four, only one runs the .com domain of their online presence. The others are content to let blogspot and typepad do the heavy lifting and are evidently happy to be associated with those domains.
And given that 99% of first time visitors to your location will get there by typing in the name (e.g. facehunter) into Mr Google’s Guidebook, the .com-ness or not of the domain name becomes less relevant.
Google search for "facehunter"
Not surprisingly, as with pretty much any .com name made up of two arbitrary words, facehunter.com is apparently owned by a domain squatting organisation. I presume this to be the case because (a) facehunter.com is just a list of links to adverts and (b) I’m struggling to see what other reason Rough Media can have for registering 2,000+ domains.
Google is wise to this: if you even do a search for “facehunter.com” you still get links to the “real” facehunter at http://facehunter.blogspot.com rather than the squatted domain.
Google search for "facehunter.com"
Where is the benefit, these days, of having http://www.myname.com over http://myname.wordpress.com or even http://www.twitter.com/myname? How long before having your own .com domain starts feeling rather stuffy, quaint and old-fashioned?
Some notes for those who are touting their software as intuitive/easy to use:
- It’s a relative concept. I was very excited in the mid 90′s to see how easy to use SAP R/3 was. Compared to SAP R/2.
- Of course you think it’s intuitive. You wrote it.
- Things become intuitive once you’ve been trained to use them. I now find the Office 2007 ribbon intuitive, just as I find the location of Accelerator, Brake and Clutch pedals in my car intuitive. There was a time when I didn’t.
The only person who can convicingly claim that your software is intuitive or not is the person using it. As a developer it’s something I’ve often struggled with because what the end user finds intuitive can often be very different to what I think they’d find intuitive. Getting this right is half the battle (and half the fun).
From The Economist Special Report on the future of finance, Jan 24th:
Mr Rajan of the University of Chicago says academic research suggests mortgage originators, keen to automate their procedures, stopped giving potential borrowers lengthy interviews because they could not easily quantify the firmness of someone’s handshake or the fixity of their gaze. Such things turned out to be better predictors of default than credit scores or loan-to-value-ratios …
In other words - if the devs found something difficult to deliver they descoped it. Pretended it didn’t exist. A viewpoint that is more common than you might think: to develop software you need certainties (if x occurs then do y).
Not that this viewpoint is limited to devs. In my work with buyers I’ve seen a marked reticence to even attempt to quantify the non-price elements of the bids they are being faced with, and certainly a reticence about weighing up the non-price elements of bids against the price (e.g. is a 3-year warranty worth an extra £x per unit).
It’s almost as if there is a tendency to ignore the subjective when what we should be doing is incorporating the subjective, but accepting it as such.