Elliott C. Back: In Aere Aedificare

Today’s post by Robert Scoble on the earthquake that rocked China brings out an important distinction about the nature of a distributed messenging service like Twitter. Scoble eulogizes over the speed of information delivery in his post, thrilled that he knew about the earthquake 50 miles from Chengdu three minutes before anyone else did:

I reported the major quake to my followers on Twitter before the USGS Website had a report up and about an hour before CNN or major press started talking about it. […] Several people in China reported to me they felt the quake WHILE IT WAS GOING ON!!!

While this is a great leap in keeping the world informed about what is going on in any part of it literally at the speed of light, what Twitter does is let you share perception and opinion with the rest of the world. This is different than sharing facts about what is going on. For example, the USGS report which came out three minutes after Chinese citizens began twittering that there was seismic activity, is full of precise details:

Magnitude: 7.9
Monday, May 12, 2008 at 06:28:00 UTC

Location: 31.099°N, 103.279°E
Depth: 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program
Region: EASTERN SICHUAN, CHINA
Distances 90 km (55 miles) WNW of Chengdu, Sichuan, China
Location Uncertainty: horizontal +/- 5.8 km (3.6 miles); depth fixed by location program
Event ID: us2008ryan

If you look at Robert Scoble’s twitter stream, what you get instead is a succession of misinformation, subsequent corrections, noise, predictions of doom, and frenzy:

• 06:37:49 - @dtan just reported an earthquake in Beijing. Wonder how large it is?
• 06:40:50 - @keso reported earthquake too. @dtan said it lasted 10 seconds. I’d guess it’s a 4.5 then.
• 06:41:21 - @michaelrice says it was a 7.8.
• 06:44:14 - @gaberivera says it’s 57 miles from Chengdu, which has 11 million residents.
• 06:57:46 - @jwalkerjr says to hold off on predictions. Well, I need to pass along my experience with earthquakes. This is a HUGE one.
• 07:15:20 - @casperodj just said it felt like the earth was going to split. Literally everything was shaking.
• For more just wade through the mud…

To his credit, you can get an impression of the event, as seen through his and others’ eyes. You can get an idea of the scope, and the impact it has had on people around the world. But, you can’t get trustworthy facts from listen to what the general public is saying in the face of a disaster. A calm rationality is needed that Twitter cannot provide.

Still, Rory Cellan-Jones of the BBC is holding out hope that Twitter can mature into a real-time news service:

Let’s see, as this story unfolds, whether this is the moment when Twitter comes of age as a platform which can bring faster coverage of a major news event than traditional media, while allowing participants and onlookers to share their experiences.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that will happen. Twitter is fast, and it will let you share your experiences, but it will never replace solid journalism and hard facts. What do you think?

When John Graham-Cumming asked the question How Many Users Does Digg Have?, there were a few things he couldn’t tell you, since his data consisted of randomly self-sampled users. Well, with the power of two PHP scripts, we can pull large amounts of user data and form queries. Our first question is how has DIGG grown over time?

A graph of 187,054 digg users, randomly plotted against when they joined

This doesn’t tell us much, though, about how many DIGG users there actually are, or how active they are, so I plotted a histogram of the number of times these 200k users’ profiles had been viewed; the answer, unsurprisingly, is not very often in most cases:

83% of users had less than 50 profile views

And what about users who are active? How many people are digging stories every day? The answer is very few. I took a sample of 29,225 users from the previous sample (randomly) and used the DIGG API to query for their last digg. It turns out 31% (9125) had never dugg anything! After I removed those, here is the histogram I got:

About 15% of Digg users dugg a story in the last week

Concluding thoughts

Digg boasts an official tally of 2.2M users, but at most 20% of them can be considered real, active users. That would bring their user count down to 440,000, far far less than a popular web 2.0 boom child can boast about, and significantly hurting that $300M (or ~$700 a user) valuation that they keep trying to get.

Code Appendix

The {digg user, time joined, digg id, profile page views} information was gathered by the following script:

<?php
    error_reporting(E_ALL);
    ini_set(‘user_agent’, ‘My-Application/2.5′);
    ini_set(“include_path”, “.:/usr/share/pear”);
    require_once ‘Services/Digg.php’;
    require_once ‘Services/Digg/Response/php.php’;

    $base = ‘http://services.digg.com/users/?appkey=http://example.com&type=php’;
    $data = unserialize(file_get_contents($base.‘&count=0′));
    
    $total = $data->total;
    echo “There are $total total users\n”;
    echo “ID,Number,Name,Date,Views\n”;

    for($i = 0; $i < 1000; $i++){
        $offset = rand(0, $total - 100);
        $data = unserialize(@file_get_contents($base.‘&count=100&offset=’.$offset));

        $j = 0;
        foreach($data->users as $user){
            $page = @file_get_contents(‘http://digg.com/users/’.$user->name.‘/’);

            if(!$page)
                continue;

            preg_match(‘/id=”userid” value=”(\d+)”/i’, $page, $matches);
            echo $matches[1] . “,”;
            echo ($offset + $j++) . “,”; 
            echo $user->name . “,”;
            echo $user->registered . “,”;
            echo $user->profileviews .“\n”;
        }
    }
?>

According to a GigaOm article Google Trends Predicts Hillary as Dem Nominee, “current Google trend lines show Clinton beating Obama and Edwards.” Unfortunately they neglect to compare any possible Republican nominees, or any other candidates for nomination, such as our infamous Ron Paul, who easily pwns Hillary’s search volume by orders of magnitude:

Can Ron Paul steal the Republican nomination? According to his Google trends graph, he can! Maybe democracy is coming…

I don’t buy the religious argument that getting the HPV vaccine for young women is immoral. HPV is a nasty, prevalent virus and should be eradicated with as much expediency as possible:

Gardasil, which was approved by the FDA last June, protects against four strains of human papillomavirus (HPV). Two are believed to cause 70% of cervical cancer, which strikes about 11,000 U.S. women a year. The other two strains cause 90% of genital warts–so the vaccine is a twofer.

According to the Time article, 40% of women carry the virus 2 years after sexual maturity, say at 18 years of age. By age 50, 80% of women have it in some form or another. Let’s assume the vaccine Gardasil was 90% efficient in preventing HPV; then after 50 years just 8% of women would carry the virus. Assuming everyone in America decided to vaccinate their daughters, they would see their great-grandchildren’s generation entirely disease free:

This is simply the converging sequence population*(1 - effective rate)^n. There are other factors to take into account, like the number of people who opt to receive the vaccine, which will initially be quite low, combined with the likelyhood of them being a transmitter of the virus. Since my math is sketchy tonight I feel like modeling a markov chain, but suffice to say, preventing America’s young women from contracting HPV is a good thing.

Enlighten me where Christianity comes in, please? You could argue that educating your daughters will in the future promote their immorality because they will become erudite objects of desire, and it would be nearly parallel and equally nonsensical. Never let religion stand in the way of medicine.

Kottke just posted the infamous rope-burning interview problem, which is actually quite easy:

You are given two ropes and a lighter. This is the only equipment you can use. You are told that each of the two ropes has the following property: if you light one end of the rope, it will take exactly one hour to burn all the way to the other end. But it doesn’t have to burn at a uniform rate. In other words, half the rope may burn in the first five minutes, and then the other half would take 55 minutes. The rate at which the two ropes burn is not necessarily the same, so the second rope will also take an hour to burn from one end to the other, but may do it at some varying rate, which is not necessarily the same as the one for the first rope. Now you are asked to measure a period of 45 minutes. How will you do it?

The solution is the following:

• Light rope #1 at one end
• Light rope #2 at both ends
• When rope #2’s ends meet, light rope #1 at the other end. 30 minutes have been measured so far, leaving 30 minutes left on rope #1.
• When rope #1’s ends meet, fifteen minutes have been measured, for a total of 45 minutes.