Management finds a way.

When a person performs a search, often they are looking not specifically for a product or a service but an answer. Sometimes it’s just a second opinion before pulling out the wallet, but more and more often it’s an inquiry about relationships, health, or even technology that doesn’t naturally result in the immediate employ of a new device or professional. The person inquiring simply needs advice.

There is no end-all be-all in obtaining educated opinions, and the internet will often offer you content from a special interest publication or personal weblog as a cure to what ails you - consider yourself lucky if you get a good answer without pouring through pages and pages of search results. Meanwhile, in step the advice sites - Yahoo! Answers, WikiAnswers, Answerbag, etc. - internet venues where questions can be asked and everyday folks can throw in their two cents too. Rather than leave your inquiry to search devices, these Q&A sites aggregate common (and some not-so-common) questions and allow other users of the sites to provide the answers - you absorb and contribute as you see fit. Communities of people seeking advice, and dishing it out.

I stumbled upon one of the lesser known sites in the Q&A arena not too long ago, FunAdvice.com, and was immediately curious as to what they were up to. I’d bumped into many sites before that seemed like so much MySpace/Facebook half-baked knockoffs that I wondered how a “no name” site like FunAdvice could survive unless it was simply a “bandwagoner” parsed together for a quick exit. I’ve since had a chance to chat with one of it’s owners, Jeremy Goodrich, and am now in state of slight shock - without as much as a single mention in the ‘major internet media’ FunAdvice has managed the following (1):

• More than 100,000 registered users;
• Over 2,000,000 monthly visits;
• Almost 200,000 private messages exchanged between members;

and…

• The site has surpassed financial breakeven without the help of third-party capital.

Granted, FunAdvice has had some time to build up their stats (the site was started several years ago), but the company has experienced steady growth over the last 13 months (2):

Worth a visit? Depends on who you are.

At first glance I didn’t find the site particularly appealing, and it wasn’t until I dug in that I figured out why. FunAdvice members tend to seek love and relationship, health, beauty, and parent/family advice, whereas I’m more apt to wonder which bar has two-for-one PBRs on Wednesday and whether or not Orvis has solved their problem with the backlog on articulated flies. Hence, FunAdvice isn’t really for me, but then again neither are MySpace, Facebook or Twitter. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean FunAdvice is not grabbing the attention of quite a few folks - the site has hosted more than 60,000 (1) questions in the previously mentioned categories alone - tens of thousands more questions are asked and answered on subjects like computers, jobs, music, gaming, and more.

After tooling around the site for a while, I only had three real gripes:

1) The site ties usernames to individual groups, meaning a user can only have one group and the group URL is not going to reflect the group subject (it is the same as the username of the user who created it);

2) The site requires picture captions - those captions are used for searching; I’d rather have a picture speak for itself; and

3) The site’s search needs some work; I couldn’t find myself or my group (although the latter might be a result of #1), and the site only allows drill down by main interests (at which time, you can view Q&As only reverse chronological order).

I addressed these issues with Jeremy Goodrich, and he noted that they were aware of them (particularly as it related to groups) and that they were working on changes. Jeremy also said that roughly 90% of the site improvements that had been made over the years came directly from user feedback, which is garnered from community managers activities on the site. Paying attention to your customer? How novel (particularly post “beta”).

Another genre of sites appear valuable. So what?

What makes Q&A sites so special in a world of Facebook junkies? When combined with search, this armchair analyst thinks plenty. People are always asking questions via search engines, hence natural language’s holy grail quest. But as the average user knows keyword search works pretty well on its own, and finding answers to inquiries inevitably leads a whole lot of people to Q&A oriented pages. Of advice related search traffic, Yahoo! Answers, Wiki Answers, Answerbag, Ask.Metafilter, FunAdvice, and Yedda owned 6.2% of it in July 2007. By March 2008 that share had grown to 12.2% (3). Q&A traffic is growing in lockstep with search, and in some cases and for some search properties, overall Q&A traffic is actually growing faster.

Management is the real gem here

FunAdvice was started by Jeremy Goodrich, Widhadh Waheed, and Ericson Smith. Jeremy is a Yahoo! alumnus and also worked at InfoSearch Media (formerly TrafficLogic) before the Answerbag acquisition. The trio have a history together, having worked on numerous web projects including ConversionLogic, which they sold to TrafficLogic in 2004. These folks can multitask too: in addition to running FunAdvice, CEO Goodrich also consults on web marketing and search engine optimization at Asenyo; Widhadh is Goodrich’s partner at Asenyo; and CTO Smith spends his days at an Alexa Top 50 web company while juggling side projects including Medications.com and RevSense.

What makes these folks interesting, however, is not what they did a few years ago, or what they are doing now - it’s HOW they are doing it today. The partners have collaborated on at least three different businesses in the last eight years, but haven’t gathered face-to-face in the last seven. They utilize a project management tool that Ericson Smith developed some years back to manage tasks, bugs, engineering time, etc. They built a good backoffice - each manager has the ability to view real-time stats, and those stats can be exported for visualization. Employee and volunteer (i.e. experts/moderators) activity can all be tracked, even while that activity is in-progress.

Jeremy Goodrich manages daily operations, staffing, payroll, and some business development. Widhadh Waheed takes care of product design, including user interface and experience development, and training community managers, while Ericson Smith oversees platform and infrastructure decisions. They coordinate all this across state and international lines through a combination of their project management tool, along with email and instant messaging. According to Goodrich, they’ve never had a staff meeting, and no more than two of the three top managers have ever been on the phone together at the same time.

Transactions in the space

There have been several deals in the Q&A space in the last few years. WikiAnswers (aka FAQFarm) was acquired by Answers.com for roughly $2 million in late 2006, while Answerbag was bought by Demand Media for roughly $5 million around the same time. Yedda raised $2.5 million in funding, with a rumored valuation of between $15 million and $20 million, in late 2007. And while I’m not at liberty to disclose detailed financial information on FunAdvice, I can say that based on their run-rate the site is certainly playing in the valuation ball park.

Conclusions

Q&A sites are somewhat few and far between, but while everyone is paying attention to the latest Javascript mashup these sites are quietly growing on the backs of search. FunAdvice has chosen to combine the format with social features (hence the “fun”), and while I don’t see it becoming the next-big-thing social network I do see how regular social network users would feel comfortable using the site. Further, as someone who has built and tried to grow a niche social network (and failed miserably), I can’t help but think FunAdvice is a testament to teamwork vis-a-vis a virtual environment, and running a well-traveled tight ship.

Editor’s note: Are Google, Facebook and Twitter the entire internet? I don’t think so, but I was getting quite bored with the repetitive coverage and decided to seek out that which was new. “Gems in the Rough” might become a new category around here, taking a peek at otherwise overlooked web businesses that are finding their way without the spotlight. This doesn’t mean I’ll find another (hence use of the word “might”), but there have been a lot of complaints coming in about the over-abundance of big trout pictures on these pages so I’ll be ad libbing on the “gems” bit for a while and seeing where it goes.

Reference:
(1) Taking from discussions with management
(2) Taken from internal analytics data
(3) comScore http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=2119; Understanding User Goals in Search, Daniel E. Rose and Daniel Levinson, Yahoo! Inc.

This morning’s MySpace note reminded me that I had some housekeeping to do. One of the duties was to delete a few social networking accounts - I don’t use them and likely never will, preferring the dynamics of voice intonation and facial expressions over web pages. This task, however, proved more complicated than I thought.

I’ll toss out a caveat - MySpace was a cakewalk. I logged in, and clicked on account settings. The “delete” link was easy to find, and I clicked it. The page asked me in no uncertain terms whether I wanted to do this. I pushed the equivalent of the yes button. Thirty seconds later I received an email with another link to complete cancellation. I click that, push one button, and it’s done (or at least promised within 48 hours). Seconds later I notice that the MySpace messaging account I had input into Adium (but never actually used) had gone offline. I was now pretty certain my account had been taken care of.

On to Facebook…I am now reminded why I avoid signing up for too many services on the web - some are simply run by jackasses.

First and foremost, trying to find a link to delete your account within Facebook is kind of like trying to find a prostitute inside the Vatican City - you’ve heard rumors it’s possible, but nobody is pointing the way. I wound up having to run a Google search to acquire this:

http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account

So I click said link, and wind up at a page that tells me I need to log in. I enter my log-in information, but instead of getting redirected to the page I previously requested - you know, in the same sort of manner virtually every other web service on planet Earth operates when you click on a link that requires prior login - I wind up at a generic contact page. Furthermore, the “Issues” drop down list of the form now staring me down doesn’t even contain a selection for “delete account.”

I have to say I’d actually thought of writing a desktop script to repeatedly request account deletion, but soon realized someone else had probably tried that. How do I know? Well after finally reaching the proper page and requesting account deletion, I was met with this message:

Thanks, your inquiry has been forwarded to the Facebook Team.

At that point I realized I was running late. So I walked the dog around a few blocks - when I returned, this was sitting in my inbox:

Hi,

The Facebook Team has received your inquiry. We should get back to you soon. In the meantime, we encourage you to review our Privacy and Security Help page (http://www.facebook.com/help.php?page=433). There, you’ll find answers to many common questions.

Thanks for contacting Facebook,

The Facebook Team

It didn’t take a deep investigation to realize this was an auto-generated message. In addition, the return address had been purposefully obfuscated to either prevent a reply or keep damn good track of who did reply:

privacy+nl8qtsg@facebook.com

I then run through the same process roughly ten times - hitting the delete account page and proceeding - hoping the “Facebook Team” truly gets the message. Then I run out for breakfast. When I returned, there were no new delete account messages waiting for me - someone has obviously tried the delete-account-many-times approach, and Facebook has taken appropriate measures. Several hours later my account was still active.

Conclusions:

1) Facebook goes to great length to prevent you from finding a way to delete your account. Links are extremely non-obvious, and the site purposefully tries to circumvent your reaching the page. You are forced to find a link to delete from outside the site, and make sure your are logged in BEFORE you can properly access said link.

2) Facebook communication makes them sound apprehensive about deleting your information. They may claim that this is for your own protection, but I consider the sequence and tone more that of one that wants to carefully review your information first, just in case there is something of value to them within.

Keep in mind - you don’t have this problem elsewhere. I’ve been plenty of places where going through the delete account process gives you fair warning, just before your account disappears. I’ve got MySpace on the tip of my tongue…cripes, even Google lets you delete accounts and the result is instantaneous. Finding yourself in the position of having to wait for some “team” to “get back to you soon” is more than mere bullshit.

You know what they say…if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

Then don’t forget your waterfowl stamp.

UPDATE: Roughly 36 hours later, I get this:

Hi Michael,

We have deleted your profile information and removed your email address from our login database.

We are always trying to improve the Facebook user experience. As someone who recently deleted their account, we’re looking for feedback about this specific experience. If you have time to answer the following questions, that would be much appreciated.

-Why did you decide to delete your account?

-Was it easy for you to find the option to delete and did you find the the process fairly straightforward? (if not, why not?)

-Why didn’t you want to deactivate your account?

-Any additional comments about the process.

Thank you for your time,

Emma
User Operations
Facebook

Kind enough, and certainly decent direct customer service contact. But ludicrous if you consider that…

1) This is the web we are talking about - action is supposed to be real-time, not a day and a half later;
2) This is the web we are talking about - machines are supposed to do this instead of purported humans;
3) This is the web we are talking about - if it really took a human to delete an account, you’d might have thought they would do at least the slightest bit of checking before asking questions that have already been answered.

Bernard Lunn started by comparing LinkedIn’s search feature to Google, and concluding the former was better. I found Mr. Lunn’s personal use cases even more intriguing than his headline, and think you should read it through. I’m sure folks can cook up even more derivatives of Mr. Lunn’s methods (and I’d love to hear about them).

Further, I find LinkedIn’s ability to find people for you even more fascinating. The first time I was exposed to the “you may know so-and-so” bit, the name was Adam Ostrow. I enjoy Adam’s take on the digital world, and link to Mashable every now and then - we exchanged a few emails about MindSay way back when as well. So I wrote the “you may know so-and-so” indicator off as some stealthy web-crawling on LinkedIn’s part. Since then, I’ve received a few more for a few more people, and most were probably from the same source. But just recently I received a “you may know so-and-so” for someone I conversed with briefly, some time ago. I never blogged the subject matter, never linked to the person (they don’t have a blog, but do have a simple brochure-style website) - we exchanged a few emails via POP clients, and talked on the phone a few times. That’s the extent of it. We are now connected on LinkedIn, but share no connections per se.

I really want to know…how do they do that?

1) Bill Gates’s nemesis?

2) The Hotel California?

or

3) Just a time sink you can map (and of course, waste more time doing so)?

Everything has its limits. Thousands of daily “friends” requests aren’t going to do you much good - those “requestees” will either try taking yet more of your time, or they’re making the request because you are desirable for whatever reason and their hope is the resulting association will make them so too. Not having the ability to fully extricate yourself from the situation doesn’t help matters.

I am quite surprised users are just waking up to these issues now.

Mark Cuban thinks the internet is just dead and boring, and blames the economy. But maybe it’s the users…dying of boredom, and attempted to alleviate what ails them through the virtual world.

To get people thinking about the related issues, Marshall Kirkpatrick has put together a list of questions well worth asking, and discussing. It is indeed timely.

Online social networking is already on fire, but there is a price to be paid as well - mashups galore are making it ever easier to get the data you want, as well as enable people to acquire data on you. I find it amusing that users scream when their Facebook accounts are disabled because they tried to mine some of the data within, but in the Scoble case and many others just face the facts - all those people you think are your friends aren’t really your friends. The majority of the people on that “friends list” won’t ever ask you out for a drink, help you move, or read your business plan, and they certainly don’t want you taking their email address to another site so that service can spam them with invitations to join the next best thing. I’m no particular fan of Facebook, but I can’t help but give them a thumbs up here. The myriad of user privacy settings they offer are there for a reason, to prevent pseudo-friends from taking users’ data while they are attempting to grab their own.

It’s a quandary for many internet users. The fact that some join and befriend in the first place makes them particularly vulnerable. It won’t be long before the type of intrusion exemplified by Robert Scoble/Facebook is going on undetected - its centralization makes it low hanging fruit. Meanwhile we’ve moved beyond the average person’s grasp of privacy - it no longer exists - the best one can hope is that the information available about them isn’t ultimately damaging.

No fire truck is going to arrive to help you if it is.

UPDATE: If the risk of all that social networking data floating around isn’t bad enough already, you can always worry about your ISP doing the mining.

UPDATE 2: Regarding the Scoble/Facebook drama, Paul Buchheit wonders: Why aren’t Gmail, Yahoo! Mail, and Hotmail blocking Facebook? Another good question, and with TOS excerpts to boot!

Cheer and good tidings first; light reading last

• Charlie Crist calls for an investigation of “Florida’s subprime-tainted fund.” It’s really a SIV tainted fund and a sub-prime tainted SIV, but I’ll spare you the details. More on the Florida Fund fiasco here, here, and here.
• Research In Motion: no slowdown. Is it a consumer thing? Personally, I’m very happy with my Blackberry, although I consider it a business tool.
• Myspace. Facebook. Go Wordpress!? This may sound a little outlandish now, but the open source blogging application has the install base and the development community to really put a hurting on the “traditional” fare.
• A Home Price Heat Map, compliments of Stephen Heise. Data runs from 1975 to Q3-2007. Very interesting - hit the pause button along the way.
• A reminder: next time you look into that camera someone might be recording the color of your eyes, among other things.

Again, happy holidays!

Two interesting articles on social networking and data elements from Read/WriteWeb, compliments of Alex Isgold and Bernard Lunn.

Some will find them lengthy for blog posts, but follow through. Bernard’s concluding inquiries on network types reads like the first chapter of an introductory sociology course. Smart stuff.

Pete Cashmore says it’s all hot air:

This sounds a lot like talk and no action to me. Do 99% of those users on social networks care about this stuff anyway? And what difference does it make if anyone agrees to this - it seems like the return of that familiar form of verbal vaporware, pioneered a few years back by the “Attention Trust“, which asked website owners to be respectful of the “attention” of their users. Or perhaps the Blogger’s Code of Conduct proposed earlier this year is closer to the mark: that too fell by the wayside when it emerged that no one really cared about a unified code of ethics for bloggers. I guess you can call it vaporthinking.

I concur. And market forces will ensure social networking participants don’t care either.

UPDATE: A somewhat alternative viewpoint on this from Josh Catone. Good argument.

From Advertising Age:

“What’s been a challenge is figuring out a model that expands the beauty of social networking.”

Yes, ads are still flat. And my guess is while marketers move into the popular social networks, the users will be looking for another grass-rootsy platform to hang out in.

Interestingly, social networking tops the no-value category.