Recipes and Jobs

This week Google introduced a new flavor (sorry about the pun), to its search engine by launching Google Recipe Search.

With Google recipe search, in addition to normal keyword-based searches ('bacon'), supplemental criteria like other ingredients on hand, desired cooking time, and total caloric value of the dish can be indicated using new tools along the left-hand sidebar. The idea being that by allowing the entry of these other critical factors, Google can present more applicable and relevant search results.  How often have you searched for a recipe only to discover that you lack a key ingredient or two, or don't have the time required to complete the cooking process for a certain dish?Blue = 'jobs', Red = 'recipes'

What powers this kind of targeted search is the use of underlying structured data that is built into the web pages that house the recipes themselves, sites like Epicurious and Food Network. These sites are coded to include information like ingredient names, cooking times, and caloric value in structured, defined, and machine readable tags - tags that Google recipe search can find and evaluate when the search is executed.

According to a Wired piece, about one percent of all Google searches are for recipes, so this new advanced recipe search capability makes sense from a user satisfaction perspective, by returning more precise matches based on a more nuanced evaluation of the user's requirements, users are connected with recipes they are more likely going to be satisfied with.

After reading about the new recipe search, I started to think about another frequent subject of Google searches - searches for jobs. We know from both anecdotal evidence and referral analysis that a large percentage of traffic to corporate career sites, job boards and job aggregators results from Google search. Heck, there is an entire cottage industry populated by consultants and companies offering organizations assistance and tools to improve their career sites' position in Google organic search. The importance of having your organization's jobs high on Google searches for your desired keywords is pretty much a given today.

So to me it stands to reason if Google has spent the time to develop a 'vertical' search for recipes, then why not one for jobs? By my crude reckoning, 'jobs' searches are even more common than recipe searches. And 'jobs' searches certainly do lend themselves to the application of more structured search criteria, like required education, salary range, technical skills, and work location among others.

Now I have no way of knowing, nor could I find any information (ironically by 'Googling'), about whether or not a vertical and structured Google search capability for 'jobs' is something Google will develop, but I also would not have thought a vertical for recipes was really all that important either.

But it would not surprise me at all to see the development of a specific 'Google Jobs' search vertical. Google built the recipe search to help users connect more directly and rapidly with the specific recipes that meet their criteria, certainly job searches could use that same kind of utility. And if indeed Google decides to do the same thing for 'jobs', then it may be your organization's time to connect with your SEO consultant/webmaster/ATS vendor - whomever it is you rely upon to keep your job listings up high on today's keyword-based organic search. Will your keyword-heavy, search optimized, micro-landing pages work in a structured search process? 

It makes sense to me that for job seekers that finding the right Google search result for their job requirements and capabilities should be as simple and precise as finding the right bacon, onion, and maple syrup recipe that I can make in under 30 minutes, having less than 500 calories.

That recipe surely exists, no?

'If you double-cross me, I will destroy you'

Remember Atlas Shrugged?

It is Ayn Rand's 1957 novel about capitalism, her theory of objectivism, and the role of the innovator in business and society.  For a novel published over 50 years ago, it remains a consistent seller, still appearing in the Top 50 of Amazon.com sales rankings at times as recently as 2009.

'Shrugged' enjoys enduring popularity with college students, I think I read the book in college myself, and for many young readers it provides their first (made up) look behind the scenes of big business, government regulation, money and societal pressures, and the role of the innovator.

Whether or not you believe in Atlas Shrugged's Objectivist positions and Rand's political views is entirely up to you, and I don't really recall enough about the ridiculously long book (almost 1400 pages) to have much of a take, other than to observe that world of high stakes big-business, ultra-rich society, and global corporate domination that the book focuses on come off as WAY more exciting that what most of us do on a day-to-day basis.

And now in a move that is likely simultaneously absurd, and the smartest thing ever, a movie adaptation, 'Atlas Shrugged Part I', is slated for an April 2011 release.  As a novel, the artistic achievement of Atlas Shrugged is certainly debatable, but as a movie, if the trailer (embedded below, RSS and email subscribers click through), is any indication, 'Shrugged' is going to be an instant classic.

We love sci-fi and action adventure movies because for a couple of hours we suspend our disbelief and imagine ourselves battling super-villains, having insane car chases in crowded cities, and blowing up stuff, (while accompanied by Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt).  But obviously those are all fantasies that can never come true. Great fun for two hours, but then it's back to the minivan for the ride home.

But in the fake business world of Atlas Shrugged, rendered hilariously well in the trailer, we could sort of realistically see ourselves as global capitalist titans - wearing custom-made $4,000 suits, drinking 20-year old whisky served from crystal decanters, and putting our business adversaries in their place with jabs like 'If you double-cross me, I will destroy you'.

Don't lie - you know you have wanted to use a line like that in your last budget meeting. 

What do you think, will you see 'Atlas Shrugged' when it comes out?

Have a great weekend!

Winning Time

Here's a shocker - I am a huge NBA, and specifically a New York Knicks fan. Once, back in the day I got asked to leave a sports bar for loud protestations of a bad out of bounds call in the first quarter of a Knicks-Pistons game.

So naturally I was glued to the TV last night to watch the first Knicks game following the blockbuster trade that had the Knicks send 4/5 of their starting team to the Denver Nuggets to acquire Carmelo Anthony and Chauncey Billups, (there were some other players involved, but essentially these were the important aspects in the transaction).

The game, which resulted in a 114-108 Knicks victory over the Milwaukee Bucks, was an uneven, at times ugly, and almost hard to watch affair.  The Knicks were obviously having some difficulty adjusting to the new composition of the team, there was naturally a heightened sense of interest and excitement in the game it being Anthony's first as a Knick, and the Bucks, despite playing hard throughout, simply are not a very good team.

Anthony, the focus of intense discussion and speculation in recent weeks as the Nuggets tried to work out trades with several teams in the league, played an inconsistent kind of game.  Clearly a little nervous in the first half, he missed several easy shots he'd normally make, and had some difficulty throughout the game finding a natural rhythm and flow, particularly on offense.  His final stat line - 27 points on 10 for 25 shooting, 10 rebounds, and 2 steals.  On paper not a great game, not horrible, but on paper certainly not a performance that in the business world we would rate as 'Exceeds Expectations'.

But the old sports cliche, 'they don't play the games on paper' is usually true, and to make a fair evaluation of Anthony's performance, you would have to actually watch the game. Late in the fourth quarter the other Knicks star player, Amare Stoudemire had fouled out, leaving Anthony the primary option on offense for the team.  In these last few minutes of the game, Anthony hit two critical baskets, one a baseline drive and dunk, and the other about a 12-foot step back jumper, to cement the Knicks victory.  These two possessions and baskets were the most important ones of the game, and without them it would have been entirely possible for the Bucks to pull out a win.

I know you don't care about basketball, and if you have kept reading to this point, my thanks.

Why might any of this matter at all to business, work, management?  Because last night Carmelo struggled at times, shot a low percentage, looked a little tight, and for three-and-a-half quarters was wholly unremarkable.

But in the end, the part of the game known as 'Winning Time', he came though, and delivered what the team needed to for the victory.  If after the game the coach of the team were to give Anthony a classic performance review in the corporate sense, there is no doubt the bad shots in the first quarter, the passing the ball out of bounds, the confusion on defense - would all probably be duly recorded and noted.  Sure, the two huge buckets in the 4th quarter would make the review as well, but I bet they would appear to have equal, if not reduced, importance to the overall 'grade' as the negative plays.

The final performance rating would probably be a 'Meets Expectations' with possible recommendations to work on his shot, and study the team playbook.  

And I think we do this all the time when we manage people and write performance reviews.  We feel a kind of strange desire to make sure we find and highlight the negative, the odd item or two that has to be worked on, or to include the mention of some small incident, even a relatively unimportant one, as a kind of balance to the positive results achieved during the year. By creating this 'balance' we feel like we have been somehow more fair, but I bet the employees walk out of the meeting thinking only about the negative, and feeling like Carmelo would if instead of talking about the big baskets he made in the fourth quarter, we wanted to dive in to the missed layups in the first quarter.

Sure, we want to achieve top performance all the time, at every stage of the game so to speak, but is that realistic, or even possible?  I wonder if a better focus is needed on what is really important and what makes the critical difference between winning and losing.

I suppose we might need a better understanding of what 'Winning Time' means at work.

It is a nice painting though

This post is not about technology, (are any of them anymore?), not about workplace issues, not about some kind of pointless diatribe on social networking or any of that.Have say about $150M laying around?

This post is about art, or rather it is about a specific painting, Jackson Pollock's 1951 work titled 'Mural'.

The current owner of 'Mural' is the University of Iowa, and not unlike many colleges and universities around the country, these days the University is faced with a difficult set of economic circumstances. Shrinking financial support from Federal and State government sources, rising costs for infrastructure and facilities, and increased expenses for labor and employee benefits all combine to put Iowa, and many if not most other state Universities in a challenging position.

But Iowa has something, an asset of sorts, that no other University can claim. They own 'Mural'. And by some accounts, 'Mural' may be worth as much as $150,000,000 on the open market.

You read that correctly, that was a one-five with a whole bunch of zeroes following along.

Understanding the current financial challenges that will likely linger for the foreseeable future, Iowa state Representative Scott Raecker floated the idea of selling 'Mural', making the argument that the funds from the sale could fund, in perpetuity, as many as 1,000 annual University scholarships for Iowa students.

The idea of selling the Pollock piece was understandably met with resistance -  the piece is iconic, irreplaceable, and could impact the University's ability to solicit future non-monetary donations and contributions.  Ultimately the controversy and concern over selling 'Mural' has led to the proposal to sell the piece to be abandoned. 

For now, 'Mural' remains hanging on the wall in Iowa, the (potential) $150 million remains a dream, and no high school students in Iowa are working on the first drafts of their 'Toss Paint at the Wall Scholarship' essays.

The Huffington Post ran a long, thoughtful, and persuasive piece on why selling the painting would be a bad decision by the state. The arguments about the 'priceless' nature of classic art, an understated but palpable concern about foreign interests buying our uniquely American culture, and the kind of ivory tower, 'we are better than that' positions taken by some of the involved parties add up to a compelling argument.

But to me it is an argument that eventually goes wanting. Selling the piece doesn't destroy it, or devalue the contribution made over 50 years ago.  Most university benefactors would (I think) be ecstatic at the ability to endow hundreds of full academic scholarships in perpetuity. And who knows, maybe one of the thousands of students that could benefit from such an endowment would produce a work or art that surpasses 'Mural'.

Heck, most of the people that look at Pollock think to themselves, 'He just threw paint on the canvas, my 5 year old could do that'.

In fact, when waking up to the idea that 'Mural' might be worth 150 large, I may hang up the blog for a while to toss some paint at the wall myself.

What do you think? Are some works of art really 'priceless', no matter what?

The Unfamiliar and Scary

Submitted for your consideration, three pieces of news from the last week or so:

Maryland Department of Corrections subjects job applicant to a social media strip search by making him turn over his Facebook login and password.Flickr - soonerpa

New Jersey Police Chief offers tips and advice to parents on how to hack into their kids' social media accounts, to snoop and spy, sort of the 21st century equivalent of reading their diaries, (man, that is an old fashioned reference, does any kid keep a diary anymore?).

Spanish nun who had served for over 35 years expelled from her order due to 'Too much Facebook.'

While the three stories all have social networking in common, specifically Facebook (aside, are we getting close to Facebook becoming the generic term for 'social networking', like 'Kleenex' now essentially means any facial tissue?), this post really isn't about Facebook at all.

To focus too much on how organizations, be they public or private, approach and adapt to Facebook, Twitter, and whatever comes next is, I think, to take too narrow a view of what is important and common about the above three situations. 

It is sadly for leaders and institutions of limited courage and vision a short and straight path from the unfamiliar to the scary.  What they don't understand, what they can't reference in a policy or by past experience, what in their narrow world view seems at all out of the ordinary can quickly evoke feelings of discomfort, angst, anger, and in the cases we see above, result in seemingly irrational reactions. 

Yesterday I posted about trust, or at least a form of trust.  I more or less said that external measures of influence can only be guides at best, and that ultimately the value and influence one exerts upon you is a highly variable, highly personal evaluation. And I think we all can kind of agree on that, at least in theory.  'Trusting' an algorithm to give you sound advice that is to be used as a meaningful measure inside organizations does seem like too much of a stretch.  We love our machines, but we are not quite ready to trust them. Even you Watson.

But in the cases above, trust between people is lacking, and in the kinds of relationships we would normally expect trust to be assumed, a given, and only to be withdrawn in the case of some kind of egregious action.  A long time employee attempting to obtain a better role in the organization, a public safety official (who we ought to be able to trust), advising parents to spy on their kids (who the parents ought to be able to trust), to finally, of all things, a nun who somehow ran afoul of her order by discovering a new way to spread the good word.

I don't want to be too hard on institutions and their leaders, often challenged by a flood of new tools, technologies, and issues that they simply can't process quickly enough to adequately address in their customary manner.  It has to be difficult for the Mother Superior of the 'Facebook nun' to know just what exactly she should do.  

But in these cases the leaders, the decision makers might be absolved from nuanced understanding of this new world, they are not absolved from retreating immediately to a position of fear and mistrust.

The unfamiliar might indeed be scary, but people are still people, and by placing your trust in those that you know you have earned that trust, the unfamiliar becomes less scary, and more exciting.