There are only a limited number of start-up founders in the world, even less who sets his or her mind to change the very fabric of the internet. Chris is one of them.

When Chris and I founded Faraday Media, it was of extreme importance that just being another startup was not enough. We had to do something meaningful. Something significant. Not happy with fame or glory, we wanted to grow as people - giving back to a medium which had fed us for long time. To take the internet to a new place, just like Google had done nearly a decade ago. Its been a long road for Faraday, and while it hasn’t always been easy, Chris’ drive and aspiration has bought us to new and extraordinary heights, time after time after time; often at great personal sacrifice. I could never ask for a better CEO, or friend.

It’s no secret that Chris and I are the best of friends and it makes me very happy, to congratulate him on being selected as one of the 30Under30’s for Anthill, the leading entrepreneurial magazine in Australia.

From the website:

At 26, Chris Saad is one of Australia’s most impressive young web entrepreneurs. His theory and practice around web standards - specifically ‘DataPortability’ and ‘Attention Management’ - have gained significant traction and are set to have a profound impact on the evolution of media in the digital age. Saad has co-founded several web-related companies and organisations, most prominently Faraday Media in 2006, of which he is CEO. Faraday Media is developing Particls, a technology that learns user habit and taste and delivers relevant information to them via news crawler, SMS, email, flash visualisations, etc. He also co-founded the Media 2.0 Workgroup with 14 industry ‘commentators, agitators and innovators’. There’s no shortage of ideas or energy in this digitally-minded entrepreneur. One to watch in the years to come.

Make sure you click through to the Article, subscribe to the mag and read the other 29 profiles!

This is recognition to a man whom has dedicated and sacrificed so much for the greater good, a true philanthropist. Well done Chris, you are definitely deserving of this prestigious award and will no doubt be one of many in the years to come.

I’ve decided to try to resurrect my personal blog - so if you’d like to follow along check it out over here.

Here’s an excerpt:

Are you looking for money?

My answer has changed dramatically over the life of Faraday. It has gone from “Looking for money? What you mean on the street?” to “Are you kidding, we would love any money - how about $10, do you have $10?” and then to “Sure we are raising a round, we have [insert great elevator pitch here]“. It then shifted to “Really? Is that all you got?” and so on.

Since some of the most recent developments in the product/business strategy and the great adoption rate of APML has become clear the question “Are you looking for money” has been raised a few more times.

Most recently though, my answer has changed again. My answer now is “No, but we are looking for partners”.

Following on from yesterday’s post about the User Bill of Rights…

All the issues are converging. The commentators are pushing for their rights. The innovators are building the pieces (Microformats, APML, OpenID etc). All that’s left is for the aggitators to force the issue.

Chris Messina is my hero. Read his latest post about the bill of rights and the issue of user ownership and control of their user data.

He writes:

In any case, if we’re to make progress on this topic, we also have to understand a) why this kind of portability hasn’t been embraced heretofore and b) how it has been hindered.

[...]

I alluded to this earlier, but according to danah boyd, there’s a lot of people who seem really to not mind leaving their profiles (and “internet friends”) behind when they jump sites or — heck — forget their passwords and have to start all over. Is the problem as bad as we, the prolific social networkers with “inhibited manifest destinies”, seem to think it is? Or is this just a problem with the early adopters who have thousands of friends that they seem to think to want to cart around everywhere while they increasingly find themselves with ever-diminishing amounts of time to even “play” social network anymore?

Ah, humbug.

This is a great little article about moving from ‘Trade’marks to ‘Love’marks. Brands that create compelling products that don’t necessarily help users know more - but rather feel more. The best part is as follows:

“The Attention Economy has become the Attraction Economy. We’ve gone from Interruption to Engagement; Reactive to Interactive; Return on Investment to Return on Involvement; Heavy Users to Inspirational Consumers; Big Promises to Intimate Gestures; and from Consumers to People. “

The APML conversation is heating up. The launch of Engagd.com has kicked it into high gear and bloggers are catching onto the idea of creating APML files to make their Attention Profiles portable.

Chris Abraham has posted a piece over on Marketing Conversations. He writes…

An APML is meta-meta. It doesn’t care too much about your subscriptions (the Particls software allows you to import an OPML file to start) but it does care about how you interact with the blogosphere implicitly. It is a little like OPML + eHarmony.

Over time, your APML might mirror your true love interests and tastes. Your APML might know you better than your spouse! Than your very own sweet mother, even. To say nothing of yourself. You can become your very own market researcher, your own auto-pollster. Potentially, suggested Chris, people can meet and greet based on their APML.

…a great attention driven reader should make you feel like you need a tinfoil hat to protect you from its accurate mind reading powers. If folks can figure out how to truly leverage the APML, then this might just well become a reality.

Janet Johnson has responded to Chris’ post with her own “I’m taking my Attention with me…” write-up. She writes:

I’ve often wished I could use my “Janet, we have book recommendations for you here…” information from Amazon elsewhere online. Apparently, (with thanks to
the heads up from the folks over at Marketing Conversation) now I can.

The Faraday Media team are happy to see that references to APML, Engagd and Particls are a daily occurrence now. We are glad that our work, and the work of the APML Workgroup is striking a cord with the community.

Our forum system for Particls is powered by Tangler.com. If you log on to provide us feedback you will find a real-time chat/forum hybrid full of AJAX goodness.

Tangler is starting to venture out of the shadows and has recently been reviewed on Techcrunch.

The ability to span Synchronous and Asynchronous conversation puts Tangler in a category all on its own. Jump in at any time, or discuss in real-time. Join the conversation late? No worries, read back through the archived history.

The real power of Tangler becomes clear, however, when you look at the distributed nature of the system. One conversation, many ‘windows’. You can particupate from the Tangler UI, in an embedded chat room on another site or on a widget somewhere.

Check out our Tangler group to get started.

A whole set of blog posts have sprung up last couple of days about the need for a tool like Particls.

Alex Iskold on RWW writes:

“We need a tool, an assistant, that understands our processes, understands what we are doing, when we change tasks and when we finish them. It needs to be with us everywhere - on and off line and on the go. As much as possible, this tool needs to help us juggle our tasks and restore the context, recall and store information and make our life easier for us. This is not Artificial Intelligence, this is basically a glue for all the things that we are trying to juggle and ways we are trying to juggle them.”

In response a number of others have chimed in:

• A rash of good writing
• Moving toward machine processing—the certain destiny of web evolution
• Continuous Partial Attention

This is exactly the goal of Particls. We are not quite there yet - but it’s certainly a worthy goal.

Mark Lewis has written a piece over on Cnet about the need to flip the information delivery model. He writes:

“Web 2.0 flips the information delivery model upside down–it’s now about global access, and information at your fingertips, aggregated from sources that you don’t even necessarily know about, or care where they exist. Based on a set of search criteria, information in all its rich forms–media, video, audio, images, documents, text–all will be assembled together in context and delivered to users and applications for real-time experience.”

That’s a very poetic way of saying that in an age of hyper-choice, the most important challenge is to move beyond ‘What’s popular’ toward what’s ‘Personally Relevant‘.

I happen to also agree with Mark’s suggested implementation - Source agnostic aggregation filtered by persistent search (and Attention Profiling) and delivered in real-time.

We call it Particls.

With the announcement of Streamy and Thoof, however, Michael Arrington over on Techcrunch has declared that Personalized news is pointless and will never work.

He’s felt that way for a long time. I know… because he told me so while we were playing poker. A number of other people have suggested the same thing to me as well.

However, there are two things those people don’t understand.

1. Particls is not about Personalized News, it is about Personalized Alerting. We use the personalization part to rank content and determine how urgent the alert is for each user on an individualized basis.

   Thoof, Streamy and others are doing a very different (and worthwhile) job - and they are all potential partners of ours. We wish them the best of luck.

2. Just because something has not worked before does not mean it is not worth doing again and again until it’s done right. There is a place for popular, social news experiences (as Digg’s popularity has proved) and there is a place for targeted, personal and solitary news experiences (as Digg’s trolls and pop-culture content has proved).

A post on slashdot covers the Buzzmetrics/Neilson news that:

“…news that one of the largest Net measurement companies, Nielsen/NetRatings, is about to abandon page views as its primary metric for comparing sites. Instead the
company will use total time spent on a site. The article notes, “This is likely to affect Google’s ranking because while users visit the site often, they don’t usually spend much time there.”

Pageviews have been barely useful for quite some time now. As a result, many (including myself with a proposal for AttentStreams and AudientStreams) have called for a change in standard measurements. Compete.com has even moved to their definition of ‘Attention‘.

While Time Spent is a little more useful, it is not perfect. For example it does not factor out people who leave pages open in tabs and does not indicate a level of actual interactivity with the page/content/service.

Interestingly though, Particls (the application not the website) has an enormous time-spent value. We average more than 7 hours per user per day of time spent because the application is designed to persist in front of users all day (in the form of a news ticker - and soon - some other interesting presentation styles).

As a result, our publisher partners who distribute white label versions of Particls are experiencing huge jumps in their overall time-spent engaged with their brand, content and advertising.

Learn more about the white label partner program here: www.particls.com/intouch

There’s been a mad rush to Facebook latley so we have joined in the fun with some groups of our own.

Join the APML Group and the Media 2.0 group (Thanks to Marianne!) to get involved.