all of my ideas have been bourne out of experience. is there an industry that you like outside of web? my passion has been in real estate and it's led me to create a web app for real estate investors that solves many of their needs.
Yeah, sit and watch the world go by. Let something - anything - spark an interest and just follow the vibe. You'll soon discover something you hadn't known before and find yourself in a preferred position to that in which you are now.
If you have a first-class degree from a top institution, that's called "so what?".
Spokeo fits in nicely I think, to answer the so what and offer a more rounded view on prospective candidates.
It reduces asymetry of information and reduces the risk of adverse selection by employers. In my opinion, having a good qualification is not enough of a signal to being a good employee. It therefore provides essential information that should ultimately benefit both parties.
That said, I don't think there's any substitute for a good face-to-face interpersonal interaction to determine a person's character or suitability for a role.
The data already exists so compiling it is a routine exercise. I wonder how this kind of service could be fooled or played or worse misattributed?
"... Spokeo fits in nicely I think, to answer the so what and offer a more rounded view on prospective candidates. ... It reduces asymetry (sic) of information and reduces the risk of adverse selection by employers ..."
It would do nothing to reduce risk. In fact I'd go further to say that organisations that hire on unverified information are open to risk of future legal action. This is information gathering at its worst. How does more information of dubious quality on a candidate rule them out distinguishing themselves at a given task? I would propose a counter application to the likes of Spokeo - a registry of potential employers. Free along the line of Craigslist. Someone looking for a job can view lists of companies by sectors and geography, rated by what matters to employees and updated.
This is an example of asymmetry.
Companies may have more money but there are more employees than companies. More data thrown at the employee allows greater scrutiny than what I guess most companies would like. A comprehensive list of companies worldwide ranking them by employee friendliness. More information in choice of companies you work for might make you think twice before you apply. The cream of companies rising to the top? For example imagine if you could view a company that you thought might be a good place to work only to find company information:
- In the press: current directors are constantly in the news for poor financial results, mismanagement or outright law breaking.
- Ethical status: encourage low wages and outsource, made no efforts to improve greenhouse gas emissions
- Enhancement: no effort to supply extra training
- Finances: public finance information reported against the rest of the market. For startups it might also have the VC's or publicly declared finance as this has implications on how a company behaves.
- Blunders: What was the last publicly acknowledged blunder? How was it handled.
- Relations: do they have induction? how do they handle various HR issues?
As you imagine if you start to put the spotlight back on companies that employ people a lot of PR companies will be getting anxious calls.
Maybe it might force change?
"... I don't think there's any substitute for a good face-to-face interpersonal interaction to determine a person's character or suitability for a role. ..."
This is one point I agree on. The problem, the best shady characters can fool all but the most thorough of vetting. I'm not sure that software can play a meaningful part in this process?
I think your range of points on security, unverified information etc are all valid.
My viewpoint is about gaining a more rounded understanding for a person's character, i.e. using all available information on a candidate to try and build a more accurate representation of them.
If Spokeo are offering some sort of verification service such as those offered by Experian et al then I find this to be a flawed model.
"... My viewpoint is about gaining a more rounded understanding for a person's character, i.e. using all available information on a candidate to try and build a more accurate representation of them. ..."
I'm not sure more data is better trying to verify a candidate. You can infer things by viewing a candidates flickr + twitter + blog but how do you know it is not being spoofed, manipulated?
When you say he can't sell enough houses - does he not have enough sellers or buyers?
With such high foreclosure rates, I'm assuming it's a lack buyers. Being a property investor myself, I can tell you there are a lot of people I know personally who are biding their time and getting ready to pounce on bargains.
I'm based in the UK and so far the US market has tanked so much more. If you can package the deals and market them to UK investors I think you could be on to something.
There are definitely people wanting to buy, they just might be out of your typical geographical reach. Knock together a site with some example deals and get some exposure. Or post on loopnet.com or similar.
Google "bandwagon raiding machine" and see some products being marketing in the UK. I got access to one and basically all it says is find people in the US to source foreclosure deals then buy them.
I found this to be really annoying! You're presented with such ridiculously selective and misleading information on the two innovations. You're then coaxed into making the apparently wrong choice of innovation.
Who makes decisions based on such little info anyway? And the info presented was the choice of the author.
Then... the rest of the post basically says don't make decisions based on such little information! I found that pretty pointless.
Finding a flipside though, this guy's creating a demand for his own content by offering a question with a seemingly obvious answer then shaking it up with new info. That I like: create a problem which you then solve.
On the two extremes - this is quite interesting. One of the key value-adds that we have on Portfolio Executive is simplifying complicated processes. On one our forms we've got the number of required data fields down from 16 to 4, with a few more being presented as required.
To make the form responsive and interactive we're obviously using ajax and js, and we add in some sexy transitions and graphics. i think there are many sites that do similar things where necessary.
in examples like this i think the user interface/experience actually becomes the functionality and so the distinction is difficult.
for me i always do the 'Apple test': can i make it simpler? faster? more obvious?
I'd suggest getting together for some social (basketball, a drink, playing cards... whatever you guys do) and have a casual conversation. Never be too keen to let others know what you're thinking. Once you've been hanging out a little while, start bouncing the idea. As in discuss the business opportunity and see how excited he gets about it - without actually mentioning that you'd like him to join.
You know that he's got skills you need, but does he want to be involved? You can test this by just floating enough information for him to have to work a little to get more out of you.
This could then lead to a passionate, enthusiastic conversation and result in the outcome you want. If he doesn't take the bait, maybe offer a little more, but ultimately I think it means he wouldn't be right for the team - lack of burning desire.
We always appreciate most the things we've worked hardest for :)
