Crib – mere funde

Other than Gmail, Search, YouTube, and Maps, the only other Google product that I use regularly is Reader. I am sure I spend more time it on than any other webapp. And I was a happy user. Content that Google did not really pay attention to it. Content that Google did not meddle around much with it, and let it be what it was meant to be – useful.

However, I am not happy anymore. You’ve taken my favorite app, and rendered it useless in the name of redesign and social strategy. I don’t get it.

You have removed the sharing features, without allowing the user any option. May I ask why?? To push people to Google+?? From a service that some (passionate) users swear by, to a service that not many use, at least regularly?? I will try and understand. Some ass could have suggested this. However, you could have handled this better. Here is what I think you should have done.

Create a feature that would allow people to (in a single click) create Google Circle containing the users they were following on Reader.
Allow, again in a single click, users to (by means of RSS or whatever suits your whims and fancies) follow the Reader shares of people in their Reader circle.
Allow for simpler sharing – clicking share should have shared the post (by default) with your Reader circle.
For further conversation and comments, taken users to the Google+ page for the particular post.

The benefits of this method. Satisfied users. More traffic driven to Google+. No??

The second point. Redesign. Should Reader look like GMail?? Not necessarily!! But then again, I am no design guru, But I am an understanding user. Maybe consistency is what you were aiming for. Unfortunately, what you ended up with is decreased usability. You see, the key feature of Reader is …. wait for it …. the ability to read. And the redesign has killed that.

The current usable are for content is less than sixty percent. While the total screen area (on my laptop) is approximately 1280×670 pixels, the area for actual content is 1010×490 pixels (rough approximates – screenshots below). That is, the content is on less than 60% of the screen space. Let me repeat that for you. Less than 60%

Area available for content in Google Reader

While, I believe that this problem will be solved soon by some hacker (God bless his noble soul) using JavaScript, I am not so sure what are you going to do about sharing. I hope someone comes back to senses at Google, rolls back the madness, and talks to Kevin Fox – he has done it before, and I believe he can do it again.

Please give me back my precious!

At Kolkata Airport

February 15, 2016October 30, 2010 by Amit Goyal

Things Kolkata Airport has:

Chaos
Decent eating options
A loo that smells as much as loos at local stations in Mumbai
A public address system – which sounds like one at a railway station and is so loud that you can barely make out what they are trying to say

Things Kolkata Airport doesn’t have:

Cleanliness – the pillars have posters stuck to them
Effective air conditioning
Free Wi-fi – seriously!!
Online baggage scanning

I was recently at the Chennai Airport and cribbed a lot about how it was light years behind the other airports in India (Delhi, Hyderabad, Mumbai, and Bangalore – in that order). However, now that I have to spend a couple of hours at this one, I can safely say that this the worst of them all!!

Calling Wisden’s bullshit

February 15, 2016April 15, 2010 by Amit Goyal

Had it been printed in TOI, I would not have bothered to respond. However, when a respected publication like The Wisden Almanack says something as outrageous, I think it warrants a few words. And no, it is not about selecting four Englishmen in the top five cricketers of the last year. The piece I am talking about, appears as “If the ICC move to India, we might as well say ta, ta” in the current edition under “Notes by the Editor“. Some lines and my response below.

“Were the ICC to be based in New Delhi or Mumbai, the power-base of their next president Sharad Pawar, the staff would become predominantly Indian as the main current administrators would find it too difficult to relocate their families there, and the organisation would cease to reflect the attitudes and values of all its members.”

Where would you, Mr. Berry, have it relocate to? One would think it has to be one of the Test playing nations, given the lack on interest in cricket in the neutral venues like Dubai. If so, would not a city in the sub-continent, with four of nine test playing nations, be more representative of the members? And I would stick my neck out and say that Delhi or Mumbai would a top choice in the region. Also, with a large number of expat population, I see no reason why administrators would find it difficult to relocate here vis-a-vis London or Sydney or Johannesburg.

“It is not a business, or an industry like steel, to be taken over.”

In case you have missed the memo Sir, the game is a business, and the clout of India is proof enough. Unless Mr. Berry wants to stick his neck in the sand and pretend that we are still in the 50s, he should know that the game needs money to be run efficiently and ensure the further development of the sport.

All said and done, I believe the piece was out of place. While I agree that India wields more than necessary influence on the ICC, one has to be cognizant of the fact that India is where cricket gets most of its audience from. So get over your fears and accept reality.

And for God’s sake, please let Tata and Corus be in peace. It’s not like we have made you slaves.

Does India deserve to be number one!

February 15, 2016December 25, 2009 by Amit Goyal

There has been a lot of nonsense written about why India does not deserve to be the best test team in the ICC Rankings. Example here. There have been a lot of rebuttals as well. Example here. This post is yet another rebuttal of the same.

Let’s look at batting for a while. In the past three years, starting 01 Jan 2007, five of the top ten run scorers in the Test format, excluding runs scored against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and WI, have been from India. SL, SA, Australia, England, and WI have one each in the top 10. Not too bad I would say. Even the great Ricky Ponting is on the 15th step, which really makes you wonder why no one calls him over the hill anymore, but I digress. A team that has the best batsmen of the last three years must have something in it.

Rank	Player	Country	Mat	Inns	Runs	HS	Ave	SR	100	50
1	V Sehwag	India	21	38	2137	319	57.75	91.52	5	7
2	SR Tendulkar	India	26	47	2126	160	50.61	54.96	6	12
3	DPMD Jayawardene	SL	18	31	2081	275	74.32	52.06	7	6
4	VVS Laxman	India	29	50	2053	200*	52.64	49.86	4	15
5	JH Kallis	SA	22	39	2009	186	55.80	49.50	8	9
6	MJ Clarke	Aus	24	40	1983	145*	55.08	51.33	7	10
7	R Dravid	India	29	54	1966	177	40.12	41.07	4	11
8	S Chanderpaul	WI	22	37	1933	147*	71.59	42.06	7	13
9	G Gambhir	India	14	27	1869	206	71.88	50.91	7	7
10	KP Pietersen	Eng	22	40	1830	152	46.92	55.92	7	3
11	KC Sangakkara	SL	17	29	1793	192	64.03	56.03	7	7
12	SC Ganguly	India	21	41	1761	239	47.59	59.01	3	9
13	AJ Strauss	Eng	22	40	1757	177	45.05	45.45	5	8
14	HM Amla	SA	22	40	1730	176*	48.05	47.51	5	11
15	RT Ponting	Aus	24	41	1699	150	42.47	60.78	4	11

Now for the bowling. The list is much more evenly distributed this this. Three of the top ten bowlers, with same filters as above, are from India, with SA claiming another three, Australia two, and England and SL one each. Though bowling still remains a concern for the Indians, it is no better for the other teams. SA is arguably the strongest in this department, but then with Steyn injured and Ntini fading quickly, they might not enjoy the same status for long.

Rank	Player	Country	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
1	Harbhajan Singh	India	23	41	1209.5	182	3465	105	33	2.86	69.1	4	1
2	MG Johnson	Aus	23	44	942.4	168	2937	104	28.24	3.11	54.3	3	1
3	DW Steyn	SA	17	32	598.2	107	2119	96	22.07	3.54	37.3	7	3
4	Z Khan	India	22	40	821.4	168	2640	83	31.8	3.21	59.3	4	0
5	JM Anderson	Eng	22	41	839.4	174	2867	82	34.96	3.41	61.4	4	0
6	M Ntini	SA	22	42	724.5	142	2527	76	33.25	3.48	57.2	3	0
7	A Kumble	India	18	33	902.3	147	2767	72	38.43	3.06	75.2	2	0
8	PL Harris	SA	22	37	828	172	2290	71	32.25	2.76	69.9	3	0
9	B Lee	Aus	15	30	612	117	1941	67	28.97	3.17	54.8	2	0
10	M Muralitharan	SL	15	25	808.4	123	2381	67	35.53	2.94	72.4	4	1
11	Danish Kaneria	Pak	13	25	759.4	124	2278	62	36.74	2.99	73.5	2	0
12	RJ Sidebottom	Eng	14	25	582	140	1573	60	26.21	2.7	58.2	4	1
13	FH Edwards	WI	18	32	507.3	61	2020	59	34.23	3.98	51.6	4	0
14	MS Panesar	Eng	20	33	782	141	2305	58	39.74	2.94	80.8	2	0
15	CS Martin	NZ	18	32	652.2	142	2061	57	36.15	3.15	68.6	0	0

The thing to note is that this data is for a three year period, and not for a one off year. So its not really a flash in the pan, but rather some sustained good performances by the Indian team. During this period, India has played an almost equal number of tests home (15) and away (14), so there is no real home advantage for the team.

I know that statistics don’t really tell everything, but they do tell you a few things, and what it does tell here is that India really has been a world’s best team for the past couple of years, even though SA are right on their tails.

All data from Cricinfo’s Statsguru. Batting and Bowling.