Coincidences are fun, and this one is pretty cool. So yesterday I posted about Friendfeed needing two things to make it complete. Well strike one out of the list, because search has been done as Techcrunch, Mashable and the guys at Friendfeed themselves are reporting. I know when to say a product is lacking, and I know when to praise - this is time for the latter, for this simple modification, my friends, just made Friendfeed worth my time and account.

Now I can actually see what my friends are saying (or creating) about design, userexperience or development - these are just examples, obviously. And I can do site-specific searches (something I also asked for) which is down right amazing. And (I just tried), I can get RSS feeds for these searches. Friendfeed people, you got me. I’m a full-on user from this moment on. You win - actually, I do, because my information overload is soon to be gone.

Note: I’m re-reading my post and it sounds like sales. Trust me when I say it’s not - I’m just pretty happy about this. Maybe as happy as I was when I joined Twitter back in 05, or maybe when I joined GMail. Wow moments are hard to get, allow me to ride me for a few minutes.

Last week I posted about information overload and how we were being constantly bombed with content bits from all corners of the web (like Twitter, Facebook, RSS feeds, whatever else). Also last week, a lot of people started using (and blogging about) Friendfeed. Some people actually call it this year’s Twitter.

I’ve been using Friendfeed a bit myself and while I find it cute and somewhat useful - as you probably do, I like to know what my friends have been doing or working on -, it just isn’t helping. It’s became just another content stream where I am fed unfiltered information from people. Twitter was “hard” enough to keep track of on a busy day, but Friendfeed not only includes twitter updates, it also packs info collected from around 23 other services. Cute? Definitely. Helping? Heck no.

A couple of ideas

Filtering: Friendfeed needs filtering. If I already have Twitteriffic on, It makes sense to be able to filter out all Twitter bits from my friendfeed. If I’m in the mood for checking out photos from friends, I may want to see only photos on my friendfeed. If I’m looking for what my friends have been listening to on Last.fm, I might want to see only that.

Search, domain clustering: Why can’t I search for words in my friend feed? A term extraction algorithm + search could become a pretty good tool to know what the people I care about have been saying about, that’s say, “design”, “user experience” or “development” related. Now that would be useful.

The truth

Here’s the cold hard fact: I’m going to pay little attention to a service that only delivers more stuff. A few years ago, in order to get updates on people you cared about, you’d call, visit or email. Now you hear about them all day every day. Now that’s obviously not a bad thing, don’t get me wrong - it’s just that sometimes, it’s a little too much information.

We need these tools (Twitter, Friendfeed) - and tell me where to sign up if you’re building a product like this - to help us make sense of the data coming in by mining it, filtering it and giving it to us in a way we can consume it. I still want the ability to see and hear everything should I be inclined to, but I need (we need!), to control this flood of information we’re living with every day.

Update: Well (wow, rather!), that didn’t take long. About 24 hours after I posted this, Friendfeed announced search. The difference a simple feature like this makes is astounding.

It’s now been a while since Tim O’Reilly coined the term Web 2.0. Thousands of applications and services emerged since - however chances are you can only remember and name about 10. Truth is branding has been ignored by many of the entrepreneurs looking to launch their ideas - and many are paying for the mistake with slow adoption or failure.

Not everything can be generic, and a brand is one of the most important things to nail down when launching a product or service. If you’re still thinking of removing vowels from words to make up a 2.0-ey name, stop because you’re clearly doing it wrong. Here’s an example of how naming is a zoo these days. Here’s a couple of paragraphs from a post by Om Malik:

Earlier this year we wrote about Gaboogie, a web-based conference call service started by Erik Lagerway. The service didn’t quite work out, and the company reconfigured its business focus to offering instant group calls from mobiles, and is now called Lypp.

Another web-based conferencing service, Foonz might be going down that route. Randy Corke, CEO of Foonz’s parent company, RPM Communications was in town last week to bring me up to speed on their new offering, Utterz, which is sort of like blogging-via-voice-calls from your cellphone.

Gaboogie is now called Lypp, and Foonz is launching Utterz. Are these people having a laugh? If I asked you to name the company with the golden arches, you’d probably say McDonalds; If I talked about the drink with the great bottle and the red brand, you’d likely say Coca-Cola; If I asked you about a web-based conferencing system, you would probably never remember Gaboogie, Lypp, Foonz or Utterz.

In contrast, I haven’t forgotten Joost’s pre-launch name “The Venice Project” (witty and smart) or “Jackson Fish Market” (weird and unexpected), a startup doing virtual gifts. Some will argue that once you hit critical mass how good a name is isn’t important, but it’s easy to make the argument that the name may have a huge impact on the growth itself - so please, do think about leaving those vowels in and give naming your new company more than 5 minutes of your time.

Evan Williams has a very good post on evaluating product ideas based on his previous experience (launching Blogger, Odeo - pretty much forgotten in that article - and Twitter). I’ve been thinking about a couple of products as well (have been for a while, actually), so the whole article sort of fell into place with my own criteria. Here are Ev’s:

• Tractability: How difficult will it be to launch a worthwhile version 1.0?
• Obviousness: Is it clear why people should use it?
• Deepness: How much value can you ultimately deliver?
• Wideness: How many people may ultimately use it?
• Discoverability: How will people learn about your product?
• Monetizability: How hard will it be to extract the money?
• Personally compelling: Do you really want it to exist in the world?

To these I would add two other characteristics that I believe have a great impact on a product’s success: cleverness and trustworthiness. You know when a product is clever because you get the feeling of empowerment and delight. And trustworthiness (although perhaps difficult to assess initially) defines how people look at your product or service - if users can trust it, it is more likely that they’ll become engaged and use it often. People are often skeptical about things that dip into their personal affairs (think Facebook’s Beacon and why it sucks), but will feel at ease to engage and discover new things about a product if they trust it.

Ultimately, it isn’t easy to determine the likeliness of a product being successful by putting it to the test against a series of attributes - but it may help. I’m still a big fan of entrepreneurs following their gut and seeing where it takes them, but depending on the person, that might not be a good plan to stick to.

I definitely recommend you give Ev’s article a read if you’re an entrepreneur - you’re still here so chances are you’ll be interested. Unfortunately Evan still doesn’t allow comments on his blog, because I would imagine the discussion on such an article would be interesting.