Recall the last time you were impressed by a Yahoo! website, product, or service. Okay, that was fast. Why is it that these guys are so hooked on being mediocre? Not bad, mind you, or evil, just sub standard. So that almost everytime you use one of their services it pains you that there are glaring bugs they could have fixed.

I already reviewed once how they are destroying Yahoo! Mail, which is actually one of their very best services, in favor of a new version of the service that's much worse. But that's just the top of the iceberg.

Today I was watching an interesting talk about javascript on Yahoo! Video, and I soon realized that Yahoo!'s flash video player is the worst one I've ever seen. When I watch it, the play button gets stuck so I can't pause and none of the maximize/minimize controls seem to work either. And if you think it's Adobe's linux flash plugin that's buggy, I'm happy to say that I can watch flash movies without a hitch on any number of other sites.

And that made me think back on various times I've used Yahoo! services in the past. Many years ago, I was trying pretty hard to promote Juventuz, my football fansite. Back then, the surest way of getting good traffic was to be in Yahoo!'s directory. Their directory was very exclusive and very hard to get into. As one of the leading fansites in my particular category, I think I waited about 2 years for my site to be added. Meanwhile, the category listed a couple of sites that were either almost dead or completely 404. After Juventuz finally got added it didn't make a big difference anymore, by that time I had built up good traffic through other means.

Of course, the reason Yahoo!'s directory was important was that they were a force in web search, long before the Google revolution. But if you look at their search right now, it's hard to be impressed by it. It's only a single input box, there's no advanced options to filter on language or whatever. Compare that to Google's advanced search that has lots of options.

So what else does Yahoo! do? Flickr. It wasn't built by Yahoo!, but they own it now. And it's a successful site, probably the most popular photo sharing site, and might be Yahoo!'s more successful venture right now. But the navigation is horrible. Once you zoom in on a picture, there's no way to navigate, you have to go back. And the way albums are presented, it's awful. The best photo site I think is Zoomr (unfortuantely they are in the middle of a redesign right now), although there seems to be little competition in this space.

Yahoo! is a veteran internet company, and one of the major players. But is there anything they are leading at? Their search is far inferior and always has been to Google. Their messenger service is basically irrelevant. Their map service I think was launced after Google's, and I don't know anyone who uses it. Yahoo! Groups is decent and pretty popular, but if you actually need to set up a group it's quite a pain to use and very limited. And, of course, their video is fairly irrelevant to Youtube. For an internet company, they don't seem to have much of a talent for internet products.

There are basically two approaches to learning anything you'd like to learn. Well, maybe not anything at all, but it certainly applies to a lot of things. You can shoot for skill or you can shoot for knowledge. They aren't the same and generally you have a good reason for wanting one or the other.

Definitions
Knowledge is the academic, theoretical part of the picture. It is knowing what, and why. Knowledge is about knowing your field well in a structured way. It's about knowing the concepts, the terminology. It's about being able to use concepts from one field to another, to spot patterns between things. It's being able to discuss your field with a peer, or read technical papers about it. You could say it's a way of organizing what you know in a way that makes it possible to keep track of it and talk about it.

Skill is the application oriented, practical avenue. Where knowledge is about knowing, skill is about feeling. It's about knowing how. Skill is all about being useful, it's only about being able to do things. Skill isn't about knowing why things are as they are or what exactly they are. Skill doesn't demand you be able to explain how to do something, just that you can do it yourself. And you don't have to know how it is you know how to do it either, you can be born with a talent for something and find it so intuitive that you're skillful without really learning what it is.

To take an example, consider driving a car. Knowledge is knowing the structure of the car, the physical processes that take place, knowing what all the instruments do. But even if you don't know any of those things, skill is about knowing how to drive. Not knowing that the left pedal is called the clutch does not preclude you from driving, it's a piece of knowledge, it's not a piece of skill. But being able to press in that pedal, at the right speed, and release it just when it needs to be released, that is skill.

Or if you take mathematics, knowledge is knowing what differential equations are, how they work, why they are useful, and where they can be applied. And if you see one, you know what ways there are of solving one, what formulas and strategies exist, and where to find them. Skill is being able to solve them, even if you know nothing else.

Argument

In a sense, knowledge is the absence of skill and skill is the absence of knowledge. They are complementary. You might say there is most to gain from adding skill to knowledge or knowledge to skill (think MacGyver). If you're good at doing something, and you add knowledge, you will learn how to talk about what you know, how to describe the subtleties of your skill, and even (if you so wish) how to teach someone else how to do it as well as you do. On the other hand, if you have knowledge and you add skill, then not only will you be able to discuss what you know in a precise and accurate way, and read about it to add to your knowledge, you'll be able to apply that knowledge to do something concrete.

I think that most people are biased towards one of these. That means in most cases they will prefer one over the other. And it makes sense, because it's hard to cover both. I certainly find a great deal more satisfaction in skill, and I think that's probably subjective. It may be because skill is more tangible, it's more about having a feel for something rather than knowing a lot about it. It's also that skill is a way to eliminate thinking. If you know how to do it, you don't have to think about it, you can do it quicker.

But above all skill is about perfecting your ability. The more skilled you are, the more expert you are in the thing you do. And skill tends to study that thing in greater detail than knowledge does. Not through academic discussion, but through trying and failing so many times that you know how to do it better than any theorist could work out for you. Skill is expert knowledge that cannot be communicated, because it's too complicated to do so. Theoretical knowledge can be communicated.

Thus, in knowledge, everything can be taught, in skill not everything can. If you're learning a skill from a teacher, you will never get the exact solution, you will only get guidelines. The rest.. you have to figure out yourself. For instance, say you're learning to ski. The instructor will tell you how to move your body, how to shift your weight from one side to the other, how to approach a turn, how to brake etc. But however much he may want to, he will not tell you exactly at what angle to lean into a turn, and what amount of tension to apply in a muscle at a particular instant, how many milliseconds after one turn to take the next etc. And even if he were able to tell you exactly how he does it, it would not help you anyway, because everything you have to do depends on the precise circumstances in that instant, circumstances that are not known in advance.

In theory, it is possible to work out all these details. But even if you had this knowledge, it would be so incredibly complicated that you wouldn't be able to use it. Only a computer could calculate all those values in time to do what you have to do.

Conclusion

So skill is self taught. Perhaps you were given guidelines and tutoring on how to learn a certain skill, but no one can tell you exactly what to do, this you have to determine yourself. So, as a logical conclusion, the way you do something is not the way that someone else does it. Because you both learned that particular skill through different paths. And by that you could argue that the way you do it is unique, no one else does it exactly that same way.

Perhaps that uniqueness is why I find skill more satisfying. Isn't that also what you're thinking when you're skilled at something? "No one can do this exactly the way I do." Not consciously thinking it, but I wonder if that isn't the conviction we all have.

Football as a sport is not really anything that special. It's how you wrap it and sell it that makes all the difference. The difference from a cult following to nationwide adoption, to domination even. This is why you have to be very shrewd about how you promote the competition.

I think we can agree that the English have this down to a pretty exact science. They are certainly the best at it. I don't know if they have the best national ratings (probably), but their product is proving the most palatable abroad at any rate (much to the chagrin of fans of non-English football in their respective English football dominated countries).

I give you the English football league:

1. Premier League
2. Football League Championship
3. Football League One
4. Football League Two
5. Conference National

Now, you might say, why is league number three called League One? That's a good question. And why is the 2nd league called the Championship? Again a good question. In other leagues "winning the championship" actually means (in an unwritten understanding) winning the top league. Odd.

Elsewhere it's very easy to know where you are in the system. Primera, Segunda, Segunda B, Tercera (First, Second, Second B, Third). Serie A, Serie B, Serie C1, Serie C2, Serie D. Slightly confusing because there are two C's. But, of course, elsewhere isn't as successful at selling tv subscriptions, are they.

But you see it's all about how you wrap it. The truth of the matter is that the first league matters and none of the others do. If you invite someone to watch a match with you, thinking it's the top league they're watching, and it turns out it's the Championship, they are not going to be thrilled about it. It's like if you wanted to meet the Pope, would you settle for a bishop instead? No, it's not nearly the same thing.

But you can always distract people from the truth. League One sounds a lot better than League Three, which is what it actually is. And for the clubs in that division, it must feel a lot more satisfying to win League One.

This is my proposition for next year. It's too bad they can't use Champions League, which is reserved for something else.

1. Premier League
2. Championship
3. The Super League
4. Queens Finest League
5. Premium League

Ever wanted to be a moviestar? Ok, you'll love this then. You are the star. For this blog entry anyway. You are the star, everyone wants to see you. You live in a mansion in Santa Monica (or wherever you wanna live, up to you). You go to New York for a weekend of shopping. The minute you show your face on the street, people are all over you. They want your autograph, they want to take your picture, they want to be around you, they want to be seen with you. You can't beat them off. You would, but you have an image to keep up, you have to be nice. You go to Paris and people come out to the airport to see you. They follow you around town, you actually need people around you to put some bodies between you and the fans. That's how much they love you. You're the one they want. Everywhere you go the photographers are all over you, they're dying for those pictures. Pictures you won't see, cause you don't buy those magazines, only fans do.

Do you ever think any of this is a bit.... strange? Of course you do, these people are possessed. Some of them really are nutters, but most are just very, very enthusiastic. About you. And they've never even been in a room with you, never even talked to you.

Indeed, this has come suddenly. Three years ago you were a struggling actor playing in second rate commercials, plays no one ever saw and jumped on every audition you could get. You came to Hollywood to be a star, to play in movies, to be on magazine covers. Yeah, you and thousands like you. You would walk down the street and no one would pay you any attention. People wouldn't look twice at you, you were a regular guy, what's there to see?

Then you finally caught a break. You got that audition for a proper movie and through a stroke of luck and divine intervention, you got the part, the main role. It wasn't a big movie, but it was an actual movie, and that's how you got noticed. You got a couple of similar parts until someone thought you'd be great in this year's blockbuster. That's right, big budget, expensive special effects, a corny Hollywood storyline, the whole nine yards. Up to now people would sometimes stare at you in the supermarket, thinking they may have seen you somewhere before. But now, with the movie coming out, they hooked you up. They set you up with a stylist, new clothes, new hair. To promote the movie you have to give interviews, you have to go on talkshows, you have to go to social events, you need to be seen. And you got a nice boost in your finances, didn't you.

So now you're the star. And everyone wants a piece of you. Well, maybe you look a little better, stylists exist for a reason. But on the whole you haven't changed much. You look about the same, you talk the same, you still believe in the same things, you're the same. And people are crazy about *you*. That's funny. A couple of years ago those same people would never notice you. And now their world revolves around you.

As a kid, I was used to silent transactions. You would go into a store, pick up some items, proceed to the checkout line, and when it was your turn, the cashier would say "that'll be 2.50" (kids don't have a lot of money). You would hand over the money, and if you wanted to be super polite you would say "here you go" as you did that. Transaction end. Silent or near silent.

Then came those holidays in Poland, which introduced a new set of problems. The elders would instruct you that upon entry you are obliged to say "good morning" (you can't just say "hi", that's rude). This goes not only to the person working there, but also all the other customers (if they are around). Then if you wanted to ask about something, you couldn't just say "do you have?", you'd have to say "dear miss, does the miss have...?" Then as money is changing hands, the "here you go" is not optional. And finally on exit, you're obliged to say goodbye to both the cashier and the other customers. The etiquette varies a bit, it doesn't apply so much in supermarkets (which didn't really exist at the time), but it applies in every small store, barber shop etc.

I always hated these rules, because they seemed so completely pointless. I get irked by anything that is overly complicated for its purpose. And it's not that people in Poland are nicer to each other, they just talk more. If you were mad at someone, you would still have to utter those pleasantries, although you would say them in a completely different tone of voice. So it's just pointless blather that doesn't add anything to the scene. Instead of saying good morning to actually wish someone a good morning, you're obliged to say this robotically to every person you interact with. If you're a really cheery person who wants to wish everyone a good morning, go ahead. But otherwise, why would you have to say that all the time?

I could not bring myself to pronounce those terms myself, out of how plain stupid they sound. I would always try to formulate myself in a way to get around the "dear miss" and "does the miss have". You can say "excuse me, is.... present?" and that way you avoid addressing the person at all, and it's still polite enough.

The language of these phrases is just totally out of context. Popular language in Poland is often very vulgar, more so than say Norwegian. If you're 13-16, you're not cool unless you use fuck in every sentence. In fact, to be on the safe side, use it several times. Fuck, I don't know what the fuck I'm gonna do fuck. (To be technical about it, the word used for fuck actually means whore.) This is the way people actually talk, and it's not just kids either, when grown men are in the company of their peers they do talk like this. And if you want a truly enriching experience, let your parents send you to summer camp; when kids get away from their parents, you'll hear little else that fuck, whore, bitch etc. (It's actually at camp that I felt completely estranged, didn't feel like I fit in at all with these weirdos.) So, when a group of teenagers is walking down the street and one of them stops to buy a magazine in a booth, he will switch from the fuck language to "does the miss have". The contrast is frankly shocking. When people need to be formal they are, otherwise they see no reason why they shouldn't be as vulgar as they possibly can.

To me, these are two worlds I don't fit into. The formal language is contrived and aristocratic like, and no one talks like that outside formal situations. And the popular language in many circles is completely foreign to me as well. Of course, I'm not foreign to curses, we all use them sometimes. But I don't mangle them into my sentences like that. So who's the barbarian here? The person who doesn't utter polite phrases, who only has one mode of expression, or the person who cycles between formality and vulgarity all the time?

Mind you, there are more oddities that come from strict etiquette. For instance, let's say you go into a little shop that only has one person working there, and there are already a few people in there. You enter with a group of 3. Now, what are you supposed to do? Does each of the three people have to say good morning? Is it okay if just the first person says it? If the cashier is currently doing business with a customer, how many times does she have to be interrupted by a good morning when a group enters the store? And whom do you address it to, the cashier, the other customers, everyone? You address the room. You generally look to the cashier, and whoever wants to respond is free to do so. Generally the person working in the store is obliged to respond. Of course, when you enter with your parents, who always go in first (and make the greeting) and you don't say it, they will come down on you. But how stupid is it for 4 or 6 or 9 people to come into a room, each saying good morning? What is this, a conveyor belt?

So maybe you think you're just gonna try and fit in. You observe people, what they do, and try to copy it. This is not easy. People are not consistent. In spite of these strict rules, people are not [complete] robots, they break rules all the time. And it's hard to determine what is definitely rude and what is acceptable.

Then, into my adolescence somewhere, a new trend started taking shape in Norway. People would be saying hi to you in stores for no reason, and sometimes say bye when you left. Continental influence probably. I found this odd at first, I hadn't grown up with it. But it's not a Napoleonic practice that stems from some kind of high aristocracy as in Poland, it's a very common kind of thing. The expressions aren't formal, they are common. It's the same language you use with your friends daily, so you don't have to wear that imaginary wig and pretend to be someone you're not. I got used to the practice and now I don't mind saying hi. When I say it I mean it, I'm not just saying it for show. If I don't want to say it, I won't say it, and no one will give me deathly stares over it. Kindness over politeness. Humans over robots.

Don't get me wrong, the intentions behind politeness are good. People who shaped these rules I think really wanted us to be friendly to each other. And if you take them in that spirit then I think you're doing a good thing. But people are not robots, just because you give them rules to follow does not mean they will a) follow them or b) follow them with the given intention. Politeness in Polish culture is such a strong norm that people follow it out of necessity, not kindness. In fact, think about that principle for a minute. Is there any way to enforce kindness? There isn't. What you can enforce is politeness, a rigid, blind, meaningless code that we feel obliged to adhere to. There is no shortage of good theories that don't work in practice.