Imagine I own a small dog grooming business in a small town. Imagine my company is called "Happy Dog" (I'm making this up). Can I write an action that could then be published as "Happy Dog" such that when a user says "Talk to Happy Dog" it will direct users to my action to find out store hours, make bookings and learn prices?
I am not asking about the technical characteristics of such an action. I'm imagining that if I build the action and submit it to Google, they will have to enter it into their database to cause it to be triggered. I'm assuming that this will then trigger its presence "globally".
When I look at https://assistant.google.com/explore/ ... I see nothing that would seem to show small businesses and other such actions being visible. This implies to me that Google rejects such submissions. Is it easy or difficult to get a new assistant action registered with Google? Is there any reading material I should be studying to learn about publishing new actions?
That is correct, we can think of Actions being published globally (there are caveats to that - but ignoreable for your question). Despite this, Actions should be broad enough to be useful, but can certainly be of interest to only a narrow audience.
As an analogy - this is similar to how web sites are published globally. The invocation name is a rough parallel to the domain name for a web site (with the exclusion of the ".com" or whatever TLD you use). Google acts as the sole domain registrar, if we wish to extend this analogy. And while it does enforce certain rules about naming and the directory entry there is no restriction specifically about local or small businesses.
However... you do start running into naming conflicts and trademark issues. For example, you probably can't get "MacDonald's" because it is too close to a trademarked name. One word invocations aren't allowed unless you can verify you also have the corresponding domain name.
To continue the analogy using your example, if you started your "Happy Dog" grooming company, you may try to create a web site and discover that "happydog.com" was already taken. So perhaps you would go with "HappyDogGrooming.com" or "HappyDogSpringfield.com" or something else. In the same way, if "talk to Happy Dog" was already taken, you may need to register "talk to Happy Dog Grooming" or something similar.
It is not difficult to get new Actions published, although you do need to make sure you follow the rules. The review process mostly makes sure you have created a good conversational experience that actually works and does not confuse users. Sometimes there is a bit of back-and-forth with the review team to resolve issues.
Related
I recently worked on refactoring a class for my company's web site which in essence assembles a user profile. Say the old class is called User::Profile::OldImpl and my refactored version is User::Profile::NewImpl. The two classes have exactly the same public interface and are expected to behave identically. The new class is just much easier to read and more efficient--or such was my intention.
I changed the place where the profiler is instantiated from this:
profile = User::Profile::OldImpl.new(...)
...to this:
profile = User::Profile::NewImpl.new(...)
During code review, my reviewer flagged this line and told me to add an A/B test here. By this I suppose he means to sometimes use the old class and sometimes use the new class.
I'm mightily confused. I understand "A/B testing" to mean showing different versions of a web page to end users and tracking which version generates the best response, but my code is meant to be invisible to end users--it doesn't touch the view at all. I've searched around and haven't been able to find a discussion of A/B testing that relates to backend code like mine, and I can't imagine why my change merits an A/B test when the great majority of checkins don't.
The review was submitted near end-of-day Friday, and I'm obviously going to chat with the reviewer first thing tomorrow, but I was hoping to first learn from the SO community whether A/B testing can legitimately be applied to a change like mine, and if so, how.
You reviewer is worried that despite no visible changes, your implementation may affect some important business metrics. What he wants you to do is to prove empirically that there's in fact no change from the user perspective, i.e. that your A/B test is actually an A/A test. I'd ask him what KPIs he has in mind.
I'm admittedly unsure whether this post falls within the scope of acceptable SO questions. If not, please advise whether I might be able to adjust it to fit or if perhaps there might be a more appropriate site for it.
I'm a WinForms guy, but I've got a new project where I'm going to be making web service calls for a Point of Sale system. I've read about how CRUD operations are handled in RESTful environments where GET/PUT/POST/etc represent their respective CRUD counterpart. However I've just started working on a project where I need to submit my requirements to a developer who'll be developing a web api for me to use but he tells me that this isn't how the big boys do it.
Instead of making web requests to create a transaction followed by requests to add items to the transaction in the object based approach I'm accustomed to, I will instead use a service based approach to just make a 'prepare' checkout call in order to see the subtotal, tax, total, etc. for the transaction with the items I currently have on it. Then when I'm ready to actually process the transaction I'll make a call to 'complete' checkout.
I quoted a couple words above because I'm curious whether these are common terms that everyone uses or just ones that he happened to choose to explain the process to me. And my question is, where might I go to get up to speed on the way the 'big boys' like Google and Amazon design their APIs? I'm not the one implementing the API, but there seems to be a little bit of an impedance mismatch in regard to how I'm trying to communicate what I need and the way the developer is expecting to hear my requirements.
Not sure wrt the specifics of your application though your general understanding seems ik. There are always corner cases that test the born though.
I would heed that you listen to your dev team on how things should be imolemented and just provide the "what's" (requirements). They should be trusted to know best practice and your company's own interpretation and standards (right or wrong). If they don't give you your requirement (ease-of-use or can't be easily reusable with expanded requirements) then you can review why with an architect or dev mgr.
However, if you are interested and want to debate and perhaps understand, check out Atlassian's best practice here: https://developer.atlassian.com/plugins/servlet/mobile#content/view/4915226.
FYI: Atlassian make really leading dev tools in use in v.large companies. Note also that this best-practices is as a part of refactoring meaning they've been through the mill and know what worked and what hasn't).
FYI2 (edit): Reading between the lines of your question, I think your dev is basically instructing you specifically on how transactions are managed within ReST. That is, you don't typically begin, add, end. Instead, everything that is transactional is rolled within a transaction wrapper and POSTed to the server as a single transaction.
So I've been having a cordial debate with my coworkers (developers and designers) about the autofill tools for web forms. This is an important development question as it affects how forms might be built.
Q) What is the adoption of autofill tools, such as Google Toolbar or Chrome's built in feature?
Q) What are the most popular autofill tools?
Discussion appreciated. First answer with a reputable study gets the award.
Personally, I do not like auto-fill tools, and toolbars for that matter. Aside from the loss of screen real estate, there's too much bloat that comes with them. Also, with the way browsers versions are increasing, auto form fill applications are sometimes not supported in newer, more modern browsers.
I've worked in Government, Law enforcement, health care, and other public and private institutions and I have yet to see a good working form autofill tool, and if I did find a good one I can grantee that someone will be calling tech support because they submitted X amount of items with the exact same data.
HTML Forms can be built many ways, and forcing someone to build it a specific way is going to limit people, thus a form should be able to be built however someone wants, hopefully following W3C standards.
That being said, the most intuitive ones are those built into an application - where the developers/BA's create the auto-fill rules based on business cases and the correct algorithms, where users can define specific fields and parameters for data in those fields. Forcing an application to be built to match a 3rd party auto fill tool, which could change at any moment, or not be supported in the future, seems risky, I hear bells.
Update:
As far as revenue concerns, or a revenue stream for such a venture, you have to have an insight on the types of users that would use this software.
A form filler needs to be more than a generic: "This is a login page, let's put a username / password in". or a contact page "This is the previous data you used for a contact me page, fill it in".
A previous system I developed was an Action Item tracking system, with build in workflow / document management. Users asked for an auto fill for these items, which on the first request seemed utterly insane (demented is the word I wanted to say, but my manager helped me keep it bottled up). How would an auto-fill utility know exactly what to fill - but as I talked to the customer they expressed the following, which is valid for all autofill tools:
When I enter in a value say "Jane Smith" for "assign this task to", it would be nice if your system would automatically put "In Progress" for the item, as I always select "In Progress" as the status for this user.
As well, this worked for other users and fields as well. There was a specific flow on how this user entered data. "Jane Smith" items were always set to a specific department, status, and if the Item Type was say "correspondence" the Estimated Time was always 8 hours.
That type of auto-fill is what we custom made for them, and they payed well for it because it saved them a lot of time, mouse movements etc. AutoFill the way it is now is annoying at best for some people. But it's the pattern of the data that matters. It has to be intuitive and learn.
Once we developed this (it was easier because it was our application, we knew what was going on), about 90% of our customers jumped on board in the first week because of the time savings, sanity savings, and they didn't need to do ANYTHING to set it up - which was key.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
My company is trying to pass a policy forbidding distribution of any application (even free) in any appstore for all developers.
Their reasoning is that "outside work activities create a conflict of interest". They don't want that "you use your spare time to work on your app, and once it takes off you quit your job" (quoting the Head of Development).
A few developers (myself included) have already said it was an abusive, pointless and most of all counter-productive policy (developers will actually be demotivated to work here under such control and to be denied of the freedom to distribute their project).
Personally, I think it is actually in the interest of the company to promote side projects (even commercial activities, if there is no conflict).
I'm also curious, is that common practice?
Needless to say, this is horribly, horribly stupid on so many levels... It may be worth trying to find out whether it's even legal in your jurisdiction.
Anyway and apart from that, if you can, find colleagues who feel the same, and take a stand against it. Try to explain to the management that this is a stupid decision for the company as well. Don't sign anything: A policy like that would probably have to be amended to your work contract to be binding. Chances are, the risk of losing good employees over this outweighs the security they think they get from it.
If there's really nothing that can be done, and you are very unhappy with this (I would be), consider looking for a new job.
As an afterthought, if the practice of limiting your employees' rights to this extent is clearly illegal in your jurisdiction, it could be that simply making them aware of this might stop this without any further trouble.
All companies for which I have worked allowed outside work provided:
no company resources were used (this includes time)
the product of that effort did not directly conflict with the company's interest
the product was not based off of work or specific knowledge gained while working for the company
Typically, companies have a clause in your employment agreement that states that you will inform them when you begin work on outside projects and inform them of the nature so they can approve/deny. In such cases, you want to get that approval in writing.
In your case, this is a pretty difficult situation if this was part of your employment agreement. Even if it isn't, they can fire you for it if your employment is at-will and they find out. Unfortunately, in your situation, you seem to have one of four options:
Convince management that they are being unreasonable.
Fly under the radar and hope you don't get caught.
Find a new job.
Quit and just work on the apps full-time.
If your job is to put out apps in an appstore, though, there's really no way to argue that your outside development of apps for the same appstore isn't a conflict of interest in some respect. If I had to guess, I'd say that either this is the case or you're working for a development manager that doesn't understand the mindset of developers and how they like to tinker and learn outside of work.
While this example sounds a little draconian, it is not uncommon for companies to have some kind of policy regarding outside work. However, this is typically to protect the company from your mistakes rather than to protect them from your departure. If they're that concerned about employees leaving, they should go out of their way to make it the sort of place you would want to stay.
EDIT: I just found this today on a completely unrelated blog, but it totally rings true to this discussion. It's about 11 minutes long, but very entertaining and makes you think too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=player_embedded The TL;DR (TL;DW?): Once you get outside the realm of purely physical tasks, organizations that assume you are motivated by money, hands-on direction, etc. will not accomplish their goals nearly as easily as those that assume you are motivated by desires for autonomy (self-direction, self-management), mastery (getting better at doing something) and contribution to something bigger than yourself.
I believe there was a similar pointless rule when I was under the corporate yoke. I think these rules are pointless, backward and wrong. Instead of keeping their developers management pushes them to look for new managment, well, at least the passionate and talented ones.
Unless your employment contract says otherwise, what you develop in your own time belongs to you.
If they are in the business of writing apps for the appstore, then they might have a non-compete argument against you.
If they allow other types of development projects, it is difficult to see the argument as valid.
Depends on the app and the company.
If you're working for an Android app developer, I'd see why they might not like it. 8)
If it competes directly with what your company produces I can see why they'd prohibit it.
I would consult a lawyer to see just how binding such an agreement would be if you were forced to sign it.
If it's really that odious, your only recourse is to find another employer.
Check your local labor laws. In California, this kind of thing is blatantly illegal.
The policy enumerated by Shaun is reasonable, and something very similar has been in place at most of my previous employers. The one place that tried something like this was quickly pointed at the statute by knowledgable developers, and the "policy" quietly went away.
The answer is in your contract of employment.
But if your job is as a computer programmer, you're almost guaranteed to have something in your employment contract stating that any software you write either in work or outside of work is owned by the company.
If you get written permission from HR and your manager, then if you were to make millions from you out of hours projects, then it would be more difficult for your employer to just take ALL those millions off of you.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a serious question. Is it ever ethical to ignore the presence of a robots.txt file on a website? These are some of the considerations I've got in mind:
If someone puts a web site up they're expecting some visits. Granted, web crawlers are using bandwidth without clicking on ads that may support the site but the site owner is putting their site on the web, right, so how reasonable is it for them to expect that they'll never get visited by a bot?
Some sites apparently use a robots.txt exactly in order to keep their site from being crawled by Google or some other utility that might grab prices and therefore allow people to do price comparisons easily. They have private search engines on the site so they obviously want people to be able to search the site; apparently they just don't want people to be able to easily compare their information with other vendors.
As I said, I'm not trying to be argumentative; I would just like to know if anyone has ever come up with a case where it's ethically permissible to ignore the presence of a robots.txt file? I cannot think of a case where it's permissible to ignore the robots.txt mainly because people (or businesses) are paying money to put up their web sites so they should be able to tell the Googles/Yahoos/Other SE's of the world that they don't want to be on their indices.
To put this discussion in context, I'd like to create a price comparison website and one of the major vendors has a robots.txt that basically prevents anyone from grabbing their prices. I'd like to be able to get their information but, as I said, I can't justify simply ignoring the wishes of the site owner.
I have seen some very sharp discussion here and that's why I would like to hear the opinions of developers that follow Stack Overflow.
By the way, there is some discussion of this topic on a Hacker News question but they seem to mainly focus on the legal aspects of this.
Arguments:
A robots.txt file is an implied license, especially since you are aware of it. Thus, continuing to scrape their site could be seen as unauthorized access (i.e., hacking). Sucks, but arguments like this have been made in other legal cases recently (not directly related to robots.txt, but in relation to other "passive controls".)
Grabbing prices violates no copyright law, including DMCA, since copyright does not include factual information, only creative.
Ethically, you should not grab prices because the vendor should have the ability to change prices without worrying about being accused of a bait/switch by people coming from your site.
Have you taken the high road, explaining the site to them and saying you'd love to include them in your list of vendors? Maybe they will love the idea and actually expose the data in a way that is easy for you to consume and less resource-intensive for them to produce.
There are no laws written directly about robots.txt because netiquette is generally followed. Don't be one of the "bad guys."
Some people filter robots because they use URL links to perform "actions" like adding things to carts, and robots leave them with massive numbers of abandoned shopping carts in their database.
Some people filter robots because they have exclusive prices that they can't advertise openly based on agreements with their vendors. You could be putting them in a bad position by exposing those prices on your site.
In this economy, if a company doesn't want to do everything possible to advertise themselves, it's their own fault that you don't include them.
The other use of robots.txt is to help protect web spiders from themselves. It's relatively easy for a web spider to get mired in an infinitely deep forest of links, and a properly constructed robots.txt file will tell the spider that "you don't need to go here".
Many people have tried to build businesses off building "price comparison" engines that scraped major sites.
Once you start getting any sort of traffic/revenue to speak of, you will receive a cease and desist. It's happened to dozens, if not hundreds of projects. I even worked on a small project that received a C&D from Craigslist.
You know how they say "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission"? It doesn't hold true with page scraping. Get permission, or you will be hearing from their lawyers.
If you're lucky, it'll be early on, when you've got nothing to lose. If it's late, you may lose your business and all your work overnight, with a single letter.
Getting permission shouldn't be hard. Unless you're doing something sneaky, you're likely going to drive them additional traffic. Hell, once your product takes off, sites may be begging you, or even paying you to add their data.
One reason we allow robots to dig through the web without complaint is that we have a way to stop them if we want to. Protects both sides.
Remember the uproar when Cuil's robots were accused of going over-the-top, apparently acting like a DoS attack in some cases and using up bandwidth allowances of some small sites?
If too many people violate robots.txt we might get something worse.
"No" means "no".
To answer the narrow question, for the price comparison website you're probably best grabbing the price in real time, rather then scrapping the database in advance. Hard to imagine that being a problem.
An interesting IRL version of story involving The Harvard Coop:
Coop Calls Cops On ISBN Copiers.
Short answer: No.
On the narrow issue: If a seller says that their prices are secret, I think you have to respect that. I'd contact them and ask if they really don't want price comparison engines like yours to include them, or if the "no trespassing" sign is for technical reasons. If the latter, perhaps they'll provide you with an alternative. If the former, then I'd say too bad, they don't get included, they lose some business, and it's their problem.
Tangential rant: Personally, I get pretty annoyed with companies that make me jump through hoops to find out the price of their products, places that make me call and talk to a salesman so he can give me a hard-sell pitch, or worse, make me give them my phone number so their salesman can call and harass me. I figure that if they're afraid to tell me the price, it probably means that it's too high.
In general: A robots.txt file is like a "No Trespassing" sign. It's the owner's right to say who is allowed on their property. If you think their reasons are dumb, you can politely suggest they take the sign down. But you don't have the right to disregard their wishes. If someone puts a No Trespassing sign on his yard, and I say, "Hey, I just want to take a quick short cut, what's the big deal?" -- Maybe I'm stepping on his prized Bulgarian violet bulbs and destroying a valuable investment. Maybe I'm crossing his people's sacred burial ground and offending their religious sensibilities. Or maybe he's just an ornery jerk. But it's still his property and his right. Oh, and if I fall into the dangerous sinkhole after ignoring the No Trespassing sign, who's to blame? (In America, I could probably still sue him for all he's worth despite the fact that he warned me, but is that right?)
I'm showing some ignorance here, but I always thought a bot was something only sent out by a search engine. Like Google or Yahoo.
Thus, if you wrote an application that searched content on the internet, I wouldn't consider that a search engine bot, which to my knowledge is what robots.txt is trying to block.
But this may just be selective ignorance, because I might do it until the webmaster of that site contacted me and asked me to stop :)
If people make it available to public access, they shouldn't try to put limits on it. Adding a robots.txt file to your site is the equivalent to putting a sign on your lawn that says "Please don't look at me."