The whole idea of Salesforce--a hosted, scalable service that grows with you from a single user to thousands of people--is great, but in practice, it's really not conducive to being used at a startup.  I logged into Salesforce today for the first time in a while... and I'm very close to just cancelling my account and considering it a failed experiment--at least for this startup.

The Professional Edition I'm using is advertised as "Full-powered CRM without complexity", but because it's not full-powered, some of the tools out there that could make it less complex to use aren't available to me.

Salesforce is undoubtedly a great product for larger organizations.  I've seen it implemented with great zeal at Oddcast, where the name of the game was sales to agencies, and everyone had Salesforce plugged into Outlook.  Return Path, the company that we're squatting at, uses it, too.  In fact, they have a couple of people dedicated to managing it--and they have a very organized process for converting lists of leads into sales opportunities. 

I'm in a very different situation now.  I'm the one non-coder at my startup--and hence the only person with a Salesforce account.  Most of my "deals" are more about strategic partnerships than revenue, and so it's hard to quantify the value of using a CRM.  Even so, I put a lot of effort into loading and tagging all my contacts so I could use it, and setting up custom fields.  I was determined to be very organized about our opportunity management.

It didn't work, for a couple of reasons--mostly having to do with the creation of new contacts.

One of the most valuable features of Salesforce is to be able to attach e-mail interactions to contacts.  The only problem is they have to be existing contacts.  When you're a startup, however, most of your interactions are going to be with new people.  Constantly adding new contacts to Salesforce when you're the lone business guy at your company is a tremendous time sink, not to mention difficult to keep up with. 

But there's hope--but only if you can afford it.

For one, Salesforce is easier to use if you can plug it into your e-mail client--only how many startups do you know that are using Outlook?  Tons of startups are using Thunderbird, but Salesforce doesn't support it.  Granted, Thunderbird doesn't have nearly the installed base that Outlook does, but the base that it does have is a key innovation community that Salesforce should want as clients.   There is an effort for a community developed plugin, but it only works with the set of APIs that Salesforce makes available to its Enterprise and above versions...  i.e. at $1500 per year per user.  Sorry, I just can't afford that.

It's odd because the very features that make it easier to use are only available to companies who can actually afford to have someone managing and inputting contacts.

That's not the only useful tool that can only be accessed with that version.  The awesome folks at iHance have created an automatic contact creator.  I saw it demoed and it's nothing short of a Godsend!  You bcc your in and outbound e-mails to it (solving the lack of Thunderbird support issue) and for any e-mail contacts it doesn't recognize, it keeps them all in a holding pen for you to create new contacts with a dropdown and a click.  So, what used to take almost a minute for each new contact, can now take a minute in total for all your new contacts.

Unfortunately, the APEX API's needed to make this functional don't work in the Professional version I'm using, which isn't cheap either. 

If you've ever signed up for Salesforce, you'll realize why there's no freemium version--everything they do is insanely high touch.  You can't even sign up without getting a phone call from them.  I wanted to try to add on Windows Mobile support, and I have to type my name and number into a field so someone can call me.  I'm one person!  Trust me, Salesforce, it's not worth the phone call--especially if you don't have a level of service most startups can reasonably afford and tools they can use.

I'm currently looking into PipelineDeals, which looks pretty cool, but they've got that same contact creation issue.  I don't want to spend all my business development time typing new contacts into a database.  To their credit, though, they have a much more startup-friendly pricing structure and no contract lock-ins, unlike Salesforce. 

Links I've recently tagged on del.icio.us:

"The discrepancy between the grandeur of the failure and the stature of the man is a puzzlement. We are still trying to compute it."

Op-Ed Columnist - A President Forgotten but Not Gone - NYTimes.com

"Try to frown on a waverunner..."

Here's the reality.  There are a lot of people out of work right now, and there will be more.  Unless you have some kind of technical skill, like brain surgery, web development or you can do some kind of theoretical math that no one else can, chances are there's someone out there more qualified than you or who went to a better school than you do--probably a quite few people in fact. 

The idea that you're going to get a job by dusting off your resume and uploading it to Monster is a pipe dream.  Even worse is trying to apply to the few job ads out there. 

Job ads are like crack.  Applying to each one is like getting a little hit.  It feels good that you're doing something, but ultimately they don't get you anywhere.  I once posted 12 positions for a company and got back 3,000 resumes.   The odds are not in your favor.

But if you apply to enough, someone will certainly see your resume and respond, no? 

Go ahead--apply to all of them.  That's what everyone else is doing--and half of all resumes that get sent to companies, maybe more, never ever get looked at by anyone.  There might not even be a real job behind that ad.  While you're at it, you might as well play the lottery.  At least someone wins the lottery, eventually.

If all you have is a resume, you're toast.  Your resume isn't special and it's not the best one.

Welcome to trying to get a job in the middle of a recession.

Oh, and e-mailing it around to all your friends?  If you look up "wreaks of desperation" in the dictionary, you'll see a page with an attached resume.  When I get unsolicited resumes from people I barely know in my inbox, I feel like I want to treat it like someone just handed me their dirty socks.  "Umm...  ew...  I know a good place for this..."

The problem with that is that the chances that someone you know is looking for your resume is so slim--plus asking them to send it around is kind of like asking them to spam people.  No one asked for your resume, so why are you sending it around?   Instead, take the time to figure out what it is your friends do, target the ones in areas you want to work in, and ask to chat with them on the phone or buy them coffee.  THEN, follow up with a resume, IF they ask for it.  That shows you know how to treat people like people, not like e-mail addresses, and you can go the extra mile to market something--yourself.  If you just blindly e-mail a bunch of people and expect a positive response, am I to assume this is how you'll act on that sales job a recommend you for?

Wake up.

You need to treat this job search like you seriously want the job--and that's going to take a different approach, some serious get off your ass effort and a little bit of time.

First off, let's be clear.  I get that you need to pay your rent and you need a job yesterday.  That's no excuse for approaching your job search like a mindless lemming--rushing to jump over the same cliff as everyone else who is out of a job.

Do what you need to do to take care of your financial priorities.  This is why it's good to have a few months savings built up.  If not, you need sure up your finances.  Immediately cut unnecessary expenses, but be careful not to cut too much--especially not the kinds of things that will de-stress you or get you out of the house everyday.  So, if you're choosing between cable and the gym...you might want to go without the tube for a while.  Sitting idly on the couch will not get you a job and will most likely make you feel bad about your situation after a while.  Besides, most of your favorite shows are available on the web for free now anyway.

The gym, however, can be a place to meet people and an excuse to get out of the house.  You need to get out there and meet lots of people, and looking refreshed and healthy goes a long way.  Get some sleep while you're at it, too... But don't sleep in--hit the sack early.  If you're sleeping in and not getting out of the house until noon, you're missing out on hours of potential job searching and networking time.

As for finances, don't be afraid to take paid work on a temporary basis wherever you can get it, even it's part time or not in your field--as long as you don't take your eye off the ball when it comes to really trying to get a job you want, in your field.  Despite the urgency of your situation, you can set your career back years if you take the wrong job just because you have to, and then give up looking for something else.  You should always be looking for better opportunities.  If you need to tap into savings, sell some extra stuff or move into a smaller place (or get a roommate) do what you can to ease your current financial situation--because being stuck in a hard financial spot can throw on a lot of pressure that will make getting a job (like being cool, calm, and collected on an interview) more difficult.

Ok, now for actually getting a job.  Let's think about supply and demand in this market.  Right now, companies have the ability to get just about anyone they want--so the question is, "Why would someone want me?"  You're probably not going to pick up some new skill between now and your next potential job interview, so the reality is that whatever skills and experience you have is what you're going into battle with.

So what else is there?

How about reputation?  Put yourself in the shoes of the person hiring.  You've probably been around a hire or had to hire someone yourself.  What's the first thing people do when they want to hire someone?  They go to their immediate network of trusted connections and see if there's anyone who might be a fit.  This happens even before they dive into the resume pile of people who are out of work--which isn't a very appealing task for most employers.

So the key is getting your name out there, far and wide, so that when that question goes out, you immediately come to mind.   How do you make sure that key people associate your name with the position you want?

Here are a few ways... and you should try all of them:

1) Be a leader among people just like you.  So you're out of work, or maybe you're just stuck at a cruddy job and you're looking to move up or chance paths.  Maybe you're interested in a hard to get into profession.  Either way, there are lots of people out there just like you, and if you can't just flat out beat them with your resume--then lead them.  You should get active in whatever professional society is relevant to your field.  Professional societies are always looking for more active members, especially if they can help out with events.  If there isn't a professional society, then start a Meetup.  Get other people with similar interests together in one place, and then reach out to experienced professionals to invite as speakers--or just to come to your networking events.  A friend of mine created a group for professionals interested in digital media as it relates to museums and cultural institutions, and in less than a month, it has nearly 100 members already.  What this does is not only places her in the mind of 100 industry professionals as an up and comer and community leader, but also when it comes to interviewing for jobs in this space, she has this unique feather in her cap.  She can say that she runs the Meetup for the very same professionals a company is looking to hire!

2) Informational interviews.  No, this doesn't mean going around asking people to hire you.  It means thinking of this job search as an excuse to get to know a lot of professionals.  If you're out of work, you should be meeting with, at minimum, three people a day for purely informational purposes--to learn about the different areas of your interest.  Don't go into a job interview not knowing exactly what's going on in a field.  Go in having talked to a dozen people over the last week about exactly what's needed for success and how the industry is changing.  Again, that shows interest, ambition, and it looks so much better than the person who can only say they've just been applying to a lot of jobs when asked, "What have you been doing?"   With each interview, ask the person for one or two recommendations of who else to talk to.  Never ever try to push your resume on someone... if they hear of something for you, they'll ask.  Resumes put pressure on people that they need to have an immediate job for you, versus just having a conversation. 

3) Keep your digital presence fresh, interesting, and up to date.  Be where people are online.   I told an out of work friend that she should start a blog about the tools she's using to organize herself online, since she needs to get organized to get her job search moving, and she's looking to be an interactive media producer--a position that demands a lot of organization.  She told me that she needs a job now, and doesn't have time to start a blog.   This is really short sighted, because what happens on the off chance that someone actually does find her resume and immediately googles her name.  Would she rather her smartly written organization blog be up there first, or just her Facebook profile with her silly profile picture--making her look like one of millions of other faces and resumes.  Whenever you get in contact with someone, be it asking for a job or an informational interview, they're going to check you out online, so you need to make sure you have a solid digital presence.  This can accomplish many things for you:

- It makes you seem more savvy than others who don't use these tools.

- It gives you an opportunity to write and share thoughts that can't be captured on just a resume--like a portfolio for a knowledge worker.  If you were a photographer, you'd unquestionably have an online portfolio available, so as someone being hired for your sharp business mind or what have you, where's your portfolio?  Your thoughts and options about your industry, or just about the tools you're learning about, represent an interesting aspect of you that a resume won't adequately put on display.

- It makes you more searchable.  If you use the right keywords, your blog will get a lot of search traffic after a while--and someone searching for an expert on organizing political communities might find your "How to organize a group of politically active people" post, if that's what you're interesting in.

It's also important to make sure your LinkedIn profile is up to date, and you've got your real life network on there.   Here's a post about getting started on LinkedIn.  LinkedIn is a great rainy day fund for people.  Use it to seek out informational interviews, find out if you have connections at places you're applying, and see what companies and what professionals are in your space.

A great listening tool (and publishing, if you feel like sharing) to see what professionals are talking about in your area is Twitter.  Twitter is a social network where people share shortform status updates, like where they're going or what they're reading, etc.  Knowing that there's a media exec on Twitter going to a particular event when you know you want to work at that company can be a significant advantage in the job search.  Tools like Mr Tweet can and Twitter search can help you figure out who to follow.

Want other ideas?

How about starting a project--the kind you want to get paid to do--on your own.  If you want someone to pay you to work for their advertising company, how about offering up some of your best thinking around brands and advertising to a startup--or a startup a day on your blog.  By writing up short case studies of what you think certain companies and brands should do, you'll have a good shot at attracting their attention.  Or, if nothing else, you can work on some of these case studies with people you want to do informational interviews with.  I once told a guy who wanted to be an information architect to start wireframing how Twitter would sign up groups of people at a time, and then publishing that on his blog for feedback. 

A project could be managing a fake portfolio of stocks on UpDown, but taking it very seriously and publishing your results and analysis.  It would make for a great discussion with a real portfolio manager--certainly better than, "So how did you get your job?"

At the end of the day, a job search needs to be active, and you need to be using all of the innovative tools possible to help you get what you want.  If all you're doing is sending your resume around via e-mail attachment, well, expect to get a good job...  in 1998. 

Links I've recently tagged on del.icio.us:

Links I've recently tagged on del.icio.us:

A few days ago, I asked a bunch of thoughtful people I know to post 7 second video predictions for 2009.  Not everyone kept to the 7 seconds (I didn't), but that was fine.  The whole process was made a lot easier using two web services.  First, I used drop.io to create a private dropbox where people could upload their videos, but not see the others that were posted.  I have this debate with Sam, but I still think that drop.io needs to brand itself as X for Y... whatever they want to be.  I don't think they can get big enough if they're just this really flexible platform that solves random-ass geek problems, like mass uploading videos from a group of people.  They need a simpler value prop.  Still, it was perfect for what I needed.

Then, Motionbox the *only* video site I could find that would not only take all of the various video formats that were posted, but also allow easy trimming and splicing.  I was expecting to use Kaltura, but I guess they changed their model into an editing tool for other communities--and have since dropped their consumer offering.  One True Media didn't recognize a couple of the files either.  Motionbox had an easy uploader, making the whole thing a snap--but one feature request is definitely titles. It would have been nice to type titles into the video as overlays.  Still, pretty slick.

So here it is...

Embed code: <embed pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer" src="http://www.motionbox.com/external/player/id=0a98d6b81c1ee7c787" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="375" width="425">

...and here are the participants, in order of appearance...   

Bryce Roberts - Managing Director, O'Reilly AlphaTech (@bryce)

Chris Fralic - Partner, First Round Capital (@chrisfralic)

Jim Robinson - Managing Partner, RRE Ventures (@jdrive)

Brady Forrest - Technical Evangelist, O'Reilly Media (@brady)

Charlie O'Donnell - Co-Founder & CEO, Path 101 (@ceonyc)

Whitney Hess - User Experience Designer (@whitneyhess)

Howard Lindzon - Partner, Knight's Bridge Capital Partners (@howardlindzon)

Pete Hershberg - Managing Partner, Reprise Media (@hershberg)

Hunter Walk - Director of Product Management, Google (@hunterwalk)

Howard Morgan - Partner, First Round Capital (@hlmorgan)

Josh Stylman - Managing Director, Reprise Media (@jstylman)

Sam Lessin - Co-Founder & CEO, drop.io (@lessin)

Sarah Tavel - Associate at Bessemer Venture Partners (@adventurista)

Darren Herman - Head of Digital Media, Group Director at The Media Kitchen (@dherman76)

Andy Weissman - Founder, Chief Operating Officer at betaworks (@aweissman)

Brian Harniman - EVP, Marketing & Distribution at Kayak.com

Beth Ferreira - VP, Finance and Operations, Etsy (@bethferreira)

Nate Westheimer - EIR, RoseTech Ventures (@innonate)

Janetti Chon - Community Manager, Web 2.0 Expo (@janerri)

Laurel Touby - Founder & Senior VP, Media Bistro (@laureltouby)

Fred Wilson - Managing Partner, Union Square Ventures (@fredwilson)

Kristin Maverick - Director of Communications, Carrot Creative (@kmaverick)

and...

Josh Wilson, Ladies Man

Spinach Pie, originally uploaded by ceonyc.

Even though my nana is sick, she still feeds anyone who walks in.

Links I've recently tagged on del.icio.us:

The most recent tracks I've been listening to on last.fm:

Links I've recently tagged on del.icio.us:

Links I've recently tagged on del.icio.us:

Where the f is Carmen Sandiego?

Minesweeper the movie... "Calm down.. it's never the first one!"

Today,Loic Le Meur blogged that "We're not equal on Twitter, as we're not equal on blogs and on the web.""  He was talking about the need for Twitter to start filtering searches by authority--and by authority he means the number of people following them.

It's laughable...the idea that someone has "authority" because a lot of people pay attention to it.  Isn't that the most anti-Web 2.0 thing you've ever heard?  Did we forget about the long tail?  Wasn't that the whole point?  Level playing field... hear the small voices...   excuse me, is this thing on?

So, mark this date down.  Today, December 27, 2008 is the day that the digerati jumped the shark--the day that a guy who raised $12 million for a video blog commenting platform with no revenues or any idea of what the business model would be told the world that he only wants to listen to Twitter users with a lot of followers.

Perhaps that was his mistake in the first place--thinking that the only people worth listening to are people who are already big into Twitter. 

A lot of companies that will not survive the next 12 months because they will not get additional funding and don't have enough user traction.  Many of these companies were fueled by echo chamber ideas--they didn't solve big enough problems for nearly enough people nor did they have any sense of where the potential business value might get created. 

Along with the creation and support of these companies, we got a cavalcade of stars--voices that were early, and built up followings for mostly that same reason--the Robert Scoble's and Mike Arrington's of the world.  They became water coolers, and in talking about new technologies that were going to overtake the establishment they became the establishment. 

I think that's when, slowly, people started realizing--these new voices we were all paying attention to weren't really all that relevent.  Ask anyone in PR what they tell their clients when they say they want to be on TechCrunch--it isn't worth it.  You'll get a firehouse of traffic that will be gone in a week, with few of the people likely to be in your target audience anyway--unless your audience is other Web 2.0 entrepreneurs.

There's been an explosion in Web 2.0 "experts" and people have started carving out their own niches.  If you are a non-profit, you are much more likely to pay attention to a social media expert from the non-profit world than you are still going to listen to Steve Rubel--another key early voice.  Sure, Steve might have introduced you to blogging, but there's probably a more immediately relevent expert out there that you found using the tools that Steve taught you about.  In fact, this person probably isn't even an "expert" with a shingle--they're probably someone just like you, a working professional trying to solve an immediate business need.

So while the RSS numbers are still there for these early folks--because we all filled our RSS readers with them early on, we've actually stopped paying attention to our RSS readers nearly as much. 

We're much more likely to find worthwhile reading on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr--places where the screen in which I view the world is my friends or people I care about associating with--not the aggregate number of followers someone has. 

We're pulling back...  and the smart money listens to smaller, more focused, more immediately relevent voices--people we're likely to meet up with, share a Shack burger with, etc.  Sure, there are people with 40,000 Twitter followers, but there are over 1000 people who have more than 2700 followers.  Twitter is actually flatter than the blogosphere (and getting flatter--maybe because it's just easier), and it's not surprising.  Following a blog is a very low cost activity--having too many feeds in your feed reader is annoying, but it's not going to make you miss something cool going on right outside your door this very minute.  Follow too many on Twitter, on the other hand, and you're going to get overwhelmed quickly... or go bankrupt in SMS billing.

And the traffic is showing that we're drifting away from the early to the party folks.  Techcrunch traffic has been largely flat since June--although Mashable traffic, with more writers covering a more narrow space, with less of that patronizing, even sometimes mean, authoritative tone, continues to grow slowly but steadily.

Scobel's blog traffic appears down, and Techmeme--the water cooler of water coolers, is flat, as is Micropersuasion.

As technology increases engagment, we'll demand much more relevence...  and we're less likely to follow the water coolers just because they're the water cooler.  Most of what the masses are saying just isn't nearly as interesting as what your best friend wants to tell you or some smart person in your industry (Web 2.0 is not an industry) is talking about.

This is a good thing, btw.  We need better ideas from more people.  We don't need an authority filter--one based on sheer numbers.  We need a relevence filter...  and we're getting that--it's in our own head.  We're getting more and more likely to unfriend, unfollow, clean out, etc...  and the economy will sweep its share of noise out the door in the next year as well.  Remaining Web 2.0 compaines one year from now will be stronger, more stable, more useful--and the voices that most people pay attention to will likely be the builders--the other entrepreneurs and professionals doing your job who have encountered the same issue you have--not the sideline pundits.  There isn't much money left in being a sideline pundit anymore--just ask the newspapers. 

At the end of the day, I hope Loic gets his feature request, though--so that he can only pay attention to the other Twitter users that have as many followers as he does.  This way, he's not likely to notice when the rest of us stop paying attention to him and become our own little water coolers.

Links I've recently tagged on del.icio.us:

Shrimp, tomato, and portobello pasta with orange tuna, and broccoli rabe., originally uploaded by ceonyc.

Yup... I made it!

The most recent tracks I've been listening to on last.fm:

Mashable just reported that Plenty of Fish, the free dating site run by Markus Frind, is now the #1 dating site in the US, with a 17.02% share, 3-5x that of Match.com or eHarmony. 

I'm sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on this.  Do you know anyone who met someone on Plenty of Fish?  (PS...  I have no doubt I'll get anonymous comments to this post... Seems such remarks, always supportive of the service, always turn up mysteriously.)  If it had 3x the share of Match, you'd think it would have at least half the brand awareness. 

Supposedly, this one man operation is netting millions of dollars of ad revenues--of this doesn't wreak of a Web 2.0 Madoff scheme, I don't know what does.

But let's think about it for a second.  What's actually going on here?  It would be irresponsible to dismiss this out of hand without some kind of logic, right?

Well, thanks to a little deductive reasoning, I've figured out exactly what's going on here.

Let's start with what we know to be real--the money.  We've seen the million dollar check, not to mention the fact that, if logic holds true, someone at Google would have commented on the situation if he wasn't making nearly what he said he was or if his checks were fake. 

So if the money's real, it's got to come from clicking traffic, right?  The question is whether or not the clicks and traffic are real or if they're fake. 

If these were all real people, you would have imagined more of a buzz among real people.  A scan of Twitter reveals a lot more people talking about actually using Match.com than Plentyoffish, even though the latter supposedly has 3x the market share.  So either, for some reason, everyone who uses this site isn't telling anyone, or these aren't real users. 

Since this isn't a porn site, it seems unlikely that the audience here would be so silent, so it's probably the case that these aren't real users.  That doesn't explain, however, all the clicks.  If these were bot clicks, Google would have picked up on it right away and stopped sending him checks. 

Could he have fooled the Borg?  What are the chances that one dude outsmarted all of Google into believing his phony clickstream?

That seems pretty unlikely, too.  Thousands of people are out there trying to fool Google.  The idea that one dude cracked the code is far-fetched.  Plus, wouldn't he eventually do or say something stupid and get caught?  It's human nature.  If you had tricked Google into paying you millions per year, wouldn't you just be bursting to tell someone?

Of course.  That's how I came to my next conclusion:  Markus doesn't actually know the clicks are fradulent. 

Wha?

Yes, that's right.  He's totally unaware.  Remember what George Costanza said.  It's not a lie if you believe it. 

It's too good a secret not to get out.  Someone else is generating all the fake clicks.

But who?  Who would have any interest in having a site get fairytale-like traffic and click numbers out of a service that looks like a 9 year old built it?  Who could possibly benefit from a story of someone making millions from Google Adsense?  Not only that, but who would have the sheer brain power on hand to create an undectable army of clicking bots that model human behavior so much that they dupe Google's own servers?  It wouldn't be enough to just have the brainpower, though--you'd need extensive data models on how real users actually behave on real sites. 

Who might have that...

...unless...

...nah...

Yup.  Google itself.  The story of Markus Frind is better than any PR Google could possibly buy.  What's even more amazing is how it happened.

Such a plan would have to be held to a very small number of Google engineers and PhDs (And you wonder why Google has so many PhDs in the first place...).  It might actually have to be abstracted away from them, too.  They might have to think they were running some kind of simple, more mundane task... because, again, such a story would find it's way out if it got out to too many people.  No, each engineer would have to think what they were doing was pretty harmless.

That's where Steven Johnson's book, Emergence, kicks in.  It tells the story of very simple software programs that were meant to mix and match with each other to create smarter offspring, using simple survival of the fittest tactics.  By design, strong traits survived and weaker ones didn't. 

Under the guise of "testing" their click fraud conrols, Google unleashed millions, even billions, of tiny little bots out on the web, clicking away--little testers that could be divided up among all these PhDs and engingers so well that none of them would ever suspect a thing.  You've even seen them--random one-offs from sites you've never heard of showing up in your server logs.  The ones that get caught clicking die right away.  The ones that don't get caught have time to run into other little clickbots and they spawn... again, and again, and again. 

Eventually, given the millions of combinations of bots, they get smarter and smarter, until one day, one set of bots at a given site gets so smart, it disappears--seemlessly blending into that site's real traffic, and eventually dwarfing it, but all the while looking completely legitimate to the owner, traffic trackers, and even to Google itself.

Yup...  What you have with Plenty of Fish is nothing short of monkeys typing Shakespeare--a site whose audience is mostly made up of incredibly intelligent--almost sensient--clickbots.  The bots, not unlike a fantasy franchise league, have even started generating new profiles, pulling names, photos, etc, from other places, each with their own distinct clicking behavior.  They've even started plugging into the Aviary API to start creating photos of entirely new people that have never been seen before.

So there you have it.  Markus Frind isn't intentially a fraud--he's just the completely random and unsuspecting winner of the Google emergent  intellience clickbot spawn lottery.  Only through reason and logic could we uncover this--knowing that no matter what the stats say, we all know there aren't nearly as many actual real life humans using the site as we think, and knowing that only Google itself, and not Markus, could have the werewithal to unleash this situation. 

Let's just hope this machine city of cyberdating bots sticks to the personals and doesn't have any intention of clicking over to the Department of Defense website.