<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!-- RSS generated by OPML Editor version 0.6 on 10/18/05; 10:18:18 PM Pacific -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Cliff Gerrish's OPML blog</title>
		<link>http://blogs.opml.org/cgerrish/</link>
		<description></description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2005 Cliff Gerrish.</copyright>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:18:18 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
		<generator>OPML Editor version 0.6</generator>
		<managingEditor></managingEditor>
		<webMaster></webMaster>
		<item>
			<title>Attention and Majestic Research</title>
			<link>http://blogs.opml.org/cgerrish/2005/10/18#attentionAndMajesticResearch</link>
			<description>
				&lt;p&gt;Steve Gillmor has been talking about the value of &quot;attention data.&quot; But no one's been able to pinpoint what attention is actually worth. It looks like &lt;a href=&quot;http://majesticresearch.com/page_home.htm&quot;&gt;Majestic Research&lt;/a&gt; is looking at attention data to try and predict the direction of stock prices. And that's worth some money. &lt;/p&gt;
				&lt;p&gt;Would you spend 2 million to make 20 million? If Majestic can get it right, there's money to be made. Of course that's a big if.&lt;/p&gt;
				&lt;p&gt;But it's not your data or my data that's worth money. It's data that adds up to a large enough sample size to understand consumer behavior as an emerging event -- and then tie that to specific sectors, companies and stock direction.&lt;/p&gt;
				&lt;p&gt;Of course there may be other models, but here's an early one.&lt;/p&gt;
				</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:59:39 GMT</pubDate>
			<guid>http://blogs.opml.org/cgerrish/2005/10/18#attentionAndMajesticResearch</guid>
			</item>
		</channel>
	</rss>