Another Facebook Post

"Facebook's mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected. Millions of people use Facebook everyday to keep up with friends, upload an unlimited number of photos, share links and videos, and learn more about the people they meet."

This is the mission statement of Alexa's #2 most visited website, Facebook. Their goal: to connect people, and make money while doing it. Facebook, however, has not made money until very recently. Their game plan has seemingly been to grow to a gargantuan website, and then gain enough ground and popularity that their ad space is worth thousands. The problem with Facebook: people are too "busy looking at their friends that they don't even look at the ad space". The solution, which Facebook instilled within the past year, is individualized advertisements. Facebook's interactive ad agency lead, David Blum, states that, "It's about saying, 'We are going to take this information because you've acknowledged that you have an interest in X, Y and Z.'" (1) With this new model of advertisement, Facebook is slowly but surely making money.

Facebook prides itself on being an independent company (not like a Youtube, owned by Google), which made it very hard at first to make money. Advertising is their key, but there are other revenue-producing tactics. First off, ANYONE can advertise on Facebook, whether it be Windows or your friend wanting to promote his group. Birthday gifts and virtual property are little one dollar gimmicks that, for some odd reason, people actually spend money on. "The fact that Facebook is now making money independently means not only is it less reliant on benevolent cash, but also that it can continue to slay rivals, including Twitter, which isn’t making money yet, or MySpace, which is increasingly irrelevant." (2) Facebook should be here to stay.

(1) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118783296519606151.html?mod=e-commerce_primary_hs#articleTabs%3Darticle

(2) http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2009/09/16/facebook-making-money-at-last/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/sep/16/facebook-money

History is written by the victors

The old saying goes "history is written by the victors." The human lexicon is dynamic and always changing. I think that history and recorded knowledge are similar to a languages lexicon, "facts" changed with time, fashion and social change. Wikipedia is the perfect vehicle for this set of knowledge since it is written, edited, patrolled and updated by the people.

I really like Geoff Nunberg's conclusion at the end of his "Fresh Air" Commentary "It's only when you actually try to implement that view of collective knowledge that you realize how fond and delusional it is. When you deposit this multitude of strangers in a single place, you shouldn't be surprised when you come back and find nothing but a jumble of footprints in the mud. That's actually a fair picture of what human knowledge has always been, but it was never so evident before."

I don't see this as a bad thing. For certain questions I think that Wikipedia is often the best resource. Important and controversial information is very well monitored. I think that is it better to have a more democratic approach, leave it it open to the population to edit, than to have it maintained by a few people all employed by the same company.

If the whole sum of human knowledge is a messy "jumble of footprints in the mud" anyway, what better way to organize it than with a whole bunch of people with muddy feet?

Wisdom of Crowds...

The topic of the Wisdom of Crowds actually came up at a rather interesting time I'm currently reading a book by Steven Johnson entitled "The Invention of Air". In it he covers the Life of Joseph Presley an Inventor and Patriot who had a strong scientific relationship with Benjamin Franklin. More importantly he covers what he calls his coffee shop theory in which he explains that the rapid scientific and technological advancements of the last two hundred years is mainly due to a ramped free exchange of thought that originated in coffee shops in the beginning of the 1800's. I find it interesting to view the growth between what Johnson calls the beginning of rapid thought exchange in coffee shops where educated individuals where drawn together by the popular social hangout and compare that to today where we have taken the idea of group thought development to a brand new level. From nightly builds to Wikipedia the way that a group can generate content that is not only factual but more extensive often times than one person could ever produce by themselves amazes me.

In terms of the NPR Interview in which he speaks of both the strengths and weakness of the wikipedia and its role in our society, I believe that wikipedia has been becoming a more reliable source for primary information, but I do agree with "Jeff Numberg" in regards to Wikipedias limitations. I founds his thoughts on how the collective process could never truly produce a constant view point that criticism requires to be fascinating...

Wikipedia vs. Britannica: Who's Smarter??

When wikipedia first was created it seemed to be a godsend for students and a horrible atrocity for teachers/professors. Students seemed to love the concept of finding information for any source in a matter of seconds. While professors thought of the credibility of the actual site which seemed to not exist in their minds. The credibility of wikipedia has always seemed to hinder the site since it began but if someone does enough research they will find that people can source each bit of information accurately. This is where the battle between wikipedia and britannica truly starts.

Britannica has been the source for accurate information way before the internet was created. When I was younger I even remember going to the full collection from A-Z and actually researching using books. This of course is what will lead to the downfall of britannica in the near future. Having to literally search several pages to find the information then having a limited number of words for description is something that will never hinder wikipedia. Another point is the actual pricing of the physical books which can become pretty expensive.

Now I'm not completely agreeing that wikipedia is all powerful and has no problems. There is always the sense that someone could be giving false information or that the sources could be completely outdated. But the internet is always constantly fluctuating and wikipedia is able to change over the course of seconds. Britannica needs to either create I cheaper or even a free way of distributing it's information or wikipedia (and other online sources) will eventually take it's place.

wisdom of crowds

From what I gather over the internet, open source materials are the next big thing. I am referring to a knowledge base that is built from public contributions. The pros and cons of building an entire system based on public knowledge are obvious. You can have great suggestions however you must first filter through the dumb ones.

Two heads think better than one. To some degree that statement is true. I think a group can come up with more creative ideas than just one person. But what if you have a stupid group?

I think that social networks and any company actually, can take advantage of public knowledge and opinion if they do it right. They can open the dialogue to the public and filter through the ideas to find good ones. After all, the public is their customer and you always want to please your customer. For example, Microsoft launched Windows 7 BETA to get feedback before releasing the final version. From what I hear (I'm a mac) it is paying off. You can even see that they incorporated that into their TV marketing with the actors saying "Windows 7 was my idea". When it comes to improving a product using public knowledge to improve it is a smart thing to do. However, when it comes to providing concrete knowledge (wikipedia) I'm not sure how smart that really is.

I feel that whenever I read something in Wikipedia I always have to question it's validity. Depending on the topic, I will do further research just to confirm that what I read on Wikipedia is true. I think it's nice to have the public contribute but I'm still uncomfortable when it comes to accepting it as fact since anyone can say anything.

2 Heads are better then...Millions?

Wikipedia was introduced to me as the bane of my teacher's lives. I was told never to use Wikipedia as a source, that it was littered with lies and misinformation. Now I'm not arguing that this wasn't true at the time, but it's existence has evolved into a much more credible source. With the increased user population and flow to Wikipedia has allowed it to transform itself into a self-perpetuated system with it's community sifting through information, validating authentic information and keeping lies at bay.

I still believe that Encyclopedia Britannica is the more credible source between the two, but I do feel that within 10 years, Wikipedia (or perhaps some equivalent we haven't foreseen) will take the lead. As the internet continues to be accessed by more and more people, those willing to provide professional and accurate information for free increases as well. A platform that takes advantage of this online community, such as Wikipedia, is setting itself up to just be a system that will be perceived as "the only possible solution" and it will seem that these old, single sourced databases are no longer competitive.

The major draw back to Britannica besides the aforementioned, I feel, is the need to register and be charged for a service that is provided for free elsewhere. Whether that source is less-credible or not becomes irrelevant when it is provided for free against a competitor with a service fee.

Information Cascade

I found the talk that James Surowieki gave really interesting. What caught my full attention was this idea of diversity when speaking about the wisdom of crowds. It seems to make sense that the more diverse a group of people are, the greater the collection of knowledge will be to pull from. People from different economic, social, and financial backgrounds will most likely look at information from multiple perspectives. I guess what is challenging is figuring out what is credible. Surowieki mentions the idea of an information cascade, and this point can be illustrated through the first article about digg.com. Simply to me, it's the idea that the masses are always correct. If everyone thinks a restaurant or particular song or movie are quality, then I should as well. Information cascades are what drive sites like twitter and digg. Members promote their links and idea's and the more popular they are, the more people will most likely check them out.

Online networking communities can be a great resource. Beyond the social aspect of posting pictures and spying on people from the past, the potential to share meaningful information is available. LinkedIn has taken advantage of this idea. People have developed groups based on their particular industry and interests and can discuss topics posted by their members. I personally belong to a few industry groups and have found some quality links and information this way. What I am guilty of is not having a diverse spectrum of groups that I associate with. It makes sense that the broader your knowledge and interest, the greater your repertoire will be on a specific subject.

Wikipedia or Britannic

According to several studies, Wikipedia nowadays is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, Wikipedia service and its community are built around a self-policing and self-cleaning nature that is supposed to ensure its articles are accurate.

in response to the phenomenal success of Wikipedia, The Encyclopedia Britannica start to invite members of the public to write articles for its online edition. Wikipedia, with it’s 13 million articles has forced Microsoft to shut down Encarta.

Encyclopedia Britannica did not think that an open source product like Wikipedia would significantly challenge the credibility of its brand.

I think over the next few years we will see the continued demise of Britannica and more upgrading and expanding in Wikipedia.

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

A Better Encyclopedia

The analog construct of research by cumbersome books with limited availability is being rendered obsolete. As corny as it sounds, a "hypermedia encyclopedia" or inevitably, "hyperpedia" is about to replace them. The old model is neither affordable, environmentally responsible or perhaps most importantly, convenient. The new model is all those things plus up-to date, in-depth and portable.

The most important question remains however, is a hyperpedia edited by just about anyone accurate? James Surowieki, author of Wisdom of Crowds sees with diverse group of contributors the intelligence of the group has often been proven to be greater than it's most intelligent contributor. Individual intelligence is second to diversity. A like-minded group even if it's made up of intelligent contributors will echo their own point-of-view and have a low probability of identifying errors in judgement or reasoning new outcomes. The traditional encyclopedia is likely to be limited to a small pedantic group by comparison to Wikipedia's army of diverse contributors. Wikipedia's open nature provides a more complete and universal point of view. Wikipedia may sometimes be inaccurate, however it time it will improve and certainly has the potential to be a repository of information far superior to an encyclopedia.

Caution is advised however in blind faith with what you find on Wikipedia. John Seigenthaler, former aide to Robert Kennedy wrote in an op-ed piece for USA Today, "For four months, Wikipedia depicted me as a suspected assassin." He was referring to a Wikipedia article that alleged Seigenthaler was involved in John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy's murder. (1) The error was eventually corrected. A serious gaffe that warns to verify research done on Wikipedia elsewhere.

1. Growing pains for Wikipedia, from CNET

Retrieved September 9, 2009, from CNET website:

http://news.cnet.com/Growing-pains-for-Wikipedia/2100-1025_3-5981119.html

Wikipedia or Britannica?

I believe that because of the ever changing nature of Wikipedia and its ability to update any bit of information at any time, it will be more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica in 10 years. This is not to say that every piece of information will be 100 percent accurate, but it will be more accurate than Britannica. The Encyclopedia Britannica is accurate, but it would take longer to change any updated piece of information, whereas in Wikipedia there is always someone checking on certain articles and updating any discrepancies. Although if you think about it, any information source is going to be flawed in some way or another. There will never be 100 percent accuracy 100 percent of the time.
As for Digg, I know what it is, but I do not use the feature at all. I don't really care to Digg anything. It's not that I don't like the idea, because it is a good idea, I just don't find it useful for me when I'm communicating.

What's Popular Is Good

The "information cascade" and the collective wisdom of crowds which James Surowieki talks about are a phenomenon which have fascinated me for a long time. Starting an information cascade has been, in fact, the main goal of advertisers as long as they've existed. Once a lot of people use something, it can be very difficult to get them to use something else that performs the same function, even if it's better at that function than the thing they commonly use. The story of Microsoft is perhaps the ultimate example of this.

Certain people are often snobby about things that are popular. Personally, I find books and music a lot less appealing when it seems like everyone knows about them. But the fact is, almost everything that gets popular is exceptional in some obvious way. If you spend a lot of time reading books that never really sold or music by bands that never really caught on, you'll find much of it is indeed fairly mediocre, if not actually bad. In probably 80% of such cases, the crowds were right. Of course, there are overlooked gems, excellent pieces which, had they come out at the right time or been promoted better or the creators hadn't died in a car crash, could've entered the pantheon of big successes. And you see, in these cases, how much dumb luck can matter as much as anything. But they're a lot rarer than you'd think. Most of the good stuff does get identified.

All of which is to say, I do have a great deal of faith in the wisdom of crowds; I think we see it demonstrated all the time. Not just on the internet, though obviously, the internet has put it to work in a way I'm sure no media has before. Which is why everyone's trying to get things to go viral--pure interest counts for an awful lot.

As for Encyclopedia Britannica, is it still even around? I don't think I've seen any editions printed after, like, 1995. It's pretty clear who won that tussle, and it wasn't just Britannica that got its hide tanned--anyone remember Encarta on CD-ROM? Anyhow, it's not like encyclopedias are some kind of ultimate source of information. I spent a significant part of my childhood pouring over our set of World Books, and I often found the articles pretty unsatisfying. You still need to dig a little deeper if you really want to know about something. Heck, I still go to the library. Laugh if you want to, but I'm not the only one.

Encyclopedias, though, are clearly obsolete. I don't know where Wikipedia will be in 10 years, but it's safe to say that the days of people buying 15-volume sets are gone. As to whether books generally will be gone in 2019...well, personally, I doubt it. I wouldn't be surprised if ebooks ended up filling very specific niches while traditional books remain better for others. Kids books, for instance. Would you let your baby chew on your Kindle? I didn't think so.

Wikipedia or Encyclopedia

I believe both will have problems in ten years. Encyclopedia will be the thing of the past. With the push to go "Green", paper books will disappear. Publication companies will stop updating and printing copies. They will ultimately become antiques. This major change will be the result of internet. In the future, everyone will search and receive information on the web via Wikipedia or something like it.

Today, the push to go wireless is everywhere. While more and more people head the the internet for information. They don't realizes that the information found might be wrong. Critics say most of the information on Wiki is incorrect due to the open process system. In ten years, Wikipedia will be out of control. One will not be able to determine what is true or false. Unless in the future, Wikipedia invest the time to confirm that every entry is correct. If not, I can see this site crashing and burning or becoming a joke.




http://news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/596321.html

Wise Crowds

Internet postings are created through several different formulas. There is the traditional news report, such as a New York Times Article. There are blog postings, which are usually opinion-based, and are not meant to be necessarily "correct". Then there are open-source sites like Wikipedia and Digg, which are infamously known for being widely sourced, but not entirely reliable. Does the fact that Wikipedia's content is editable by anyone and everyone make it a less valid source than Encyclopedia Britannica, even though Wikipedia is strictly monitored and edited by a group of editors?

James Surowieki brings up a lot of good points within his speech titled "Independent Individuals and Wise Crowds". One argument that I think specifically relates to the Wikipedia/Britannica argument is a test of group thinking. A study was constructed in which four groups were told to solve some sort of problem in the fastest and most efficient way possible. The four groups were categorized as follows: dumb, mediocre, smart, and random. Of course, the smart group was overall more successful than the dumb group in doing whatever task it was at hand, but the random group almost always outperformed the smart group. Why was this? It was the group dynamic, the same idea that makes Wikipedia possible. The information may not come from one specialist, but it comes from all kinds of sources with different levels of knowledge and experience of the subject to create one cumulative outcome. The group is almost always smarter than the smartest person in the group.

Wikipedia, according to Alexa.com, is the second most trafficked website in the US. There must be a reason why it is such a hugely popular site. In other words, there must be some level of validity to most of the information on the site. If Wikipedia were not looked at by administrators, I am almost positive that it would have turned into a sort of Urban Dictionary or Encyclopedia Dramatica by now. The perks that Wikipedia has that Encyclopedia Britannica cannot ever grasp is the idea of the now. For example, whenever Michael Jackson died Wikipedia was updated with the news almost immediately. In conclusion, I must agree with the previous posting: In a matter of ten year, I do not know what Wikipedia will be, but it will surely out-live Encyclopedia Britannica.

http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail468.html#

On Emergent Intelligence...or Submergent Stupidity

We see group wisdom in all sorts of situations...but we also see group stupidity. The ironic thing, as Surowieki describes in his talk, is that it appears the more independent and silent the individuals in the group, the smarter the crowd. Like bees, each individual is stupid, programmed with just enough intelligence to do what they have to do, and the sum of all the small, mindless (sometime errant) moves is a complex of intelligent activity that gets a hive built. The wrong moves are averaged out and the right ones are reinforced. If the members of the group could attempt to communicate and actively try to solve a problem, they would get nowhere, because no individual is equipped to solve the problem on their own... I think this perfectly describes our Congress! They should all just shut up and vote.

On the internet, I think, it is similar. Digg, for instance, largely does give accurate information in the same way that bees build an accurate hive. If one person appreciates a news story, they presumably think it is interesting and accurate so they digg it. They may be wrong or they may be right about its accuracy, but other people will make up their own minds and digg or bury it. As the numbers add up, it becomes increasingly more likely that the sum judgment will be a correct one. The sum of a group of low-intelligence decisions is usually a very wise decision.

The problem with this is that, as Surowieki states, we don't only base our decisions on our own information, but we instinctively imitate others. So if a hundred people digg a story, its much more likely we will believe it is valuable before we even read it. In fact, its likely we will only see the stories that have been dugg; there are thousands of great stories out there that, it just so happens, were not posted. Our perspective is skewed, hence our decision is skewed, hence the group judgment will most likely be skewed. In the case of Digg, this is not such a big deal, since it is really a popularity engine, not a correctness engine (a fake story can still be popular, right?). The content being voted on is already published, and (presumably) verified news material.

Wikipedia is a different story, since articles are themselves written by the public it really is a correctness engine. Someone could write an entirely fictional entry and publish it on Wikipedia, and if it is esoteric enough (say, on the wonders of denatured alcohol) it could conceivable exist for a long time. The good thing is, as I see it, most pranksters are out for impact, so they create a fake story on popular topic (like the death of a Senator) that everyone will see, and in ten minutes the deception is revealed. Even my postulated fake denatured alcohol story would eventually be discovered and corrected by a real chemist. In this way, Wikipedia is more policed and reviewed than it may seem at first, and with time the contents do become more and more accurate. Will it be more accurate than a published encyclopedia? Not necessarily, but that's not the point. Britannica may have been painstakingly researched, but by the time the information gets out it may have changed. Wikipedia is a living and growing entity, and evolving at orders of magnitude faster than any encyclopedia can. In ten years it won't matter which is more accurate, I think Britannica will be all but dead.

Facebook...

My life in online social networks didn't begin until I was coming to this college for the first time 4 years ago and unfortunately it only lasted about a year or so until I lost interest / became uncomfortable with the whole idea of having your life laid out for everyone. Looking back now I actually recall the when I decided that logging on was no longer worth my time. It was when the "news feed" was originally introduced into the program around 2006 or so. I remember looking at that and immediately not liking it. When I first began with the community, if you wanted to know something about an individual you had to take the time to actually visit their page and some what interact with them. With the introduction of the "news feed" all of you and your "friends" immediately began broadcasting all changes that we're made on your page, into this public forum of your peers. I understand that after some time they did implement privacy controls to allow you decide what content you wanted to put on the feed but at that point I was personally feeling that focus of the site had shifted into being mainly gossip.

For the class I decide to take the dive and re open Facebook for the first time in the last couple of years and I have to admit I was rather impressed in the way it reverted into such a powerful communication tool. It really has grown allot and to be honest I was kinda overwhelmed by the amount of options you have available to you as compared to the last time I evaluated it.

The article I read for the class was entitled "The Brave New World of Digital Intimacy" it discussed how people react to changing means of social networking and it even addressed some of the issues I had with the "News Feed" when it first came out. In the article they go into how in this new digital age people are going have to be "streched to become comfortable with things that they aren't yet comfortable with." And how "A lot of this is just social norms catching up with what technology is capable of.” So it follows true to form, that as it become more acceptable to have your life made public in a digital forum that facebook would slowly take over to the point today where it is accepting a million new users a day from all over the world.

The Skeptics Are Right!

Saw this this morning and couldn't resist. I guess the skeptics are right--we're all gonna die.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/19/social.networking.crimes/index.html

Torn

I belong to two "networking sites" at the moment - Twitter and LinkedIn. I always liked the idea of keeping in touch with old friends, daily friends, and any one else out there over these sites and in the past I have belonged to Friendster, Myspace, and Facebook. One of the main reasons I joined them was to promote music and upcoming events and shows. I think for self promotion these sites are a great avenue to explore. I think the positives out weigh the negatives for most people using these sites, but for me I think I'm over it. Other than using the sites for promotion, I can't get into sharing my personal life with the world. Maybe I'm paranoid. Ha.

I feel that LinkedIn is a good tool, especially for me as a freelance designer, for business promotions and prospects. If I see a job out there, you can pretty much find the hiring manager on linkedin and send them your material. Twitter is cool because it bridges gaps between myself and other musicians. I get a lot of free music and find out about cool collaborations that certain acts are doing that I like. I feel like you can tailor that experience to suit your needs... It's almost like a news feed of your interests.

I read and skimmed a few articles on Facebook and social networking sites and the consensus is that they are good. They are a positive way to stay in touch with people and make being online that much more enjoyable. Maybe I'll get over it one day and join, but for now I think I'll stay off the popular air waves of facebook.

Interesting article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/magazine/15wwln-lede-t.html

Social Networks: Are We Farther Apart?

I was never a member of a social network until a went to college and joined Facebook. I did post on forums and made comments on blogs but never actually made a friends list and communicated with people constantly. There initially was talking face to face with someone and having an actual conversation. Then we went to phones where we seemed further apart but could hear people's actual voices. Eventually people decided they could be more expressive and efficient by sending text messages and e-mails. This is how the social networks we know today started.

When I was in high school I always thought that Myspace would be pointless to join. I actually went over my friends houses and would call them if I needed to talk. Then Facebook came around and people told me to join it to get to know who my "friends" are. I found the design a lot more simple then Myspace and the simplicity of the site helped me join it easily. I searched for people I know and received messages from old friends. This system then started to transform into people getting addicted to having the most friends, stalkers appearing everywhere, and soon I really didn't care if someone broke up with their boyfriend or lost a cellphone number.

Now I'm not saying social networks are horrible and need to be gone. But the Internet world always creates fades and soon people take it to far. They eventually get adopted into real life and people lose the sense of calling someone to go to a party and this is what is upsetting to me. This is why people get kinda of amazed that I never update my page or somehow I don't know about certain information. This transferring of information will keep on going into the future though. People will receive notices of someones personal life by just seeing an update on a social network. The general idea of Facebook and Myspace is to late people communicate and have a constant relationship with friends but it soon evolved into a very weird and obsessive fetish. This is just all my opinion though and don't get me started on Twitter.

Facebook Happiness Index

For the past few years, Facebook has been tracking the happiness of its user through their status updates. Facebook creates this Gross National Happiness Index by this by tracking the number of positive and negative words. "Happy words include, naturally, “happy,” “yay” and “awesome”; sad words include “sad,” “doubt” and “tragic,”" according to a recent article by the New York Times. This data shows that people are happier on Thanksgiving, Christmas and the Easter. It also shows that the death of a celebrity like Micheal Jackson or Heath Ledger makes people sad. It also proves what people have long suspected, people are happier on Fridays than they are on Mondays.

While it seems a little far fetched, it is based on principals that are generally accepted by social psychologists. People's word choice does reflect their mood, especially when they are updating their status, which is meant to broadcast what people are doing or how they feel.

While I do enjoy reading about what my friends are doing on Facebook and I do think it is an incredible tool for connecting with people I have lost contact with, I try to limit my use of it. I also make an effort to stop and thing about the impact of what it will have before I post or update. I guess Facebook does reflect my mood, when I post things on it, however, the times when I the happiest I don't think about checking and updating Facebook. I think that it can become a medium of digital bragging, it can also be a great way to share what you are up to and to keep up with friends and family.

Facebooking

Facebooking started out as a great idea. It started out that you had to be registered to a college or at least 18 years of age. Then the myspacers came over and corrupted the facebook world forever. Myspace was a childrens spot to show off your creativity in different layouts, music and other random things you could do to personalize your profile. Facebook was the clean version and designed to stay in touch with your friends from home when your at college. Facebook now is all about updating your status whether your at the park or going to the bathroom, people know. I admit, I use facebook on a daily basis and check it at least 3 times a day.

Social networks have always been used and always will be. Eventually Facebook might be beat out by another one but social networking can be a great tool. It can be used by firms looking for their next employee or vice versa. Without social networking, yes there would be more human contact, but I probably wouldn't talk to any of my high school friends nor past co-workers or anybody. Facebook allows me to keep in touch and stay in touch with friends. Do I need to tell the world I'm dating someone? No, not really but I choose to. Nobody really knows why they update their status every second but they do. Its a part of the social networking world and thats how its going to remain.

Gaming and Social Networks

I read an article on CNET news about the plans Microsoft's Xbox to gain Facebook, Twitter, and Last.fm applications on their interface. While this is not an entirely surprising development, I think it illustrates a growing recognition by organizations that they cannot ignore the rapid rise of social netoworking, lest they fall by the wayside. There are criticisms that might be made of the interfaces and interactions, but the more important point, I think, is the fact that they are now available. Microsoft has, historically speaking, always been resistant to opening up; there is perhaps more proprietary BS associated with Microsoft products that with any other computer company. The Xbox has had the MSMessenger service attached to it, but since I have never used that service, I never used messaging on the Xbox. It always irritated me that, if I wanted to accumulate gaming friends, I had to use their service. Granted I do not play that many video games anymore, but perhaps I would have if I had more contacts on the Xbox itself. With Facebook and Twitter coming to the console, it seems like Microsoft has caved a little, and surely for their own good. These networks can now be tied in with a user's gaming experience, making gaming buddies, planning games, and maintaining scores perhaps. I predict that this move will be big for the Xbox (as if they are not doing well enough already), expanding their gamer base by tapping into untapped resources. There might be people out there on Facebook who never thought of gaming; now that they have a direct connection to their friends' gaming experiences' they will be much more likely to go out and buy an Xbox.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-10375398-248.html

The Facebook Generation

I read an article about Facebook's need to innovate or die. And I guess, my POV on this is that, we users certainly don't make it easy on them to do so. There were a million members (exaggeration?) protesting the news feed. Now? We love it. Half the time I log on I don't make it past that home screen. The other half of the time, it's my access point to the rest of the site. My friends profiles, cause pages, photos. Facebook's innovation is like our parents telling us "you'll thank me when you're older". We get used to their innovation and end up not being able to live without it. I can't wait to see what they force us into, next. I'm sure it's going to be awesome.

The one thing I haven't heard a lot of chatter about (maybe I'm just not looking for it in the right places) is Facebook's behavioral targeting. I didn't even notice until my "status" changed from "in a relationship" to "engaged", and suddenly all the ads I see on Facebook are for wedding favors, photographers, wedding planners, etc. Facebook gets kudos for the engaging ads it serves up, but I'd say their targeted ads, serving up exactly what my profile says I should be interested in (I'm not), is a huge step forward in online advertising.

really, what's a facebook?

Facebook is a beast that really fascinates me in how it continues to eat up everything in sight. With Myspace being one of the original social networking sites, how is it that facebook managed to take over the community to the extent it has? Myspace still ranks within the top 5 visited sites within the U.S (facebook taking the 2nd place title), yet it's net page views on a global scale accounts for less then .75% of global web traffic while facebook triumphs at slightly over 4.25%; nearly 5 times the traffic.

One aspect that facebook has taken great care to is the speed at which the internet thrives on. Facebook has always seemed to focus greatly on "the now", making sure the latest updates are immediately identifiable. Not only are the most recent activities obvious, but the speed at which they are transferred trump Myspace as well. The average load time of a myspace page is 3.716 seconds, while the average facebook zooms by at an incredible 0.118 seconds. Not only are you fed information easier, it's done at an alarming rate. In addition to this, facebook has also made a mobile-friendly browser format along with an App for the iPhone (and other phones i assume), making the use of facebook on the fly that much more appealing (Myspace has also created these features, but it's speed is probably lackluster ).

My experience with facebook has always been limited. I created one about 3-4 years ago and I've posted on my own wall probably no more then 5 times. There are maybe 4 pictures with my face on it and almost no signs of activity. The most entertainment i get out of facebook is reading the ridiculous things people seem to find necessary for the world to know, seeing pictures that should probably not be in a public domain. I think it's an amazingly successful website (i guess that's not really an opinion) but people have lost sight of the nature of the internet. A quick example of this occurred when a friend posted they were moving, then when I later spoke with them and mentioned to move they responded with "Oh, how did you know about that?". Well, you posted it for the world to see from your cellphone about a day ago.

I don't see social networking sites failing anytime soon, especially with facebook's global traffic increasing over 50% in the past 3 months. How you perceive them and whether you use it or not become irrelevant when you realize 25% of internet users, and growing, visit facebook an average of 14 times a day.

*All statistics in this post were obtained from Alexa - The Web Information Company.

I'm a User...I'll admit it.....

I just read over some of the posts below, and I think you all have pretty good arguments. Just wanted to get that out of the way. But....I am a Facebook user. I have been a user since my senior year of highschool. Which was about 3 years ago. Haha.....it almost sounds like I'm admiting to some kind of drug use. I am not addicted to Facebook, but I do use it a lot. All of my friends are on Facebook and a good amount of my family members are as well. (not my mom....thank god) I love being connected to my friends via Facebook especially now since we are spread out across the continental US. I understand the whole privacy issue, but I feel if you take the proper precautions and are not a stupid dumbass, Facebook will not ruin you. I value my privacy, so I'm not on Facebook to make tons of friends or locate people from the past.....cause my past isn't all that extensive yet. I just want to maintain the relationships I currently have and interact socially via this new medium with close friends. Facebook is a great tool, people just need to be careful about how they use it.

Your Facebook Data is For Sale (sort of)

Facebook has struggled to make money through advertising. As a way to reverse their fortunes, Facebook plans to start selling users’ personal information to market researchers. That means Facebook may use information in your profile without identifying you as an individual to third parties.

The Telegraph is reporting that social networking giant Facebook has new plans for generating revenue; offering its 150 million user database as a market research tool to corporations, “Facebook is planning to exploit the vast amount of personal information it holds on its 150m members by creating one of the world's largest market research databases”

That’s one of the criticism concerned Facebook's right, "We may share your information with third parties, including responsible companies with which we have a relationship." This was addressed by Facebook spokesman Chris Hughes who said, "Simply put, we have never provided our users' information to third party companies, nor do we intend to."

And Why not , think about it they are controlling 150 million user database and Its legal now as Facebook have changed the terms of service: Facebook's New Terms Of Service: "We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever." http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever

What does this mean for Facebook users, and online social marketing adherents in general? It means that more than ever, you must be careful what information you post to your online profiles. Photos, data, other media files, your associations – all’s fair in the advertising game. If you’re comfortable with that, post away. If, however, you are more cautious when it comes to how your personal information is used, think about things first.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/4413483/Networking-site-cashes-in-on-friends.html

http://www.new.facebook.com/policy.php?ref=pf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook

World Wide Web Privacy?

Social networks such as MySpace and Facebook started as a way to keep in touch with friends and family and to promote musical ambitions. I believe the intent was innocent. However, I feel that what once was believed to be an avenue of freedom of expression has developed into something that has great ability to completely ruin your life.

I know for a fact that employers Google your name when you apply for a job. They search all of the social networks to check on you. This serves as an extra unintended reference for a job. Even though you can set your profile to private they can still find enough facts to dismiss you, if such exist. For example, on Facebook you can be tagged in photos on other people's profile. That person may not have a private profile so now your photos are exposed. There is no such thing as privacy when it comes to the internet. Kids in high school or college may not be mature or knowledgeable enough to realize this and may end up hurting their reputation in the future.

On the flip side, many companies and organization are taking advantage of the power these social networks possess. They use it as a tool to stay up to date with what people want/need as well as a way to reach out to people.

Clearly, these networks have their pros and cons. The most important thing when it comes to using these social networks is being intelligent enough to recognize what they are.

My Fwiends and Me

One down side of getting old is that you start to miss stuff. Technology, in particular, becomes hard to keep up with. You start using, say, cell phones, and they're great; they really improve your life. Yours works just fine, so you go along and then one day, you realize 5 years have passed and NO ONE uses cell phones anymore, they've all got these sort of video cam things that work from a chip implanted into the bridge of their nose, which allows them to communicate using pure thought waves. No one under the age of 15 has ever used anything else and when you pull out your old cell phone they all giggle and stare and you think, oh crap, back to the drawing board.

Such is my relationship with social networking sites--I came late, having blown off MySpace(it always seemed like kind of a mess) and not ever really taking to Twitter. I didn't get on Facebook till March of last year, when I got an email from a guy I'd last seen when we were in 5th grade together, back in 1972, inviting me to join an online "reunion" of people I'd gone I knew at that elementary school--happy days(we moved to another neighborhood the summer before I started 6th, which was a disaster, but that's another story). So, I thought, jeez, I've got to give this a try. I opened an account, got on and low and behold, there they all were, or a lot of them--the pals I hadn't seen in some 38 years, now grown fat and wrinkled and grey. It's weird--the image you have of anyone is the way you last saw them, which in this case was of a bunch of 10-year-olds. I had to look real hard at the photos they'd posted to make out the kids I'd known so long ago, somewhere deep inside those faces.

It was kind of a revelation. They say that Facebook is for teens, but it's much more interesting when you've lived for awhile and left a lot of people behind. I've found a good many other old friends and acquaintances since then--it's comforting somehow to know they're still somewhere out there, maybe because I hate to say goodbye. But of course, finding old buddies has its limits, and once you learn the basics, you usually don't have much to say. Where I've really seen the benefits of Facebook is in my work. In a previous life, I was a minor-league alternative comic book creator and a lot of cartoonist types know about me. I started getting friend requests almost immediately and have built up a pretty good network of people all over the industry, or really, in several industries, most of whom I've never actually met. I keep up with news and hear gossip, and if I have a professional question, there's usually someone I can ask. The informal, chatty quality of Facebook is perfect for keeping in "light touch" with people, just enough so that if you really need something from them, the request won't come completely out of the blue. For someone who spends most of the time at home, alone at his drawing board or computer, Facebook has been a godsend--I spent years and years only sporadically communicating with anyone who didn't actually live with me. Facebook has also allowed me to play around with ways to present myself online, which, since I'd like to launch some kind of internet art project in the near future, is a useful exercise.

Of course, I'm wary of the dangers of Facebook, but I'm very careful about what I post or say and I haven't found it interesting enough to be worth checking more than a couple of times a day. One shouldn't mistake their FB friends for their real-life ones, but they should understand their internet buds are a different order of social circle, one with it's own limitations and possibilities. True, involvement with Facebook or any social networking site gives someone, somewhere access to information about you. But guess what? Unless you're planning to move to the wilds of Alaska and live in a plywood shack heated with kerosene and dried moose poop, they'll find ways to collect it anyway.

I fully expect, not too long from now, to turn around and realize that Facebook has been passe for longer than anyone under 10 can remember. Heck, I guess it already is: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/magazine/30FOB-medium-t.html

Oh dear. I just know I'm going to miss the boat again.

Stupid things people do on Facebook

I have a Facebook account and sometimes I'm blown away with some of the things I see posted. Not only are people giving out to much personal information, but they're not thinking.

I found an article by MSNBC that gives a great example. Someone posted a poll about assassinating Obama. The poll asked respondents "Should Obama be killed?" The choices: No, Maybe, Yes, and Yes if he cuts my health care. The question was not created by Facebook, but by an independent person using an add-on application that has been suspended from the site.

But, like any threat against the president, Secret Service agents are taking no chances and took down the poll. Facebook rep agreed to work with the Secret Service and provide any details for their investigation.

I know this will not change anything. People will still believe that what they do on Facebook is freedom of speech or harmless. This article is a great example how that is not the case. In the future, we will see more articles like this because of that attitude.

What kind of skeptic am I?

I'm in a Facebook minority. And by that I mean I'm not on Facebook. Not participating in such a powerful and ubiquitous social community may seem sacrilege for a person whose bread and butter is online media. There's a variety of reasons I have yet to sign up. Apart from getting along fine without it for 34 years, I have precious little free time for another distraction. But that's only part of the story, I don't have a lot of interest in social networking and I'm cautious about the dangers that come with publishing my thoughts to even a controlled group of friends and acquaintances. I also wonder, does it even really enhance our friendships? Here's a quote from an article about Facebook that is aligned with my point of view, "does Facebook really connect people? Doesn't it rather disconnect us, since instead of doing something enjoyable such as talking and eating and dancing and drinking with my friends, I am merely sending them little ungrammatical notes and amusing photos in cyberspace, while chained to my desk?" (1)

Four years ago I had a mySpace page. For a time, one I'm not proud of, I labored over the construction of a carefully edited persona. As if that waste of time wasn't bad enough, I was soon being contacted by people I never wanted to hear from again. Which was ultimately the reason I abandoned my mySpace page. That and the usability nightmare that made up the mySpace experience. The trauma of mySpace may have sparked my aversion to Facebook. But the more I've read about Facebook the more apprehensive I've become.

The blurry lines around privacy, the new-ness of laws regarding social networking and how publishing our opinions can impact our personal lives and careers has been a consistent theme in the Facebook stories I've read. I think that most people use social networking responsibly, but someone else's overshare could produce unexpected negative consequences. We can control what we say, but not what others are screen-capturing from our private comments and sharing with people we never want seeing them. Concerns about initiatives like Beacon and sudden changes to Terms of Service haven't helped matters either. While public outrage has undone these initiatives they have deepened my skepticism. Issues remain such as how Facebook mines quiz takers personal information and that of their friends. Extracting personal data such as politics, religion and sexuality. It's unclear how this data is used, most likely it's for sold to advertisers and marketers for targeted campaigns. However how do you know who is getting their hands on it and what they're using if for? (2)

While I'm of the belief that Facebook is not for me. I'm not opposed to social networking. I'm on LinkedIn, which demands little of my time and has served my career in positive ways. I'm not even really a detractor of Facebook. Used responsibly, I don't believe it does any more harm than people would otherwise encounter in their social lives.

Often the thought occurs to me, if everyone else is doing it and I'm not, perhaps my choice to not participate in Facebook will deny me opportunities that, in the future, I'll regret missing out on.

1. With friends like these ...

Retrieved October 18, 2009 from The Guardian UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook

2. Facebook knows too much, ACLU says in warning of quizzes

Retrieved October 18, 2009 from PHYSORG.com

http://www.physorg.com/news170614271.html

Facebook Catching Criminals?

Have you ever logged onto Facebook in a public location or at someone else's house and forgot to log off? I'm sure most of us have at one point. Recently a burglar did just this at the house he broke into, and it lead to his timely arrest. Facebook as we know it is mainly used for posting information and pictures about yourself that you wish to share with the world (or at least with your own group of friends). At the same time, anyone that you are "friends" with has access to all of this information.

For some reason, some users on Facebook have issues with privacy. True, there is a lot of information given out through Facebook, but it is YOU who is giving out the information. If one doesn't like a picture of themselves that someone else posted, they have full liability to tell them to remove that picture. The problem here seems to be that these law violators are posting the information that leads to their arrest. Another example addresses a real live fight, where the aftermath was recorded and traced by authorities on Facebook. Very recently, when a Kansas basketball player wrote an update referencing his school's football team negatively, a fight arose, causing that same basketball player to dislocate his thumb. Of course, his status was then updated to report his injury, which would have probably not been known by authorities otherwise.

As good as Facebook is, online social networking holds as many negative points as it does positive points. Sure, I have personally met, or become closer with, a handful of people with the help of Facebook, but it doesn't control my life. For me, Facebook is a tool for me to arrange plans with friends, instant message, and share pictures (personal or portfolio). For some people, though, it is an addiction, or in a way has become their social life. This addiction most likely explains the stupidity behind the aforementioned robber that just HAD to log into Facebook while robbing that house. I have a Facebook account and use it often, but it is surely no replacement for real life occurrences. It's all a matter of moderation.

Cops Make Another Arrest Through Facebook

Online Postings on Facebook Can Lead to Real World Problems

Software to predict hits, weird.....

This has nothing to do with class, but thought it was relevant to what we've been talking about.....

CLICK HERE

It's Nice That

First things first, i'm a real bad blog follower (might be obvious from this blog alone). Most blogs I check are maybe on a weekly basis, possibly because they aren't updated all that often. I check some of the big ones; webdesignerwall, flight404, bestwebgallery, thefwa (considered a blog right?), but i don't really check them that often. One that I used to have a tendency to check frequently though was It's Nice That.

It's Nice That is a design blog that really focuses on a broad spectrum of design. When i first started looking at it, it was because I had an interest in the graphic design that was being showcased in the blog. Now however i have begun to notice and appreciate the wide range of fields that they draw work from. There, of course, is Graphic Design, But also digital, motion graphics, photography, sculptural, and informative discussions. The designers come from all parts of the worls and usually share a unique perspective on what design is to them. The other great thing about this blog is that it is primarily a redirect, where the blogger posts their idea on a work, but it's main goal is to redirect you to that designers page and do some promoting.

The blogs aesthetics also work well to it's advantages because it allows each piece of work to be showcased and not be influenced by the blog's design itself. I love this site because each time i come back to it there is always great content to look through, due to the fact that it is often updated multiple times everyday, perhaps up to 10 times even. This makes for a great archive of work to look through and great sources of inspiration, which i feel are essential to making a blog function as effectively as it can.

THAT Animeblog: Yeah That Guy

Whenever I look for a blog that I want to follow (religiously) there needs to be a view things that it needs to do. These "things" are to provide the latest information, user reviews, off topic sections, and a sense that the creators love what their doing. Basically a blog to me is what the internet is all about, users sharing information and opinions to other users. Being able to gain instant access to whatever you are into at the moment is amazing. Blogs are both a blessing and a curse. They show the true nature of someones feelings towards a certain subject and the person can either show gratitude or anger towards it. But let me get back to the blog that I haven't just been following for a week, more like three years.

Now I'm not going to explain anime or Japanese culture to people because that's basically what the internet is for. I came about this blog by searching for something that was up to date and constantly had arguments in the comments section of each article. I look for these two things so I have a complete understanding of different shows that are going on and I love to hear conflicting arguments between fans. Blogs are meant to cause discussion and entice users to join and this is a good example of that.

There isn't just latest show reviews or what's out now but the main team behind the blog post about their daily lives. Basically by reading the blog everyday I learned about their different opinions towards several series and the actual work that goes behind a blog. Each of the creators are either in school or graduated recently and this can be seen through separate posts. Each posts about a new episode or series seems to come directly after the poster watched the show. This authenticity helps to liven the blog up and other users make huge contributions through supplying links toward there blogs or by twittering.

Anyway yes I'm blogging about anime and yes I know peoples different opinions about it. But this blog is just like any other in that it helps to let people share their own thoughts and ideas while also letting them discover more about a hobby, design, television show, movie, book, etc. It's actually quite funny how addicted you can get to just hearing other thoughts and letting them control you into what you watch. That's why you should always find two blogs to follow religiously.

Blogs: On the Fly

Not exactly your everyday web design blog, but close enough when it comes to passion. I've always had a strong passion for the Philadelphia Flyers and up until 2007, there was no way to keep up with the Flyers on a day to day basis. Of course there were news archives but this is different. This is an interaction blog where you can read anything from they received a traffic ticket to injury updates and everything in between. It shows you when they arrived in their opponents city and how the flight was. Game recaps are always involved and its linked through twitter. The difference is is that you don't have to sit on the annoyingly status updated twitter to read the updates. Its not only on twitter and facebook, its directly on the Flyers website. With a catchy tagline "on the fly" this blog is up to date on the second. Posts run from 8 in the morning to 11 at night. As a constant reader and blogger it is extremely useful to a Flyers fan or just someone who wants to keep up with the team every once in a while. I can easily chat to flyers fans or just read a short article and move on.

Kept by digital media manager, Kevin Kurz, the blog covers everything from daily covers to multimedia and may not necessarily be the headlines in the newspaper. But this is what draws me to the site, its the insiders access without paying.

I'm Superficial

I tried reading other blogs every day. Design blogs, and media blogs. Industry-related blogs. And I do read them a few times a week - I read blogs by design firms, I read social media blogs like Mashable, and I frequent a whole bunch of blogs like Abduzeedo. But not every day. Most of them don't post every day, for one thing, but also, in my work-full-time, school-full-time, design-and-media-full-time busy life, there's only one blog I read every day.

Whether I'm stuck in traffic reading it on my iPhone, or taking a breather during class (I know, both make me a terrible person), there is one blog I rarely miss during the week. It's The Superficial, and I love it. With witty commentary on silly events, it's a break from whatever it is I'm actually involved in. It's celebrity gossip, and I hate to admit that I love it.

I guess what I learned here is that when it comes to blogs, for me, they're a break from my daily grind. I'm as busy as I've ever been in my life, and so when it comes to information in blog form, I want it to be worthless entertainment that does nothing but make me laugh, or be glad I'm not famous. And that's what The Superficial does, it provides a momentary escape from reality.

Anyway, without The Superficial, how would I find out that Miley Cyrus quit Twitter? Or the Lindsay Lohan is still certifiable? Or that Jon and Kate still exist?

Blod Posts: Smashing Magazine

As far as blogs go, the one that stands out in my mind is smashing magazine (http://www.smashingmagazine.com/). I've been a frequent to the blog for several years and have always been impressed with all of their content regarding graphics, web development and the design field in general. This week they covered topics ranging from "minimizing complexity in user interfaces" to "how to persuade your users, boss or clients".

Of all the topics covered last week my favorite covered was an article about reviewing trends in iphone app design and how they have change in the two years since the products release. It covered in depth the problems that arose with the original app design and they evolved to better incorporate the touch interface.

Overall spending a week reviewing smashing magazine was actually pretty enjoyable i tend to blog most in the early morning right after i sit down at work but right before I'm actually productive enough to open up the project i'll be spending the rest of the day on. Thinking about it now, that pre-work ritual is actually the time when get most of my random web surfing done. I check my email accounts and review any other online content that i expect would be updated for me to sift through. Aside from that which is mainly recreational, I frequent blogs mostly when im in search of some kind of tutorial or scripting information that will help me through a problem in facing in one of my projects.

As for what's next in online communications, It's hard to say i mean between blogs, email, twitter, IM, skype and the multitude of other ways in which we can communicate online a lot of the communication possibilities are already covered although their is invariably many ways to improve and optimize them which is something the future in definitely holds.

Food Blogs

This week made me realize that I never blogged on a website before. I would read some or totally skip over the blogging section. So this assignment was very different for me. I started searching for a blogs I would be interested in. So, of course I researched blogs relating to food, because I'm a true fatty. I came across a interesting blog called, Serious Eats. This is a blog post a new stories every other day or several stories in one. People blog on the different articles or recipes. Someone posted a childhood memory about how their mother made the fried egg sandwich. Their family was very poor growing up and now the sandwich is a comfort food. Overall, 55 bloggers commented on this blog and now the childhood favorite is the same from them or how they create the best sandwich.

So when do you use email, IM or a blog? Good question, for something like this a blog is a great format. In a blog setting everyone on the web gets to post there ideas or recipes. If this was a email, of course you only have address for people you know. Unless you buy a list, then you run into a risk of the email falling into someone spam folder. If not, one would get replies from family and friend, not from total strangers in another city, state or country.

What's the next step with online communication? I'm think it will be video interaction. Video communications, allowing the reviewer to see you in real time. This would work great for all IMs and blogs sites. As for emails will stay the same, but it will replace paper and letter writing completely.

Digital Design and News Blog

Since I am not following any daily blog, I usually come up with some of it after searching in Google about particular thing, so from the last week I was trying to follow one of the digital design blog and I found a really nice one.

It is about technology and Digital Design and it’s daily news, events, competitions, and resources, it’s called Dexigner ( http://www.dexigner.com/ ).I don’t know if it’s categorized as a blog but I used it as a source of information ,and it allows the user to comment on each article, the blog (or website) has several sections: Graphic, Fashion, Architecture, Digital, Art. in each one you can find the latest news about it .. I usually visit the Digital and the graphic sections, for instance yesterday post in the digital part was about the Free Photoshop Mobile App for iPhone.. and there is a free iPhone app for this website on Apple App Store.

The other blog which I usually follow it’s a political news blog ( http://www.arabnewsblog.net/ ), this blog collect the latest news from the Middle east region and the Arab world from over a 100 website and post it with the source link, I think it’s a new blog ,but it is really good in the way they gather all the daily news from the middle east and the Arab world and post it , and they are growing by the time.

bOING bIONG

One blog that I've enjoyed reading for many years is bOING bIONG. It was one of the first blogs i subscribed to when I started using an RSS readers. It is hard to describe exactly what BB is about. Wikipeadia describes the magazine that BB evolved into as "Boing Boing was an influence in the development of the cyberpunk subculture. Common themes include technology, futurism, science fiction, gadgets, intellectual property, Disney and left-wing politics." The editors post more than once a day. The reason that my Google Reader says that I have 615 unread posts is because the fact that they post so often. I became a little overwhelmed because I couldn't keep up.

I have enjoyed following BB over the last week. Most of their posts are light hearted, dealing with the strange, geeky or silly. Where else would you learn about Photos of uncomfortable chairs, Tone Balls -- dust bunnies that collect in guitar bodies, The woman who can't stop orgasming
or Invasion of the giant blobs of "sea mucus"? But there are also more politically or socially informative post dealing with technology or internet culture that you might not find anywhere else. Some recent ones include My generation: How Indie Game Makers are Embracing Controlled Chaos or Big Entertainment's century-long technophobic binge.

They do a good job of providing quirky, interesting material mixed with cultural critiques and news and information from technology and other up and coming topics. I think they describe them selves best by saying "Boing Boing: A directory of wonderful things"

All Songs Considered (NPR)

For this assignment, since I don't regularly follow one particular blog, I began my search for "electronic music production", "best music blogs" and unfortunately I came up empty handed. I mean there were blogs out there to read on these particular topics, but some of them seemed poorly updated and almost too obscure.

I eventually stumbled upon a NPR site and found a blog called "All Songs Considered" and was happy to have come across a professional, well maintained site. Over the course of the week, it has been updated regularly and although I don't care for every artist they write about, it gives a good insight onto what's happening in that world... oh and it's well written which is definitely a key, contributing element for my interests. The site is also visually pleasing and the site hierarchy isn't too bad either. You can "join" the community which allows you to post comments and receive emails to blog updates and other music information.

Blogs are a good source of information, I find out a good amount of answers on technical computer problems through searching blogs and for the most part they are correct. I think a downside to blogs are their creditability- unless you go with a "name brand" blog- who knows how true or far fetched the information could be? Another downside is a lack of commitment from the author - if people don't keep up with them or promote them, they are just wasted space online. I was happy to have came across the NPR site, not sure why I never thought to go there before this assignment.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=37&agg=1