December 05, 2007

Beacon bad

I would be extremely annoyed if this was imposed on my profile without prior knowledge.

"The Beacon system tells a user's friends about a user's actions on sites outside of Facebook. For example, if a user purchases a product on a Beacon-participating site such as Overstock.com, which Forrester Analyst Charlene Li did, it would broadcast that purchase (in Ms. Li's case, a coffee table), to Ms. Li's Facebook network."

"But to look at Beacon's purpose as solely to amplify user recommendations is only part of the story. The other part is, of course, to incorporate commercial conversation into the social network to which Facebook can sell and attach advertising. If a user purchases a pair of Nike running shoes and Beacon alerts his or her friends, Nike could buy an ad to run alongside that alert that would include a link to a website -- a "social ad," if you will. "

A step too soon, too far IMHO. Whatever RelevantM are doing, it can't happen too soon if social networks are going to start taking liberties with a user's social / attention data.

Posted by monoman at 11:46 AM

May 17, 2006

Still interesting - just

Three insights on Web 2.0 that stand out from the usual uninformed dross: from the investor, the journalist, and the programmer. To be honest, Web 2.0 as a term means less to me every day; it's just another wave on the Gartner hype curve. Some of its principles will get adopted by the mass market. others not. By which time, another wave will be looming (please, not Web 3.0...)

Posted by monoman at 04:34 PM

August 18, 2005

Why is Flickr the way it is?

If you give a damn about Flickr or UI design, this is interesting.

Posted by monoman at 04:29 PM

February 13, 2005

The Gates

After reading about The Gates - the new art installation project in New York's Central Park by Christo and Jeanne-Claude (the same pair that famously wrapped a chain of islands off the coast of Florida) in today's Observer - I thought it would be interesting to see what photos Flickr yielded on the subject. Searching on the tag "the gates" returned 859 photos, most of which appeared to refer to the Central Park installation. More proof that, like Google, Amazon and eBay, Flickr has entered the platform business - in this case by providing an online image bank in the same vein as Getty Images or Corbis. In contrast to those, Flickr is free - and photo metadata is of the decentralised 'folksonomy' variety (and, in many cases, all the better for it.) Best of all, because Flickr is a piece of social software, it is immediately responsive to current news (I wonder how many photos of The Gates you'd find in the Getty Images catalogue.) Flickr could take their business in multiple directions now - a payment layer for the buying and selling of photos would be interesting, along with a rating system (I don't really want to see 859 photos of The Gates, but show me the best ones - all those with a five-star rating.) Be interesting to see if, in the long term, Flickr can disrupt traditional image bank businesses; if blogging is the new journalism, maybe Flickr is the new current affairs photo library? How long, I wonder, before we see Flickr providing a photo syndication service to news agencies, and 'amateur' photos appearing alongside professional articles in future copies of The Observer?

Posted by monoman at 01:29 PM

July 26, 2004

The myth of social media

Social media is a concept based on convergence at a three-way intersection of social networks, blogging and syndication. Social media lets you rely on trusted colleagues as information assets and sources, and theoretically provides context to the consumption of content and media. This is all very well, but I don’t believe that social media is necessarily a new phenomenon, nor that any triumvirate will monopolize the space. In fact, social media is part of a larger paradigm shift: the creative revolution. The current definition of social media is restrictive because:

• Social media is just one metaphor for the way that humans tend to coalesce into various thought collectives. Let’s not forget that we’ve been doing this for millennia anyway – mainly in offline mode. And the jury is still out on whether social networks can establish anything beyond weak, loosely-coupled relationships;
• Social networks have limited usefulness: if I want to find something out I won’t necessarily consult my trusted network; more often than not I’ll look outside it and find specific expertise via newsgroups, search, forums etc.;
• Social networks don’t describe all my relationships (e.g. friends, business, family, music, books), only their topologies. For a start, individual social networking services need to expose their user profiles via a standardized vocab, and schemas such as FOAF need to become much richer if all the properties of my relationships are to be described;
• Blogs and RSS are a small sub-set of the forthcoming explosion in user-generated content. The really interesting areas will be open-source multimedia (such as BBC’s creative archive), and the tools that will emerge to automate and simplify content creation. Additionally, RSS needs to expand or be replaced; it is already feeling the strain from semi-proprietary extensions such as Flickr Splicer for inclusion of digital photos.
• Social networks don’t satisfy my publishing needs: I want people beyond my trusted network to consume my content, not those who already know me. Sure, syndication can do this, and RSS also helps in understanding the provenance of content, but what has my subscriber list got to do with my social network? And why is it a big deal? All this really boils down to is better granularity of data through the use of extensible, standardized vocabularies (i.e. XML.)

The hype around social media obfuscates the two real issues, namely:

• How huge swathes of metadata about me and my life can be orchestrated (i.e. connected) to accurately portray me in all complexity, to create a meaningful daisy-chain of information – a personal information bubble – that can interact with others based on permissions and context;
• How a Copernican shift in technology is needed to address and support what users want to do in their lives – life choices come first, technology second. Following information and communication technology, the next revolution will be in innovation technology – technologies that enable an evolution in personal and group creativity.

Computers are inextricably linked with media and society, but not according to the narrow definitions of social media.

Posted by monoman at 01:42 PM
© copyright monoman 2003-2005