Category Archives: blogs

Tim O’Reilly, Blog Sheriff with a shiny new badge

Posted on by
Reply

How to enforce more civility at blogs is the hot topic of the past few days.   Here at the Joe Duck blog I recently encountered the tricky nexus between censorship and civility when I chose to ban a sometimes insightful but almost always abusive commenter.  He was the type of person who seems compelled to be abusive.  I think it’s fine to ban that type of person, but I object when people say this is not a a form of censorship – it certainly is and to some degree any censorship can hurt the quest for truth.

Jarvis takes Tim to task about his ideas.

In the latest debate I’m concerned people are confusing two different problems: Blogger Kathy Sierra had some death threats recently.  Mike Arrington suggests this is what got this debate going.    Death threats are illegal and need police follow up.  However Mean-spirited comments are hard to regulate effectively, regardless of any policies, because the line is subjective, unclear, and very dependent on context (e.g. discussion of a savage serial murderer vs a new cell phone).

So as much as I’d like to agree with Tim that we should work to invoke some standards I’m very skeptical of any approach that tries to define civility.   Skeptical enough I’d say there really is no reason at all for a new approach, sheriff badged or not.

Doc Searls on Newspaper Survival

Posted on by
6

This is Doc Searls great prescription for ailing newspapers, which are threatened with extinction as online activity trumps all things offline.

However I’m not holding my breath. It was recently pointed out (can’t remember the source) that almost no innovation comes from within an industry. Rather it is outsiders who bring the innovation and then often eat the lunch of those who generally fail to adopt the new strategies.

Google Advertising Rumor

Posted on by
2

I really appreciate Robert Scoble‘s great insights but I’m skeptical of the party rumor he cited today that suggests this about Google Advertising:

… fewer ads mean less revenue SHORT TERM. But long term the advertising revenue actually goes up. Why? They found their users started trusting the advertising more and were more likely to click on ads.

This is possible but seems unlikely. Heavy users are generally going to want a bunch of ads to quickly scan because Google context matching and user queries are usually not specific enough to come up with the “right” ads.

Revenue per click goes down as you add more ads at lower per click rates so it complicates things as well, but I don’t get the ‘trust’ factor cited by Robert – it just does not make sense to me that Google is effectively training people to click on ads more often by offering fewer ads.

Maybe I’m missing something in this case, but these trends are huge because online advertising is arguably the most significant change in the landscape in decades, and thanks to having accurate conversion measures we are going to see a huge shakeup in the ad world.   That’s a very good thing in an industry that is, to a large extent, based on either misleading people or, at the very least, changing their behavior opportunistically.

The rumors of the death of Web 2.0 have been greatly exaggerated

Posted on by
3

The always insightful Venture Capitalists Peter Rip and and Jeff Clavier are speculating about what’s up with Web 2.0. Peter’s suggesting that there’s a lot more sizzle than steak in the whole Web 2.0 equation while I get the idea from Jeff’s writing and some of his excellent presentations at Mashup Camps that he thinks there is a lot of life left in the new web world.

However the most striking item along these lines was Don Dodge’s recent mini-investigation that suggested the average VC may be losing money based on the fact that it appears more is going into the new web than is coming out of it. I hope Peter and Jeff shine some light on this eventually.

Oscars look out – The YouTube Video Awards are exploding in a microwave near you.

Posted on by
4

Pete reports that YouTube will announce today their version of the Oscars – a “Best clips of 2006” sort of Academy Awards for YouTube. Scoble suggests it’ll be a way to find “more great video” but I’m skeptical.

Hmmm – After YouTube eliminates all the copyrighted clips, SEO marketing scam clips, and lame junk will there be anything left to win the awards?

“And the Oscar for best explosion in a Microwave goes to ….”

Although I’m a fan of the YouTube concept of user driven content freely and easily distributed, and I see this as a key transition to a vide-ized world, I’m intrigued by how little discussion there is about how lacking in quality are 99.9% of YouTube videos. I see it as a testament to the alarming lack of creativity in the techno-savvy population, especially when you consider that those uploading are, on average, MUCH smarter and probably more creative than the people who have not figured this stuff out yet.

As things shake out we will hopefully see improvements and creativity flow to the clip medium, and we are also seeing glimmers what is potentially the highest use of video sites – news and clips of things that cannot or will not make it to conventional media. Things like eyewitness stories from Iraq and closed societies like North Korea, or small town football games so Grandpa can cheer on the kid from 3000 miles away.

All these types of media, in abundance, would demonstrate the huge potential of citizen driven media, but this stuff is pretty lacking right now on YouTube, which favors at it’s best *clever* junk clips like exploding bottles of Coke, microwaveable silliness, or Dell Laptops.

So, good luck to all the nominees for best clips of 2006. All 100,000,000 of you. And may the best exploding Coke bottle win!

Who owns your attention anyway?

Posted on by
Reply

Too deeply buried in the (very interesting) discussion here  and here bout how hard it is to get enough traffic to a website to make it generate big money is a more provocative question, to wit:

Who owns YOUR attention and how much is your attention worth?

Big players are making huge profits reselling your attention in the form of placing targeted advertising while you search and surf for info. I have no complaints about that in principle (in fact I feed my kids from that!) , and even agree, somewhat reluctantly, with the assertion that advertising can often enhance the search experience by providing you with sales info on products related to your searches and surfing.

However I’m not sure the power curve is properly placed right now. Rather the big players like Yahoo, Google, MS call most of the shots and reap most of the profits while we, the little sheeples, use their (good) services, often at no charge. It’s certainly a win-win scenario for most, but you can make a strong case that Google, as the big recipient of the big bucks, wins more than you do. Frankly though I don’t know the equation here – what am I worth to Google or Yahoo or MSN?

Over at Battelle’s during a discussion of Microsoft’s new plans to pay big users to use MS products a reader suggested it would take over $50 per month for him to switch to MS search rather than his preferred Google. This raises a very interesting question about what he’s worth to them. I wrote over there:

Pay to use may be the shape of things to come as users begin to realize that they, and not the big players, are the key to internet success. Yaacov’s point is key – would he really want $600 annually to use MS search? If so he’s not typical. I bet you could get most people to abandon Google in favor of LIVE (which is close, but not as good as Google), for $50 per year or less.

In fact I bet you could get most people to switch engines for $10 per month and some for $5 or less. Why don’t they do it? MS had plans and I think they eventually will try this “pay to search” model, which is strong and moves closer to the user ideal of owning their own attention.

When you sell my attention to the highest bidders, shouldn’t I get a piece of the action?

Another related NYT Article

Poli techs may rule the 2008 election?

Posted on by
2

In 2004 the internet was credited with much of the early success, and even the later flame out, of the Howard Dean Campaign, though it was not considered a major factor in the Kerry or Bush campaigns.

Fast forward to the already hopping 2008 presidential campaigns where most observers, including the New York Times are suggesting the internet will play a significant strategic and marketing role for most if not all candidates vying for the US Presidency.

Who would benefit most from a “web centric” campaign system? Hard to say since onliners, especially those who blog regularly, are a curious blend of outspoken conservatives and liberals (I’d say more conservative banter on average).

At first glance it seems Barack Obama would have the online edge as he is arguably the most charismatic, young, and hip candidate and should play well with the young internet audience. However in an election the blog banter will probably drive the discussion of the candidates and it’s hard to predict how well prominent blogs like DailyKos or Drudge will process candidate information.

The transparent right wing bias of Fox News pales in comparison to bloggers like Anne Coulter or Michelle Malkin whose “frothing at the mouth” style is fun too read but hardly generates the intelligent reflection that best serves the democratic process.

However, elections aren’t won on deep reflection or discussion of issues. They are now based largely on careful modelling of primary states combined with targeted negative campaign ads on television combined with superficial media analysis of small gaffs or personality quirks.

Maybe a political technology injection is just what Doctor Democracy has ordered.

To Twitter or not to Twitter

Posted on by
4

Thanks to Pete Cashmore for answering my question about wazzup with Twitter, the new and skyrocketing-in-popularity social networking tool that really does not seem to make much sense … unless … you want to throw out little tidbits to friends and to the world every so often and see what others are doing or thinking about. Pete calls this “talking about your cat” and I think he’s hit the nail on the head. Most of us, as humans, like some attention, and bloggers are usually hungry to interact with as many people as possible, superficiality be damned. Enter Twitter, which allows you to follow friends or the Twitterers at large who are throwing out a little piece of their life every so often. Unlike long, often boring or repetitive blog postings the twitter stuff is a quick look into the lives of others, and that’s always a fun thing even if they are having a boring life/day/twitter posting.

I’ve been playing with Twitter for the past day and although I’m not hooked (yet?) I can understand why this is taking off in the digital community so fast. In fact I’ve already made friends with John Edwards, Presidential Candidate dude. That’s pretty neat, right?

Twitter also has another thing going for it – founder Evan Williams also brought Blogger.com to fruition as a Google buyout, and as such was one of those who really helped bring blogging to the mainstream as a simple way to share.

I’m not even sure I understand what Ross Mayfield is saying about Twitter Tipping the Tuna, but it’s a nice alliteration. Perhaps he’s suggesting it’ll be a flash in the pan after initial surge of adoption? That’s possible, but I think Twitter’s got a long life ahead, though not sure if that’s good for the world or just another goofy internet thing to keep uninspired levels of productivity … as high as possible.

Why Myspace News will fail dramatically. It’s an ADD vs PhD thing.

Posted on by
3

Today reports are coming in that Myspace will launch a news network. I suppose it has some potential as a giant gossip column/American Idol board, but as a true news outlet Myspace is destined to fail big time. Seems to me that Myspace users and well-informed, thoughtful and analytical news junkies don’t match up well.

Although some of the small networks like Newsvine are good, and the USA Today project has potential, existing social news networks like DIGG and Netscape are pretty bad for all but tech and quirky news because they generally fail to analyze or treat significant stories with much if any respect. The focus is on stories for those with ADD more than those with PhDs. I get more relevant information from watching a Charlie Rose interview than spending comparable time at DIGG, and the average DIGG user is much sharper than the average Myspacer.

Global community spirit

Posted on by
2

Over at Techmeme I’m struck by three stories that nicely showcase the importance of *community* to dot commers and to the expanding online universe.

The most interesting is that Yahoo Answers is going social, offering social networking as part of the answers concept.  I was bullish on Yahoo Answers a year ago and it appears they’ve done a great job at growing this project.   Incredibly the number of answers users is comparable to the number of Myspace people. This is not entirely apples to apples comparison because I’m guessing the Myspacers spend a lot more time online at Myspace, but if Answers can get the community ball rolling there is huge potential to become something of a “thinking persons” (or at least a “questioning person’s”?) Myspace.

The second item is Kevin Rose reporting that Digg has a *million* users. That is quite a milestone (though a long way from the approximately 60-100 million users claimed by Yahoo Answers and Myspace. I’ve never really understood the appeal of Digg as more than a superficial way to identify oddball news, feeling that dedicated diggers tend to prefer goofy stories rather than substantive ones, but the concept is brilliant and provocative.

Third, and perhaps most significant, is SONY’s Playstation 3 virtual world that launches this spring. Critics are raving about SONY’s brave new world, some suggesting it’s superior to the top virtual world “Second Life” which suffers from technical complexity, a steep learning curve, and a lot of skeptics who think second lifers are just escaping their first lives. It seems to me the Playstation world could become the “Myspace” of virtual worlds and captivate the teen crowd that already is practically living online ( WI or XBOX could also get smart super fast and get their own virtual world going. Both appear to be on the road for more widespread adoption as gaming systems than Sony’s PS3, though this can all change quickly).