http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27792365/?pg=12#Tech_PCWorld_11LamestBlogs
As if we need reminding that they're not all worth reading, PC World did an analysis and came up with the 10 WORST blogs on the internet. And they did it in a pretty humorous way.
Some examples of those making the unfortunate list:
1. Lamest actual celebrity blog - Kim Kardashian. Her penchant for talking about nothing other than herself and choosing to puncuate every sentence with three or four exclamation points (!!!!) makes her a worthy recipient. Wait, deserves proper punctuation!!!!
2. Lamest use of the English language in a blog - Rosie O'donnell. she apparently dislikes using any correct punctuation also doesn't like using periods almost like she is trying to write poetry but isn't (sorry, I stole this way of impugning her blog from the article).
3. Lamest intentionally lame blog - "The Dullest Blog in the World." Pretty much speaks for itself, but this blog makes no secret of discussing essentially lame things. Unless you find a discussion of which drawer the author puts his pencils in suspenseful.
4. Lamest topic for a blog - "Bad Hair Day." No description needed.
There are others. I highly recommend this if you're looking for a good laugh.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Blogging Horror
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27984057/
Most of us have likely heard about and viewed scenes of the carnage brought about by the terror attacks in Mumbai, India. Some of us may have learned of the attacks or received updates regarding the situation via online networks such as Twitter and Flickr, providing yet another example of how new online networking tools can be used.
The article I have posted discusses how people who were on the ground in Mumbai used micro-blogging site Twitter to ask what happened minutes after the first stage of the attack was underway. Another person on the ground took photos of the carnage and posted them on Flickr to pictorially illustrate what was occurring. Others depended on the sites to remain aware of the status of family members or friends who were in Mumbai when the attacks occurred. All of this occurred in fractions of time and significantly faster than traditional news sites. It begs the question: does the ability for such instant transmittal of information begin to erode the need for traditional news media? In 10 years, will people have a need to still turn on Nightly News at 6:30, or will they instead turn to their Twitter account every few minutes to receive updates on breaking news? Could the news media establish Twitter networks across the world, instead of journalists, to report live updates as they occur with simple blog posts? Many questions, but how these tools were used as these attacks were occurring certainly speaks volumes about where these tools could perhaps be taken.
Another couple of interesting nuggets of information. According to the news article, a Wikipedia article is already created for the attacks and has been updated "thousands of times." Also, a Google map of the attacks was created hours after they began, and has already been viewed over 375,000 times. Pretty remarkable when you consider how recently these attacks occurred and the constantly changing nature of the situation.
Most of us have likely heard about and viewed scenes of the carnage brought about by the terror attacks in Mumbai, India. Some of us may have learned of the attacks or received updates regarding the situation via online networks such as Twitter and Flickr, providing yet another example of how new online networking tools can be used.
The article I have posted discusses how people who were on the ground in Mumbai used micro-blogging site Twitter to ask what happened minutes after the first stage of the attack was underway. Another person on the ground took photos of the carnage and posted them on Flickr to pictorially illustrate what was occurring. Others depended on the sites to remain aware of the status of family members or friends who were in Mumbai when the attacks occurred. All of this occurred in fractions of time and significantly faster than traditional news sites. It begs the question: does the ability for such instant transmittal of information begin to erode the need for traditional news media? In 10 years, will people have a need to still turn on Nightly News at 6:30, or will they instead turn to their Twitter account every few minutes to receive updates on breaking news? Could the news media establish Twitter networks across the world, instead of journalists, to report live updates as they occur with simple blog posts? Many questions, but how these tools were used as these attacks were occurring certainly speaks volumes about where these tools could perhaps be taken.
Another couple of interesting nuggets of information. According to the news article, a Wikipedia article is already created for the attacks and has been updated "thousands of times." Also, a Google map of the attacks was created hours after they began, and has already been viewed over 375,000 times. Pretty remarkable when you consider how recently these attacks occurred and the constantly changing nature of the situation.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Protecting Against the Dangers of Blogging
Unfortunately, I could not post the article I am blogging about because it is password protected. Allow me to provide a brief synopsis. The article appeared in a recent issue of Ignites, which is a mutual fund industry newsletter. Asset management firms are clearly having a tough time right now due to market turmoil, and it's even more imperative for them to be able to adequately protect confidential or company-specific information. These firms have always valued protection of information, whether it be pending job cuts, internal memos, or customer data. The article describes the real difficulty the Internet presents to controlling this important information, and one particular tool is mentioned - blogging.
The article cites some pretty incredible statistics. According to Technorati, there are more than 133 million blogs on the Internet and about 900,000 new posts per day. Additionally, it estimated that 77% of Internet users scan blogs even if they don't write any themselves. This is rather illustrative of the tremendous ability the Internet provides for the control of information to be compromised. To hedge against the dangers of blogging, firms have written policies that specifically prohibit the mentioning of company-specific information on public forums, without prior consent from the company. However, the article cites interviews with labor attorneys who state that employees may be able to cite privacy rules if their firms attempt to discipline them for disseminating company information, especially on platforms outside of company control.
Just an another interesting example of old school issues meeting new school tools. Companies have always been concerned with information getting into the wrong hands, but they have never had to deal with an environment such as the present where the publishing of information was possible with such ease. I suspect their issues will only become more prevalent in the years to come as Web 2.0 tools evolve into Web 3.0 tools and it becomes even easier to disseminate information.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Are You Influential? Check Your Google Number.
Making Social Networks Profitable
In its nonstop effort to redefine everything, Google is now trying to change how we depict influence. Using an algorithm similar to that which the company used in its popular search engine, Google is now trying to measure your influence on social networking sites, such as MySpace and Facebook, to provide a new tool for online advertisers to measure the efficacy of internet marketing initiatives. Here's how it would work. Depending on factors ranging from how many friends your friends have to how often you are successful in getting others to view internet media, a "Google Number" would be generated to measure your influence, which could then be used by Google to sell its online space to advertisers.
Google is anxious to enhance their social network influence (no pun intended) after their 2006 investment in MySpace has so far failed to prove especially profitable. Not to sound like an antiquated individual, but this is another example of why I'm not all that eager to participate in online social networking. I may sound like an alarmist, but doesn't such an mechanism beg the question of just how much farther Google or other online companies (or anyone for that matter) can intrude upon your privacy? Do I really want some complex mathematical algorithm tracking who I speak with, and do I really want to define my influence by the comparative superiority of my Google number? I'm not sure I have much of a choice. I suppose the real solution is to accept there is no such thing as privacy on the internet.
In its nonstop effort to redefine everything, Google is now trying to change how we depict influence. Using an algorithm similar to that which the company used in its popular search engine, Google is now trying to measure your influence on social networking sites, such as MySpace and Facebook, to provide a new tool for online advertisers to measure the efficacy of internet marketing initiatives. Here's how it would work. Depending on factors ranging from how many friends your friends have to how often you are successful in getting others to view internet media, a "Google Number" would be generated to measure your influence, which could then be used by Google to sell its online space to advertisers.
Google is anxious to enhance their social network influence (no pun intended) after their 2006 investment in MySpace has so far failed to prove especially profitable. Not to sound like an antiquated individual, but this is another example of why I'm not all that eager to participate in online social networking. I may sound like an alarmist, but doesn't such an mechanism beg the question of just how much farther Google or other online companies (or anyone for that matter) can intrude upon your privacy? Do I really want some complex mathematical algorithm tracking who I speak with, and do I really want to define my influence by the comparative superiority of my Google number? I'm not sure I have much of a choice. I suppose the real solution is to accept there is no such thing as privacy on the internet.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
College Applicants & Their Facebook "Secrets"
http://wsj.com/article/SB122170459104151023.html
Amongst the ever-increasing competitiveness of college admission, universities are starting to peruse social networking sites to learn more about their applicants. Within this we discover yet another controversial aspect of the social networking phenomenom and its inherent breach on pre-existing notions of privacy.
A quick synopsis of the story: among the 500 colleges surveyed, 10% of admissions officials divulged that they do indeed search internet networking sites to learn more about potential students. Of these, 38% reported finding something on the applicant that "negatively affected" their view. All of the high school students interviewed for the story conceded they have re-considered some of the material on their Facebook pages to ensure nothing is present which could harm their acceptance chances.
What I found most intriguing in this story was the actual question as to whether information published on social networking sites was "private." As I understand, social networking and personal webpages were the accepted tool precisely intended to break the traditional privacy and isolation barriers. In my humble opinion, it seems slightly hypocritical for anyone to complain when this tool backfires by disseminating information to unintended parties. Moreover, it should in the least be clear that whatever is published on networking sites is both the responsibility of that person and entirely non-private material. In one part of the article, a college admissions officer actually dismisses the relevance of examining these sites, claiming that information contained within amounts to "casual conversation...equivalent with street-corner banter." This sentiment seems to drastically underestimate the thought, attention and time that is paid to these sites by many of its members, which would clearly make it decidely unequivalent to casual conversation.
We are obviously treading unchartered waters, and I suppose there is an always-present question as to the precise definition of "privacy." However, it seems rather sensical to me that when one decides to utilize internet networking tools, they do so at their own risk, and must recognize the unknown and unintended consequences of these tools. In other words, tread carefully.
Amongst the ever-increasing competitiveness of college admission, universities are starting to peruse social networking sites to learn more about their applicants. Within this we discover yet another controversial aspect of the social networking phenomenom and its inherent breach on pre-existing notions of privacy.
A quick synopsis of the story: among the 500 colleges surveyed, 10% of admissions officials divulged that they do indeed search internet networking sites to learn more about potential students. Of these, 38% reported finding something on the applicant that "negatively affected" their view. All of the high school students interviewed for the story conceded they have re-considered some of the material on their Facebook pages to ensure nothing is present which could harm their acceptance chances.
What I found most intriguing in this story was the actual question as to whether information published on social networking sites was "private." As I understand, social networking and personal webpages were the accepted tool precisely intended to break the traditional privacy and isolation barriers. In my humble opinion, it seems slightly hypocritical for anyone to complain when this tool backfires by disseminating information to unintended parties. Moreover, it should in the least be clear that whatever is published on networking sites is both the responsibility of that person and entirely non-private material. In one part of the article, a college admissions officer actually dismisses the relevance of examining these sites, claiming that information contained within amounts to "casual conversation...equivalent with street-corner banter." This sentiment seems to drastically underestimate the thought, attention and time that is paid to these sites by many of its members, which would clearly make it decidely unequivalent to casual conversation.
We are obviously treading unchartered waters, and I suppose there is an always-present question as to the precise definition of "privacy." However, it seems rather sensical to me that when one decides to utilize internet networking tools, they do so at their own risk, and must recognize the unknown and unintended consequences of these tools. In other words, tread carefully.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Blogging 101
My first ever blog. It should be interesting and exciting to learn a new facility by which to communicate, discuss, and publish my views on various issues related to the course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)