Open The Dialogue

Okay, here's the first installment of what I hope to make a regular occurrence here at Open the Dialogue, and I'm officially calling it "How Not To Be Annoying On The Internet." [Thanks, Chris!] Of course, HNTBAOTI as an acronym doesn't exactly roll off your tongue, but whatever. We'll be using Flickr Video to offer up sub-90 second videos / screencasts (and yes, that's a GOOD limit to have), and the first volume is one of my personal favorites, turning off the nifty autoplay feature. It's like turning off the keytones on your cellphone 30 seconds after purchasing a new phone, except...well, it's just not on a cellphone.

In any case, without further ado, here we go.

Hope you enjoyed this installment, and we'll hope to bring you more soon!

[ed: and before you ask, I did the screencast using SnapzProX on my iMac, and converted the file down to Web-ready using Apple's QuickTime Pro. The original file version wasn't working on upload but the converted, m4v file, did, so give that a whirl if you're unable to get .mov files working at first.]

Posted by Tom Biro at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The whole discussion of whether or not social media outlets can effectively be monetized isn't at all surprising to me. For as long as there has been advertising on blogs and other platforms there's been a conversation about what it's value is to the audience, to the advertiser and to the publisher. What does seem to be surprising, to me at least, is that the root cause of this conversation often goes unspoken.

There's so much hand-wringing over whether or not social media can be monetized because the online media world is the first time actual metrics were demanded to account for an ads success.

Traditional media touted its reach and sold ad inventory based on that reach. But online media had to wait to get paid for the most part until the ads it sold actually performed and then had to justify its methodology for counting visitors, clicks or whatever else it was providing to advertisers.

Even among the biggest, most savvy players, effectively making money on advertising against social media is a tricky proposition. Just look at Google's problems selling inventory on MySpace's search functionality, though that effort may be hampered by both the fact that Google caught that deal just as MySpace was beginning to lose it's luster and the fact that it's search function stinks (at least it always did for me).

Both Kami Huyse and David Armano have thoughts up on how advertising on social media channels is just as disruptive to the audience as on traditional channels and that's true. That's why, as Kami says, effective public relations efforts are more essential than ever. Part of that is through our efforts to position our clients as participants in the conversation, something that is as non-disruptive as possible and even has the potential (if they listen to our guidance and resist the urge to engage in outright marketing) to add value to that community's conversation.

That's especially likely true if they drop some of their guarded nature and engage in Jeremiah Owyang's three "impossible" conversations in an open and honest manner. After all there are a lot of lessons to be learned from the people who have the most problems with your company. If you're not listening to them and addressing their concerns then you're effectively writing off them as customers, and that's something not many companies can afford to do.

And if you or your clients are doing social media wrong or if there's some sort of inconsistency in efforts there will always be someone there to call you on it.

Yes, social media can be distracting, but that distraction is worth it when you consider that it also creates this sort of ongoing industry conference that everyone can attend because you don't have to travel and all you need is the ability to sign up at Wordpress.com. Social media turns the entire Internet into a help line, where colleagues can ping each other for advice, help noodling out an issue or just to make each other laugh, just like what often happens at conferences. We're all attendees and we're all presenters and all we can hope for is that we make the best impression possible because we respect the opinions of everyone who's listening to us.

Social media also turns the entire Internet into one big recommendation engine that can drive us to movies, music or other media that we had overlooked, discounted or never heard of. While sites like Netflix, iTunes and others all use our behavior and perceived interests as part of an algorithm, the opinions of those people we respect will always carry more weight because we're social animals, and we'll never be able to say "That was an awesome find, thanks for pointing me to it" to a computer and have it say "Glad you liked it!" back to us.

Social media can. It allows for feedback. Feedback for our recommendations, feedback for our ideas, feedback for our opinions and feedback for all our other efforts. Therein lies its power. Not to provide new advertising outlets, but to give us all a voice. The best social media marketers know that and act accordingly.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week a report was released showing the extent to which reporters and traditional journalists felt their field was being impacted by bloggers, citizen journalists and other new media creators.

According to the survey that formed the report, 74 percent of journalists say new media outlets have "very" or "somewhat" effect on the speed of the reporting they do. So we can conclude from that, it seems, that journalists are feeling the eyeballs being trained on them and are speeding up their processes in order to make sure they get the story first.

But only 43 percent (and I say "only" lightly since that's a pretty good-sized chunk of respondents) say that new media has had similar levels of impact on the quality of news coverage. 56 percent say little to no impact on quality has been felt.

The story ends with the author of the study saying journalists are at the very least turning to blogs for context and new ideas or angles for their own coverage, a topic I opined on before, bemoaning the fact that while they may get ideas and information on blogs, they rarely link out to or otherwise credit the bloggers.

Whatever impact journalists might feel blogs and new media in general is having, the tea leaves are aligning in such a way that it's impossible to not see the tidal wave rolling around the bend.

(Mixed metaphor skillz: I haz dem)

Consider that political blogger James Pindell is leaving the Boston Globe for ThePoliticker, a new national network of such blogs. At the site a series of state-specific blogs will be brought together to form national coverage of the political arena.

Or that The New York Times of all papers is now openly soliciting for user-submitted photos of polling places during the primaries.

Or that magazine publishers are increasing the number of online features like social networking, games, and videos they roll out each year that not only make the sites more sticky but also allow for some creation of content by the visitor.

Or that this election cycle is featuring an incredible amount of new-media/old-media partnerships as each outlet looks to tap the other's audience.

In an interview with New York Times "Bits" blogger Saul Hansell, he makes the case that blogging is not so very different from traditional journalism, at least not in the tools themselves. It's the person wielding the tools and how they're used that make some blogs - or even individual posts on a blog - what they are. Hansell acknowledges that the journalism world has changed to some extent because of the ubiquity of online publishing tools but that the worth of the outlet is determined more by the content than it is by the platform that content is published through.

Former Newsweek CEO Rick Smith, on the other hand, isn't thrilled with how so many people with such easy access to publishing tools has devalued the news his magazine and others traffic in. Smith says that so much of the media people are now consuming is made up of opinion and not facts that the reporting is losing importance to readers - and the advertisers who want to be attached to breaking news.

I find more agreement with Hansell's comments then I do with anything else. It's always the content and the intent of the writer that trumps everything else. If someone puts out good stuff - be it audio, video or text - it will gain an audience and be taken seriously. If the content they're producing is found to provide better context, be more relevant or in some other way more deeply and meaningfully connect with the audience then it will win the battle for eyeballs.

Instead of complaining over the injustice of consumer-generated content taking readers away from the reporting an established outlet does, it would be better for those editors to look at what they might not be providing to the audience and seek to address that shortcoming. Change. Adapt. Improve.

But still let your readers and other experts participate in the conversation. Allow comments on story and look to see who's linking to you. Despite all the resources a newspaper or magazine might have (at least those resources that have survived the most recent round of budget cuts) there's still going to be someone out there with a different take on any given story. They might live in the neighborhood you're covering and know what their Alderman has just said on an issue. They might work in the industry and know that X was a direct result of W.

Traditional media no longer exists in a vacuum. They have to compete harder than ever for readers and advertisers. But there's too much "Well we're better" being proclaimed and not enough "Well we're better" being practiced. The determination of your quality - whether it be media, consumer-packaged goods or anything else - comes from the number of people who shell out their money for what it is you're producing.

(Afterward: I had this all written when I saw this pop-up - "How to get a job in journalism." Lots of good stuff in there for the aspirational.)

Posted by Chris Thilk at 02:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In downtown Wheaton, IL - not too far from where I both grew up and where I currently live - there's a little store called The Popcorn Shoppe. I'm not exaggerating when I say it's little. The store is deep from the sidewalk but across it's about five feet. Long, but narrow.

At the Popcorn Shoppe you can get a variety of candy, as well as popcorn. Bins are set up along one wall with everything from pre-packaged candy like miniature Reese's Peanut Butter Cups to open candy like gummy worms that's priced by the half-pound. So you go in, squeeze through the other customers, use the little shovels that are in each bin to grab a little of a whole bunch of stuff then do more squeezing to make it to the cash register and maybe pick up a bag of popcorn while you're there. It's a quaint, fun little place, but one of those places only the locals really know about.

The Popcorn Shoppe sprung to mind when a meme started yesterday about how many of us are, apparently, drunk on the Web 2.0 juice, a concoction stirred and served up on virtual street corners by many of those currently decrying the situation.

When I think about the variety of Web 2.0 applications, features and tools available in October of 2007 it can sometimes seem overwhelming, much like the wall of the store. I look at them and can't imagine using all of them but I know that there are a few that I definitely want to pick up and use. Others seem like a good idea at the time but when I try them out I'm disappointed and regret the time/money I spent on something that didn't live up to my expectations.

For those of us who work in online public relations it's important that we evaluate the tools that debut seemingly every day not only for ourselves but also for how they might benefit our clients. Not everything is going to be for everyone and we need to not be so enraptured by the shiny object the just flitted in front of our eyes that we lose all perspective. 'What does this do?" "What need does this meet?" "What gap does this fill?" "How does this increase connections/engagement?" These are just a sampling of questions we need to be asking ourselves whenever the latest thing debuts.

These questions can often only be answered by trying them out. TechCrunch's descriptions and write-ups only go so far. You have to dig in and see what sticks. Once you do that you gain perspective and then can rationally and more accurately opine on the topic to both the public and, for PR practitioners, your clients.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 11:58 AM | Permalink

Posted by Tom Biro at 12:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

About half an hour ago, I was forwarded a link to an item on News.com's News blog, where Matt Asay asked an important question related to Google Apps, "Does Google own your content?" after seeing this post by Joshua Greenbaum on ZDNet's Enterprise Anti-matter blog.

He's commenting as a lawyer, and is going to have a much more solid understanding than most of us probably would, and it definitely looks grim. That being said, this comment by someone identifying himself as one of the people behind Writely clarifies that the way it's worded is done so that the ability for you to forward your information to a third party for review and editing. Also, this person discussing how the grammar in the TOS is used is probably just confusing for the average reader.

We could go on all day about this discussion, but what I wanted to point out here was how Google managed to get slapped around in two pretty big headlines, and these items have probably been passed around quite a bit, and it doesn't appear that anyone has actually contacted Google PR or the folks behind Apps directly. This is still, unfortunately, one of the things that drives me batty about the posts that go flying up on blogs without a thought to ask someone what the issue is. Even if you are going to post, send an email at the same time, let the PR person (or whomever you're reaching out to) know you're posting something, and say that in your post. Instead, we get a ton of pot-stirring.

Whether this is or isn't an issue for users of Google Apps isn't even the big thing here in this case, it's that no one's taken the time to contact Google directly about it. So, we'll be doing so this afternoon, and will post an update accordingly.

Posted by Tom Biro at 01:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Ross Mayfield posted today about how he's looking for the "CEO 2.0" for Socialtext, and that he'd be stepping into the Chairman and President roles, and is looking to put a new face in that driver's seat at the wiki service provider. I'm psyched to see where this goes, as it has the potential to a) show some usage of a social network in LinkedIn, which Mayfield has asked people to contact him through in this case, and b) be a solid example of publicly soliciting input on the growth of a business.

Good luck to Ross in his re-fangled role at Socialtext, and if any of you know someone (or are interested yourself) go check it out at Ross' blog / on LinkedIn.

Posted by Tom Biro at 10:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We have a bad habit in our house of moving stuff to the basement when we can't quite figure out what to do with it, when the boys don't play with something anymore or when we replace something but think that it might serve some purpose in the future. This then leads to 1) A full basement of stuff that we never or very infrequently use or even think of and 2) An eventual trip by me to Goodwill.

Right now my online identity is feeling very much to me like a cluttered basement full of stuff I never use and rarely even think about. I've got all these social networks that I belong to that I haven't quite figured out what to do with, personalized radio channels that I don't listen to and a host of other unused logins. But the latest, shiniest thing is always tempting me via TechCrunch or some other site, beckoning me to sign up and play with it.

So I'm embarking on a project I'm calling Me 2.0 this week. I'm going to try and review all the sites I've created profiles on and figure out what is actually of use or interest to me. "What does this add to my online activity and how am I going to utilize it?" will be the question that gets asked over and over again as I review my wants and needs and figure out the tools that satisfy both. That includes a serious pruning of my RSS feeds and other information inputs. I need to get over feeling simultaneously overwhelmed by the information I'm taking in and underwhelmed by tools I'm using.

I'll post updates as Me 2.0 progresses.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 01:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So, while the Pentagon has blocked MySpace and YouTube, along with Photobucket, MTV, Metacafe, Pandora, Live365, hi5, IFILM, BlackPlanet, StupidVideos, and FileCabi from being accessed on its DoD computer network, it is still into promoting itself on these social sharing sites, even to its own. And, as the Think Progress-linked IraqSlogger notes:

Unless the Department of Defense lifts (or doesn't fully apply) its YouTube ban, US military personnel won't be able to watch their own Iraq-focused YouTube channel unless they do so on non-DoD computers and via non-DoD Web connectivity.

I'm not going to use this space to say whether or not the DoD is doing the "right" thing by blocking access to these sites, for reasons such as the one that Wired is citing, bandwidth. I thought it much more interesting to note the conundrum between something like the Multi-National Forces-Iraq (MNF-I) promoting its own YouTube channel at like the same time that the military was banned from using its own government owned computers - or network - to reach it.

On top of that, a friend of mine noted to me today that a relative had just emailed, stating that two days ago, there were updates made to a resume online, at Monster and CareerBuilder, mentioning recent experience using MySpace and other social networking sites for marketing purposes. That was followed by phone calls from not one, but two Army recruiters on Wednesday who were inquiring about those particular services, and if there was any interest in working with the Army on marketing through those channels. If that's not a testament to the success of something, then nothing is.

[ed: thanks to Luther Campbell for the inspiration for the title of this post]

Posted by Tom Biro at 03:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's hard to read Kevin Rose's complete capitulation to the digg mob as anything but the first chink in the armor of social news.

Let's back up and go over what happened. A story appeared on digg that contained code that would allow people to break the encryption on HD-DVDs, something the owners of that particular bit of intellectual property didn't take kindly to. That led them to send a cease-and-desist order to Digg, which the site complied with by taking down the item in question.

That's when things got out of hand.

People responded by flooding the site with items containing the code, effectively telling everyone else to go take a hike - they'll do what they like. Kevin Rose then decided it wasn't worth honking off the entire community and said they'll fight the C&D, even if it leads to the eventual downfall of digg.

It's tempting to read Rose's position as brave, like he's standing up to the big bad man. But to me it seems more like a "please, please don't hurt me angry mob" position he's assuming. He knows that the future of digg lies in its user base and, putting his finger to the wind, he changed course based on the prevailing attitude.

What digg went through yesterday is the same kind of thing any company has to be prepared for: a crisis. If you make lawnmowers you need to be prepared for a rash of accidents and a recall. If you make bike locks you need to be prepared if someone posts an easy how-to on picking those supposedly tamper-proof locks. And if you run a social news site you need to be prepared for when the community you rely on to decide what's noteworthy picks something that isn't going to be popular with the subject of the story. This needs to be right there in the crisis communications playbook that every company should have handy.

When in a crisis a company should have one strong and solid voice speaking for it. Having a "bad cop/good cop" dynamic going, as in this case, only serves to confuse the audience and make final decisions look like they're not motivated by strong principles but by calculation.

Look at Google's "...and the horse you came in on" response to Viacom. While Google did take down Viacom videos from YouTube, something it did in good faith, it has said that Viacom's suit alleging copyright violation has no merit. It would have been easy for Google to follow the conventional wisdom and engage Viacom in negotiations, something many felt the suit was designed to trigger. Instead it has picked up its trident ("Brick killed a guy. Did you throw a trident?") and said it will meet Viacom on the field of battle. There wasn't a news conference at 10AM saying they wouldn't fight the lawsuit followed by on at 2PM with Eric Schmidt saying the community had spoken and they would fight it. They got their ducks in order and decided on a path.

Effective public relations should lead to less - not more - confusion among the public and a company's stakeholders. Even if it takes a little while longer to make sure everyone's singing the same song it's worth it since it makes the company look a little less like they're bumbling along.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 02:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So far, no word from Citibank or coComment on this issue where the commenting service was able to track a theoretically secure page, although coComment has cleared out the thread John and I linked to last night. If you're still interested in seeing it, the PDF of the offending page is here here or you can see the full rundown of screens over at his blog.

Additionally, he made another attempt last night to speak with Citibank's Internet Security group, but didn't get very far with them, although he was able to provide them with the right information. Looking to try and get information from Citigroup media relations today, if possible.

Posted by Tom Biro at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Tom Biro at 12:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Brian Oberkirch's post on the decentralization of technology innovation dovetails with something I've been thinking about lately. As I walk along the sidewalks of Chicago I marvel sometimes at the fact that, not only do I have a great job (and family, of course) but that I get to write about things that I love and am interested in without needing to belong to a traditional media organization. That ability is, in large part, neither helped nor hindered by the fact that I live in a big urban center. All I really need is a computer and a fast internet connection and I can publish my thoughts to the world.

A while ago I was taking the train home with Rick Klau from FeedBurner since we both live in the same area. He was listing all the technology companies that call Chicago home and I commented that someone should create a map showing how many "web 2.0" firms were located here. Brian's list shows that similar maps could be created almost anywhere. The topic of web ventures in Chicago also gets discussed over at Participate Media.

I don't think many of us sit back and marvel at the truly incredible nature of this platform that we use. Whether this blog or that site has more perceived power is almost beside the point. It's that we have any power at all that we should all enjoy.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 12:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Seems that NBC Universal is the latest big media company to demand that its content be pulled from YouTube. That comes as an expansion of the deal between it and CBS seems to have hit a snag and just a couple weeks after Viacom demanded the site take down all of its videos. Viacom, for its part, has signed a deal with Joost, a deal that includes Viacom getting a cut of the advertising revenue from the videos. Here's my favorite part:

The basic idea behind Joost is to get as close to possible to replicating the television viewing experience on a personal computer.

Is this really what consumers are looking for? Personally I think internet video, if it's really going to add value to the viewer experience, needs to be more than a simple repurposing of TV material. Think beyond this to videos that are really going to attract an audience. TV can be viewed on TV. If you're looking for new ways to get TV content to people, then let's rethink TV, not make the same mistakes on the internets.

That being said, it can be useful for companies to have their own, approved outlets for online video. It can help build brand loyalty, provide for copyright control and allow marketers to collect useful data on the users who watch it. But it would be best to find a strategy that allows for both corporate control and the ceding of some control to users.

If companies decide that the hording of control is more important and continue to pull their material from venues where it's the user that's in charge it simply means there's more exposure to by gained by non-professionally produced material. Users will not abandon their favorite sites because a media conglomerate has decided to work against and not with the community. It just means they'll continue to use it and not be exposed to the professional stuff.

Of course all these moves could, as some have suggested, be bluffs and maneuvers as companies negotiate business deals with YouTube, in which case the content will be back but with ads or some such. It's important for all companies to figure how best to utilize online video in a way that makes sense for them. But don't forget that a lot of people are out there spreading the word for you on these sites, efforts that mean extra exposure for you at little to no cost. Don't get in the way of them doing so.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So far at least three Democratic candidates, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson, have all announced they are beginning the process of running for President in 2008 via streaming video. That's obviously becoming as powerful a medium for politics as it is for the people being governed. That's what makes this initiative by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo so interesting. He wants to hear from people who want to produce their own response to President Bush's State of the Union address tomorrow night. He notes that Jim Webb will be delivering the official Democratic response after the speech but is interested in helping to give a larger audience to the reaction that everyday citizens might have to it.

It's not that an outlet like TPM is needed in order for people to have their say - YouTube and other video sharing sites are often all the platform that's needed - but this puts all those in one convenient spot. That's pretty cool.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 04:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This afternoon, I caught this article that the Arizona Republic had picked up from the WSJ about online wine purchases. The point of the article was more to let people know about what some random online purchase experiences were like than it was to help people figure out how to buy wine online. That being said, I think there are a few things that are on the cusp of being super helpful for people who not only need some help doing that "online shopping for things I'd like to see in person" thing, one of them being Cork'd, the other being Bottlenotes. Maybe they aren't the coup de grâce that will herald yet another big change in how business is done, but I'd say if 5-10% of the wine marketplace is going to be online (and probably more, quickly) then how people go about their business when it comes to finding wines they enjoy and wineries that cater to the online shopper is going to be just as big of a business.

While Bottlenotes is aspiring to be the "Netflix of wine," as BusinessWeek Online's Justin Hibbard had to say recently, Cork'd is taking the review wines, invite your friends, and conquer approach. They're both very different, with a much more ingrained winery sales listing in the former, and a bigger "Web 2.0" approach for the latter. One is big on getting you involved in order ing through a wine club, something many offliners are familiar with, the other is looking to get people to use tagging, reviews, and linking up to "Drinking Buddies" (I'm tombiro on the system if you're interested) in order to get recommendations for users.

As someone who appreciates wine and enjoys trying things recommended by friends and others, I think that both of these services have something to offer. Bottlenotes has a bit more commercial appeal, and therefore has much more of a direct sales model in order to make money, while Cork'd is working with two inaugural sponsors, Uncrate and A List Apart, to get the business going. While not direct competitors, both are attempting to fill a gap that wineries might not be savvy enough to do on their own. Their usership won't be totally mutually exclusive, as both have advantages that people may want to take part in, but I'm banking that both will definitely play a major role in how online wine shopping grows in the next few years.

Posted by Tom Biro at 05:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In high school, I had this economics teacher, Mr. Masiello, who used the acronym TINSTAAFL so often that it became one of the few dozen things from high school (that were school-related, at least) that I can recall at a moment's notice. Additionally, it's something I think about all the time throughout my work life. If you're not familiar with TINSTAAFL, it stands for "There's no such thing as a free lunch." As much as I try and disprove it, there's always a way, seemingly to prove that it is indeed reality. Such is most certainly the case with what many people like to refer to as "Web 2.0"-ish services, but they should be more properly described as collaborative or "sharative" if you will.

Let's take the wiki as the prime example. Wikipedia and a number of other useful sites have cropped up in recent times and have changed how people use the Web for information and reference, and provide an excellent jumping-off point for finding most items you could possibly looking for. The real value behind a Wikipedia is that there are people spending hours and hours - unpaid hours - filling it with content, links, and other assorted data points. So what's the deal there? You want to use Wikipedia, sure it's "free" for you the user, but if you look at it a little more "whole"-istically, for the service to be successful, the group of us, the users, have to attempt to stay on top of things we know about, as a group, and continually make things happen. Sure, you can freeload and just use it as a reference point, but you've still got to do a little bit of due diligence and put in an effort to make sure where the Wikipedia source has led you is helpful or not. It's by no means the be all, end all, answer guide, as simple as it may be to look at it that way.

If I've led you astray at this point, don't fret. Let's loop back into the point of all this. Earlier today, I caught this post over at Lifehacker about LyricWiki, a free site where people can put up the lyrics to songs they know about, to share for everyone. In case you hadn't noticed, searching for song lyrics on the 'net leaves you awash in popup advertisements, multiple click-throughs to get what you want, and much more. Now while the RIAA (as mentioned in the LH comments section) and other groups might not like that the lyrics are out there, and that this could get hit hard should someone choose to sue for republishing lyrics, I really doubt that someone would come down on a service like this, as long as it didn't try and move to a for-profit status. In fact, the ad-filled sites would be much more likely to get slammed, and I can also see a lot of people being much more interested in seeing what a collaborative site, one they could contribute to, would bring to the table. So for those popup-happy sites, their business now has competition, from a source that they might not have seen coming - the "rank and file."

In a way, the whole "honor system" that's used for everything from charity lollipops on store counters to bringing back the gas can to the local gas station when you run out of fuel on the highway is relevant in a Webspace such as this, and for the most part, people don't think twice about contributing when they have something of value to add. Sure, it's manipulatable, and isn't always perfect, but it's here, and usable. So take a penny lyric, leave a penny lyric.

Posted by Tom Biro at 03:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As usual, I'm hesitant to tag too many things as "Web 2.0," but here I'm going to do so. Last night, I received an invite from a friend for Newsvine, a new news service that's currently in private beta. The Web 2.0-ishness of it is that you can literally have your own "column," (mine is tombiro.newsvine.com) where you can write about anything that you consider newsworthy - and so can anyone else. When combined with a slew of other features (detailed below and in the forthcoming links), I'd have to say that this is one of the cooler things I've seen of late. The man behind the project (assuredly with others) is Mike Davidson, formerly of ESPN.com.

Back in November, Davidson announced Newsvine, calling it "Just like your favorite news site, only smarter." It's got a combination of Associated Press and independently published stories - and within any story, you can "vote" for it to make it more popular, like Digg, and you can comment on any story, like most blogs. Additionally, you can "report" links to the appropriate authority for delisting, if necessary. One thing that I *really* think is awesome is the bookmarklet-like "Seed Newsline" feature, which allows you to just click once and submit something to Newsvine for others to see - a great timesaver, and super helpful for those of us who are either a) regularly publishing elsewhere and don't always have time to publish more content here, but want to contribute or b) are better at filtering and can point people to a ton of great stuff.

Obviously I can't explain it all, and you really have to see it to believe it. However, Anthony Casey has a great runthrough over at his blog, Escape Crate. I advise you to check it out and see what you think.

Lots more here at Technorati.

Posted by Tom Biro at 09:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Jeff Jarvis pens a response to Dave Winer's request for a calendar of industry (read: blogs, Web 2.0, RSS, etc.) events. Jeff suggests that SSE, or simple sharing extension, could be used to handle this. I'll second whatever motion was just put forth.

This is completely relevant to me as I was just searching out such events yesterday, and came across a few that are taking place in the next few weeks, even a few that I didn't even know were happening. Pretty much proves that no matter how much you're reading, sometimes a thing like a new event doesn't make it into the groupthink or world of blogs.

Posted by Tom Biro at 02:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In case you hadn't heard already, Seth Godin & Co.'s latest foray into the Web and collaboration, Squidoo, has just gone live - in beta - today. Figuring out the easiest way to describe what Squidoo is all about or what it does is a bit tough, but reading the FAQ will help a lot. Think of it as a way to create a wiki page for a topic that you consider yourself knowledgeable or an expert on, where you can write about and link to any number of things that a person who is interested in learning more can find. It's actually quite easy to use, and setting up a lens (the word used to describe the "page" you would set up on any particular topic or idea) takes exactly the time that you feel like putting into it. For instance, check out this one on Sudoku, a popular game in newspapers today, or this one on Heath Row - the man, not the airport. Those should give you an idea of what kind of time or effort it would take to put together the facts *you* consider important on a particular topic.

And, if you're into the whole "transparency" thing, then check out the home page - it has two options - one to find lenses, and another to build them. Additionally, it shows how many lenses exist, and the amount of ad revenue that has come through the site so far. Don't fret at the numbers you're seeing - it just came out of a limited, private beta.

Posted by Tom Biro at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last night the tech world heralded the true launch of Google Base, the new service that looks to index anything and everything that the search tool hasn't already found, and make it (somewhat) easy to filter through to find what you're looking for. Job postings, classified ads, event listings, even news and stories on various topics will all make their way into Google Base, and users of the service will be able to sort through it all.

This is a huge story on Tech Memeorandum this morning, and with good reason. What I'm actually *happy* to see is that there are a lot of good critical voices out there. I can't say that this won't be a huge seller and be a very helpful tool for a lot of people, companies, and organizations. What I will say is that what Fred Wilson is thinking might be spot on. There are already services that handle certain things that Google Base is doing - from tagging to blogging to photo sharing to job postings - so will putting that all in one bucket with a pretty good search tool make it a worthwhile place for people to spend a good portion of their surftime? Will Google Base end up being open permanently on people's desktops as a repository of all things content, whether that be what kind of toolshed you're looking to have built in your backyard to a link to an editorial you got printed in your local paper? What levels of integration will it have with other Google products? Do sites that already own a lot of usership suffer in the long term, or do they gain traffic and success because of Base's functionality? It already points to CareerBuilder's job listings, which are now "searchable" without ever having to go to CareerBuilder's own site until you want to look more closely. Additionally, what does this mean for people who are utilizing other Google services, like AdWords, that could potentially get overlapped by this? At TechCrunch, one commenter asks why he should be using AdWords for a keyword campaign for a job posting when he could just list the job through Base. Now obviously Base doesn't have the usership that Google prime does, but that could change fairly quickly, especially for those "in the know."

Dan Gillmor, I think, is asking a similar question - or really, making a rhetorical statement, if one can do so - when he says "There's so much more here, potentially, than immediately meets the eye." In my opinion, this is an easy way to get everyone to do for Google what it, and its search algorithms, haven't been able to do alone - sort, filter, and deliver content, maybe even un-indexable content, in a way that makes the rest of the GoogleBot braintrust happy. You think you get a lot of search results now? I'd expect to see a big change there in the very near future, should this catch on.

Posted by Tom Biro at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

About a month ago, Yahoo! quietly purchased event / calendar / social site Upcoming.org, yet another move showing that smart products and services are rewarded in the end. But it's not the end for Upcoming - now, it has the opportunity to be shown to Yahoo! users who might have never stumbled upon it, and hopefully for Upcoming users to find some value in the Yahoo! community that they might have not before.

Most importantly though, will be how Yahoo! truly makes its services - Upcoming included - shine in the long term. J-prof Doug Fisher wrote this morning about the demo version of Yahoo!'s Events Browser, created with various Yahoo! APIs, asking "Who would want to go to the typical clunky newspaper community calendar listings after seeing this...?" I would follow that up by asking when we're going to get to see this meshed with the volume of events housed on Upcoming's site? Sure, those listings already have links to Google Maps and Yahoo! Maps, but on the other hand you'd be able to go to Yahoo! Maps and find out what kind of events are going on in a particular area. This would work wonders in planning a weekend getaway to a neighboring state, how to kill time during nights when you're on a business trip in an unfamiliar place, and much more.

Posted by Tom Biro at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Boing Boing's Cory Doctorow posted this morning about Revver, which is a service that lets people easily upload video for show, just like Flickr and smugmug do for images - with one hook. That hook is that the uploader/creator of the video has an opportunity to make some money off of the transaction. Obviously that's going to be a motivator for some (though not all) to utilize Revver's offerings.

All that being said, is the whole "Web 2.0" community even about the money, or is it more about the ability to share stuff, do things through a Web browser that were only pipe dreams for some a decade ago, and the connection between people? A couple of days ago, Anil Dash was wondering about the fact that users of Flickr are subjected to advertisements on photographs they're viewing - if the user doesn't have a Pro account. But that fact wasn't the primary driver behind Dash's comments - it was the fact that none of those Google AdSense dollars (or pennies, as it were) ever trickled down to the publishers of the various photos seen on Flickr. I've got to ask - is it even about gaming the system, or making a buck on every single little thing? In my eyes, these are the same things that were discussed when many a blogger began putting various advertising units on their blogs, which then evolved into BlogAds, AdSense for bloggers, inline ads, adverposts, and more.

I've gotta say that anything that helps contribute to the well being (and wallet) of those who are making content and sharing photos, news, and information with the rest of us is great. But at the same time, most people I know who are interested in Flickr and other "sharing" sites are more interesting in how the whole "economy of visits" works and community aspect than they are worried about making a dime on it.

Posted by Tom Biro at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Ever needed to really quickly crop or edit a photo to a particular size, and didn't have the time to load your fully-functioning image software? Well, the solution is apparently here.

Check out ImageCrop.com, which allows for the upload of an image, subsequent cropping, format selection, and re-download for use. You get ten minutes to work on your graphic, after which time it's removed from the service - but that should be more than enough time for a quick crop-n-run.

[via del.icio.us / paulrd]

Posted by Tom Biro at 05:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you're looking to keep up with "all things Web 2.0," and realize that the concept is not about recreating the wheel - at all - then head on over to Emily Chang's eHub. It's a staggering listing of apps, resources, and other tools and listings that will surely change the way the Web is seen, utilized, and embedded even further into our daily lives.

Posted by Tom Biro at 08:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)