The video game industry will always be around. There is always going to be people who enjoy playing games of any type that will keep the gaming industry alive. Video games are actually starting to bring in more money than the rest of the entertainment market. The Guardian, a UK magazine, wrote an article last year about the video game industry taking over but still being the punching bag of the industry. "Last year will go down in history as the point at which the UK videogames industry pulled decisively away from cinema, recorded music and DVD sales to become the country's most valuable purchased entertainment market, with combined software and hardware sales topping the £4bn mark for the first time: more than DVD and music sales combined, and more than four times cinema box office takings."
I did some article searching to see what people are thinking the future of virtual worlds and gaming worlds are going to be like. I found some articles, some that sucked, others that rocked, three of them are listed before. Everyone is in agreement that video games will be all virtual, that the person playing wouldn't be able to tell apart reality from virtual reality. Other articles talk about a combining of different virtual worlds, the new 3-D tvs and virtual reality blending with augmented reality.
As cool and awesome as that sounds and as much as that reminds me of the science fiction novels I read and love, I cannot see 3-D, virtual reality and augmented reality as booming trends in the video game industry that would last for a long time. Personally, as someone who plays video games, I would rather hold a controller in my hand with no sort of science fiction aspects involved. I prefer an old school and more traditional approach to playing video games. However I think it would be an awesome way to watch a movie!!
Some interesting articles:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Video-Games-and-Future-Realistic-Augmented-Reality-Considered&id=4497594
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/predictions-on-the-exciting-future-of-video-game-design.html
http://gear.ign.com/articles/965/965595p1.html
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Future of Virtual Worlds
Within the next ten years, I imagine every business will have a virtual world presence just as most businesses have websites today. In Life beyond Second Life, Paul R. La Monica mentions that most likely only a few companies will hold most of the market share of the virtual world market. I agree with this. As participating in virtual societies become more common, I think three distinct communities with differentiating purposes will emerge, and businesses will acquire a presence on all three. The leading three communities will be broad enough to allow everyone to join, but will contain mini-communities for people so people can participate in things that interests them most.
How will virtual worlds make money in the future?
There will be many avenues for virtual worlds to generate income, but I can see virtual worlds teaming with computer hardware providers to gain a profit. Tech companies will produce devices (or even specialized computers) that will enhance the experience of virtual gaming. Some virtual worlds may even say, Best experienced on a ‘SecondLife-Optimized-Mac’.
Virtual Gaming
Virtual gaming has increasingly become more popular as they develop these types of games more. I think in 5 or 10 years these games will either be just as popular or even more popular. The games now are also becoming more realistic, obviously making them more appealing to people. I don't think their popularity will lessen at all because people have always wanted an escape from life at times, and now this is a perfect opportunity to do just that.
As for the money, I do believe these games will continue to make just as much or even more money than they are making now. For example, the game World of Warcraft. I always of course knew it existed having heard of some people playing but it wasn't until recently that I saw just how much people played it. It's a game that has thousands addicted and even sacrificing eating and sleeping for it. They can play for unlimited time as long as they pay an affordable fee monthly, which keeps its players coming back happily. The makers of this game make a ton of money and their fan base has only gotten larger. Also Xbox 360 allows you to play their games with anyone, anywhere, live and make an account that you pay monthly or yearly for. The console costs money. The game costs money. The account costs money. And the makers gain a vast amount for it. This has all only gotten more popular and more expensive and i really see it just getting more popular in the future.
Virtual Gaming and Worlds
For some odd reason, the Industry of gaming itself seems to think that motion controls are the future of their craft. Although these motion controls such as Nintendo's Wiimote, Sony's Move, and Microsoft's Kinect can be extremely fun (I own a Wii), I just don't see them lasting very long. The simple reason for this is that these new control methods were created to bring in more casual gamers, or people who aren't gamers at all. But people who didn't play video games to begin with, didn't play them for a reason.
People who have been playing video games for years started out using a controller with buttons, and most likely want it to remain that way. Personally, if I wanted to exercise or snowboard or something, I would go out and do it, because its much more engaging than pretending to while holding a wand that senses my movements. And vise versa, if I wanted to play a game, I would pick a controller and press buttons, not jump around or wave my arms. Also, the better scored games, or the games with higher ratings and popularity, don't use motion controls at all. So hopefully in the next 5-10 years the buzz about motion controls will die down a bit.
As far as people making real money from virtual worlds, that will probably continue to happen, as long as updates and expansions to these online worlds are created to keep users coming back for more. If the worlds are never updated, and users stop logging in, then I see this disappearing, its all up to the developers to keep this trend going.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Virtual Gaming
Video gaming is a powerful industry. When a popular video game is released it can rake in more money than a new movie can.
i.e. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/14/business/la-fi-warfare-game14-2010jan14
Second Life gaming is something that attracts a lower age group in their teens. These games become popular only because they are addicting. They will probably hang around for a while until the fad ends.
The world of gaming is changing rapidly. Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony are all implementing motion controllers for their games now. It is very exciting because it is an advancement in technology but I don't believe it will take over the entire industry of gaming. People like to play video games because they like to sit down and use a controller and not move. The best games for video game systems aren't ones with motion controllers.
Microsoft has introduced Kinect which reads the users body movement without controls, it uses a heat sensor camera to sync your body movement to the game on screen. That is the closest the video game industry is to being in virtual reality right now. The graphics of video games get better and better and I feel that the standard controller with buttons and joysticks will outlast motion controllers and heat sensing cameras as controllers also. The anti-controller movement may have a future but a majority of video game enthusiasts play video games because they want to sit down and play, not have to move arms legs, etc. I don't think video games will ever get old to the people who play them.
i.e. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/14/business/la-fi-warfare-game14-2010jan14
Second Life gaming is something that attracts a lower age group in their teens. These games become popular only because they are addicting. They will probably hang around for a while until the fad ends.
The world of gaming is changing rapidly. Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony are all implementing motion controllers for their games now. It is very exciting because it is an advancement in technology but I don't believe it will take over the entire industry of gaming. People like to play video games because they like to sit down and use a controller and not move. The best games for video game systems aren't ones with motion controllers.
Microsoft has introduced Kinect which reads the users body movement without controls, it uses a heat sensor camera to sync your body movement to the game on screen. That is the closest the video game industry is to being in virtual reality right now. The graphics of video games get better and better and I feel that the standard controller with buttons and joysticks will outlast motion controllers and heat sensing cameras as controllers also. The anti-controller movement may have a future but a majority of video game enthusiasts play video games because they want to sit down and play, not have to move arms legs, etc. I don't think video games will ever get old to the people who play them.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Assignment for 11/2
Gaming & Virtual Worlds
Read:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/14/news/companies/virtualworlds/index.htm
Write:
Where do you think virtual worlds or gaming will be in five years? Ten years?
People are making money in Second Life and Gaming platforms, will that continue? Why?
Read:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/14/news/companies/virtualworlds/index.htm
Write:
Where do you think virtual worlds or gaming will be in five years? Ten years?
People are making money in Second Life and Gaming platforms, will that continue? Why?
Karmaloop
Karmaloop was founded in 1999 by Greg Selkoe. Currently Karmaloop is based out of Boston, Massachusetts. Karmaloop is an online re-seller of underground urban street wear offering clothing for men and women. According to www.karmaloopboston.karmaloopblogs.com their mission is to provide their customers with the best brands and products that represent the cutting edge culture they live, breathe, and love. When it comes down to it, Karmaloop sells clothing that you will not find at your local mall. They pretty much focus on being a desired online boutique.
Their products include jackets, jeans, t-shirts, hats, accessories, hard to find shoes and much more. Their online store offers more than 250 brands. Not only does Karmaloop sell clothing, but they also provide online information and reviews on current and new fashion trends. Also to add to their bragging rights, Karmaloop was ranked 196 in the Internet Retailer’s 2010 Top 500.
Just recently Karmaloop opened a flagship store located on Newbury Street in Boston, Massachusetts. They primarily receive most of their revenue by their online store. Karmaloop tends to run banner ads on their website. These banners allow them to pick up more cash by advertising brand names such as Nike and or Adidas. I believe this is how they bring in most of their income. Based off of their ranking with Internet Retailer’s 2010 Top 500, coming in at 196 out of 500 shows they are doing something right to make some good profit.
Check out their site... www.karmaloop.com
Their products include jackets, jeans, t-shirts, hats, accessories, hard to find shoes and much more. Their online store offers more than 250 brands. Not only does Karmaloop sell clothing, but they also provide online information and reviews on current and new fashion trends. Also to add to their bragging rights, Karmaloop was ranked 196 in the Internet Retailer’s 2010 Top 500.
Just recently Karmaloop opened a flagship store located on Newbury Street in Boston, Massachusetts. They primarily receive most of their revenue by their online store. Karmaloop tends to run banner ads on their website. These banners allow them to pick up more cash by advertising brand names such as Nike and or Adidas. I believe this is how they bring in most of their income. Based off of their ranking with Internet Retailer’s 2010 Top 500, coming in at 196 out of 500 shows they are doing something right to make some good profit.
Check out their site... www.karmaloop.com
Monday, October 25, 2010
Netflix
Netflix is now an online business. They actually make a decent profit considering their product is very "cheap". Their membership starts at 8.99 and you can rent one DVD at a time but then it goes up and you can do 13.99 and you can get two DVDs at once and then watch instantly online. Most people keep the DVDs a lot longer because there are no late fess. So this process works out well for the company they do not have to buy a lot of DVDs of it. I have netflix and I know this is the best money I have ever spent. Movies come right to me in the mail and then when I am done I can just put them right back in the mail. This company is making a lot of money for this type of business.
Travelzoo
Travelzoo is an internet based company that’s goal is to inform their over 18 million subscribers of the best travel and entertainment deals. Membership is free for this site, but they bring in all their revenue from advertising fees. They do make a profit off of this site. Their advertising fees, from what I understand are their partnerships with airlines, hotels, cruise lines, etc. When a deal is run through Travelzoo, I believe the different companies pay for their company to be the advertised flight, train, cruise, hotel, etc. They inform the subscribers of the deals through several international sites including in the UK, USA, Europe and Australia. A weekly newsletter called the Top 20 is sent out informing the subscribers of the best 20 travel deals each week. Through these advertised deals is how the site makes revenue. They also network with several third party sites to increase their visibility and click through rates, which is another way to bring in revenue.
Go Daddy
Go Daddy is a website domain register a web hosting business. It was founded in 1997 by Bob Parsons and are based out of Scottsdale, Arizona. It now manages over 4 million domain names and is now the largest I-CANN or Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Go Daddy makes its money by selling domain names to those who wish to create new websites. There mission is provide a service that allows others to create websites that are open to the public. They have used interesting marketing strategies to sell their websites service. Mainly using good looking women to get people to come to their site, these girls have come to be known as Go Daddy Girls. This is an interesting way to market a web site and one that has obviously been very successful.
Threadless
Threadless is an online company that is half graphic t-shirt seller, and half art contest. All of there designs come from artwork submissions to the site by the public and the best are chosen to be sold on their site. The person who submitted the artwork receives $2000 cash, $500 in Threadless credit,an additional $500 every time there design is reprinted, and full recognition for his/her artwork; if there design is chosen.And even if you are not artistic they have submissions for unique phrase t-shirts at a reward of $500. So everyone can participate.
It's a rather unique business model in that all of there product is essentially created by their users. They make money from there sales of the shirts and have a decent reward program for the people who submit there designs. In the process they have a product line that is extremely unique and fun.
It's a rather unique business model in that all of there product is essentially created by their users. They make money from there sales of the shirts and have a decent reward program for the people who submit there designs. In the process they have a product line that is extremely unique and fun.
Netflix
Netflix has been around for a while and did not start as a web based company, but the principal is pretty much the same. Plus, they have now moved into their new promo of renting movies online and you can “watch them instantly” on your computer, iphone or ipad.
Originally, you would start a cheap monthly subscription for $7.99, similar to that of a magazine, and every month you would get a new movie in the mail after you sent your previous movies back. It has been putting movie rental stores out of business and also is a top competitor for Comcast On Demand rentals. Unlimited movies is just 2 dollars extra a month.
They have no late fees or due dates so they are making their money off of membership fees. I think they are in it to make money and not just pay the bills. Besides cable companies, there is no other online Movie Store that is a top competitor with Netflix that I can recall. Unless they are getting movies from Itunes or downloading them for free elsewhere.
Amazon
Amazon is a large company dedicated to online purchasing. The mission of this company is to allow people to buy and sell anything they desire online with affordability, safety and ease. Amazon started off small and didn't really start to impact the market until a few years after its release. But when it did, it had tremendous amounts of success.
They make a profit by taking a small percent of the earnings made from already discounted items. And because Amazon is so reliable, people will trust it for its pricing, safe use and wide variety of products. People will even sooner go to Amazon than the company's website they are buying a product from. I know i personally wont buy anything from the internet most of the time unless its from Amazon. The more people trust and buy from Amazon, the more they can profit.
They make a profit by taking a small percent of the earnings made from already discounted items. And because Amazon is so reliable, people will trust it for its pricing, safe use and wide variety of products. People will even sooner go to Amazon than the company's website they are buying a product from. I know i personally wont buy anything from the internet most of the time unless its from Amazon. The more people trust and buy from Amazon, the more they can profit.
Groupon
With groupon.com, their revenue model is pretty straight-forward but unique. This is an online version of those discount entertainment books that our parents used to buy.
Essentially, everyday groupon.com offers a deal from local vendors (restaurants, activities, memberships, etc...) from which they take a commission. What's interesting is that the deal isn't active unless there are enough people interested in purchasing it - giving the incentive to share that deal with friends and family. This is also beneficial for vendors as they can set a minimum purchase number so they're aware of how many offers were sold and at what they made at minimum. There is also a time limit set in order to purchase the "deal of the day".
Essentially, everyday groupon.com offers a deal from local vendors (restaurants, activities, memberships, etc...) from which they take a commission. What's interesting is that the deal isn't active unless there are enough people interested in purchasing it - giving the incentive to share that deal with friends and family. This is also beneficial for vendors as they can set a minimum purchase number so they're aware of how many offers were sold and at what they made at minimum. There is also a time limit set in order to purchase the "deal of the day".
Songbird
While searching for an iTunes replacement a few years ago, I discovered Songbird. Songbird is a multi-media player and a web browser. With each new build, Songbird integrates more add-ons that make the distinction between media player and web browser harder to identify.
Below is a screenshot of Songbird in use:
The mission of Songbird is to create a more open, and neutral, media sharing and web browsing experience. The device that a person interacts with should not affect their ability to experience the media that he or she possesses. Songbird describes this point perfectly here:
“Current media players such as iTunes, Windows Media Player and Zune are proprietary, single‐vendor, vertically‐integrated silos, excluding any competitive services and devices. If Web browsers had been designed like current media players, Internet Explorer would surf only Microsoft.com and run only on the Xbox.”
http://wiki.songbirdnest.com/Getting_Started_with_Songbird/01_Introduction_to_Songbird
Since Songbird is open source, how does Songbird make money? And how are their talented developers paid? In their frequently asked questions forums, I found that songbird makes money by:
• Sequoia Capital, Atlas Venture, and donations
• 7digital, Songbird’s iTunes music store equivalent (http://us.7digital.com/)
• Songbird Store that sells Songbird merchandise (http://getsongbird.com/gear.php)
• Partnerships with devices that Songbird is installed on and with add-ons that Songbird provides (http://addons.songbirdnest.com/)
On the official website the management of Songbird said that as Songbird becomes more popular and more available, they hope to generate more creative ways to make money. Until then, their model closely resembles the way that most open-source organizations generate a profit.
Google started out as a simple search engine and evolved into a massive corporation. They are the Microsoft of the internet world, in my opinion, and they have a hand in everything from searching the web to mobile phones. Their main revenue is probably from software development and their Android phones. They released their phone OS a few years ago and it gave way to the now popular Droid mobile phone. Google is the most popular search engine on the web by a wide margin. They make money from their "Adsense" program as well. They allow people to place "Google Ads" on their sites that automatically use ads relevant to the website they're placed on. Its interesting how a simple idea for a website like Google can turn into an international corporation with a wide control of the internet. Google also recently bought youtube.
TeeFury
TeeFury is a web based company where they have new daily t shirts up for sale for around 9 dollars. Everyday a new t shirt is posted, only one, and after the day passes its gone. All in all TeeFury.com's mission is to sell you a fun creative t shirt created by artists from all over. Not only do they sell your work on a t shirt but they promote the artist that designed it. They show other works by the artist and a few quick paragraphs from him so you can get a feel about the person that made it, it gives you a closer feel to everything which is a great idea.
Another reason as to why people buy these t shirts is because they are only available for one day and then its gone, most sites have sites up for forever mostly, but the idea that you only have so much time to get this shirt is really smart because you dont want to miss out on it. I know its worked on me, I buy alot of my shirts from this site.
Another reason as to why people buy these t shirts is because they are only available for one day and then its gone, most sites have sites up for forever mostly, but the idea that you only have so much time to get this shirt is really smart because you dont want to miss out on it. I know its worked on me, I buy alot of my shirts from this site.
YouTube
I would consider YouTube to be a well-established communication website. As most people know, one can create an account, post videos, and have those videos "liked," "disliked," and commented on. One can also do all these things on other people's videos as well. Youtube puts ads on everyone's videos as well as charges users for a premium accounts so that they can post videos longer than 10 minutes, and this is how they make their income.
YouTube is also now in a partnership/ownership with Google. Every time one logs into YouTube it asks the user to merge their YouTube account with their Google mail account. This opens up the opportunity to send mail to the users gmail account as another means to make income through mail advertisements.
Expedia
My web-based company is called Expedia. It is an online travel company website where people can book their airline tickets, hotel reservations, car rentals, cruises, vacation packages, and various attractions.
Expedia makes money by charging a fee per transaction, by purchasing the travel inventory such as plane tickets and hotel stays from the travel provider at a discounted price and/or by charging the customer a premium on top the original price.
Base on the Wiki analysis, Expedia is struggled to remain profit because of the higher fuel prices and lower consumers demand for travel. Further, Expedia has intensive competitions such as Priceline, Oribitz, and Travelocity that also drive for the same goal discount airlines.
They plan to make a profit by continuing to offer loyalty programs and lots of discount to various marketers ranging from families with children to luxury travelers.
Amazon
Amazon is a well known established online e-commerce company. It was founded in 1994 and launched just a year later in 1995. It is by far one of America's largest online retailer. The company's original plan was different than other online businesses. They did not expect to make a profit for the first four to five years. It slowly but surely grew and stockholders complained the company was not making a profit fast enough. As many online companies went out of business Amazon still stood strong.
They began as an online bookstore for easier convenience. The company was named "Amazon" for being the worlds largest river in hope their business would grow to be just as large. In 2000 Amazon logo had an arrow leading from the letters A to Z. This arrow represents a smile and the letters A to Z was a goal to have every product in the alphabet. Amazon is well-known for just books now so the letters in the logo no longer exist but the arrow for the smile is still there to represent customer satisfaction with a smile. Amazon sells just about everything. They sell products such as books, music, movies, software, electronics, kitchenware, tools, lawn/garden items, toys, baby products, apparel, sporting goods, gourmet food, jewelry, health and personal-care items, beauty products, instruments, clothing, industrial/scientific supplies, and groceries.
Not only can you purchase on amazon but you also sell. Amazon makes money by taking a small percentage of each item sold on the website. Since they get millions of visitors a day they make a huge profit. Their popularity has grown throughout the years as well did their market share. Those who used to sell on ebay now sell on amazon. Amazon is now worldwide and have quickly become a household name
They began as an online bookstore for easier convenience. The company was named "Amazon" for being the worlds largest river in hope their business would grow to be just as large. In 2000 Amazon logo had an arrow leading from the letters A to Z. This arrow represents a smile and the letters A to Z was a goal to have every product in the alphabet. Amazon is well-known for just books now so the letters in the logo no longer exist but the arrow for the smile is still there to represent customer satisfaction with a smile. Amazon sells just about everything. They sell products such as books, music, movies, software, electronics, kitchenware, tools, lawn/garden items, toys, baby products, apparel, sporting goods, gourmet food, jewelry, health and personal-care items, beauty products, instruments, clothing, industrial/scientific supplies, and groceries.
Not only can you purchase on amazon but you also sell. Amazon makes money by taking a small percentage of each item sold on the website. Since they get millions of visitors a day they make a huge profit. Their popularity has grown throughout the years as well did their market share. Those who used to sell on ebay now sell on amazon. Amazon is now worldwide and have quickly become a household name
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Facebook started out with no ads on their site at all. They used to be very strict about it because a lot of the times, ads ruin websites. Once Facebook got popular, they allowed for ads which is where all of their revenue comes from. Companies have to pay a lot of money in order to advertise on the site. The best way for companies to adeverise on the internet is to use word of mouth and that is essentially what Facebook is. That is why a lot of companies make Facebook pages and links to Facebook from their website, so people can post about it and drive up hits to that company's website and increase that company's sales. Owning an account on Facebook is free and there are no service charges. Facebook plans to make $800 million in revenue from ads that appear on their site.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Rue La La
I've been a member of Rue La La for about three years now. Rue La La is a web-based company that is free for users to sign up but can only get involved if invited to join by someone who is already a member. In acualty the site is a collection, a portfolio of different e-commerce companies, that all use the same structure and management team to make online shopping easier for the consumer. They get major private discounts from different brand and designer names from fashion and home.
The company is a division of Retail Convergence.com, LP. They use vouchers for the third parties to use.
"(b) Vouchers. We offer a service on the Site pursuant to which third party sellers of goods, services and/or experiences ("Merchants") present offers ("Offers") for you to purchase vouchers ("Vouchers") redeemable for Merchant goods, services and/or experiences. Vouchers are subject to the limitations described in each Offer at the time of purchase of the Voucher. Without limiting the foregoing, all Vouchers are subject to the additional terms and conditions found thereon as well as all terms and conditions herein. The specific terms of the each Voucher will control in the event of any conflicting terms contained herein, unless prohibited by law. By purchasing a Voucher, you indicate your acceptance of all of the terms and conditions applicable to such Voucher, as set forth in the Offer, on the Voucher, and herein."
Rue La La's partnerships with other e-commerce sites/third parties is their primary way of making money.
The company is a division of Retail Convergence.com, LP. They use vouchers for the third parties to use.
"(b) Vouchers. We offer a service on the Site pursuant to which third party sellers of goods, services and/or experiences ("Merchants") present offers ("Offers") for you to purchase vouchers ("Vouchers") redeemable for Merchant goods, services and/or experiences. Vouchers are subject to the limitations described in each Offer at the time of purchase of the Voucher. Without limiting the foregoing, all Vouchers are subject to the additional terms and conditions found thereon as well as all terms and conditions herein. The specific terms of the each Voucher will control in the event of any conflicting terms contained herein, unless prohibited by law. By purchasing a Voucher, you indicate your acceptance of all of the terms and conditions applicable to such Voucher, as set forth in the Offer, on the Voucher, and herein."
Rue La La's partnerships with other e-commerce sites/third parties is their primary way of making money.
Etsy
Etsy is an online site where users can buy and sell handmade crafts, vintage items and craft supplies. Initially I thought all major web-based companies made their money through selling ad space but Etsy has zero ads on their page. It is also free to register with Etsy, but there is a fee for listing a user's goods. For twenty cents a user can list a product they wish to sell for 4 months. If the item is bought, Etsy takes 3.5% of the total sale excluding shipping. Now the majority of items that I've seen listed are way less then $100 making a 3.5% very minimal.
Etsy has a few partnerships that benefit their users, such as; FedEx, Outright, MOO and Aviary. These companies offer discounted services to the users. I believe that these companies give monetary value to Etsy in return for being promoted to the Etsy community. Etsy also promotes these companies through their social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter.
After looking through the entire Etsy site I believe that partnerships are their main way of gaining revenue and keeping the company running. The 3.5% of sold items also adds to the revenue but I think the partnerships are a greater gain.
Etsy has a few partnerships that benefit their users, such as; FedEx, Outright, MOO and Aviary. These companies offer discounted services to the users. I believe that these companies give monetary value to Etsy in return for being promoted to the Etsy community. Etsy also promotes these companies through their social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter.
After looking through the entire Etsy site I believe that partnerships are their main way of gaining revenue and keeping the company running. The 3.5% of sold items also adds to the revenue but I think the partnerships are a greater gain.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Assignment for 10/26
Research a well-established communication or web-based company.
Blog about their revenue model: What is their mission? How do they use this to make money or pay the bills? Do they make a profit? Do they have plans to make a profit?
Blog about their revenue model: What is their mission? How do they use this to make money or pay the bills? Do they make a profit? Do they have plans to make a profit?
wikipedia and encyclopedia britannica
I really feel like these two aren't so comparable because they are used for two slightly different reasons. Wikipedia is used to obtain information quickly and to have information put in more understandable terms. Encyclopedia Britannica allows you to find more accurate information but doesn't cover as many topics and sometimes isn't up to date. Yes it's true both allow you to do the same thing but usually you have two different purposes in mind.
If someone tells you for instance about a war you have never heard of, for information's sake, you will quickly go to wikipedia to get an idea of what they are talking about and maybe even be able to give input. If you wanted to write a paper for school on that war you will more likely go to encyclopedia britannica for a more in depth or accurate depiction of the war. So to me I think both can easily stick around and while wikipedia might be the more popular choice (for people that just want quick information) it wont always be the only choice. After all anyone can put anything on wikipedia and even with regulation some incorrect facts can be missed by regulators. So technically the more accurate one will always be the one with official information with valid sources and copyrights and all that stuff. But they both are very useful and both serve a purpose people will want to use them for.
Britannica vs. Wikipedia
The way we research and consume information is always changing. Wikipedia sprung up in recent years as a free "open source" so to speak encyclopedia that anyone could change and edit. The drawbacks are that because of the fact that anyone can update any given entry are that obviously, credibility suffers. Educational institutions often won't trust sources from Wikipedia at all because of this. Encyclopedia Britannica has its cons as well. The information is largely static, which is contradictory to the basic nature of the internet.
I believe that there will always be a place for encyclopedias like Britannica, but Wikipedia has already emerged on top as far as the way the average user searches for information. Wikipedia also has a more expansive library of information, and although the entry's are open to editing, its usually regarded as a reliable source among average internet users.
Wikipedia or Britannica
I personally feel that the Encyclopedia Britannica is already being taken over by wikipedia. I can’t tell you the last time I used an Encyclopedia Britannica to reference. I can tell you that the last time I saw the Britannica it was way out dated. Typically, college students such as myself reference scholarly journals and articles on such places like EBSCOhost or Lexus Nexus to get most of our information. Wikipedia is a place where we can grasp the subject matter more quickly. If I have no clue what I am researching, wikipedia gives me a running start so I can have a clue.
I can also use the references that are located at the bottom of the wikipedia page. In some instances, these references may not be accurate. It is up to the reader to determine what to use and what to believe.
I am not saying that the Encyclopedia Britannica will one day mysteriously disappear like the Dodo bird. What I am saying is people would rather have immediate access to information using wikipedia. This may perhaps result in the replacement of the Encyclopedia Britannica. As time goes on, a much younger generation will take over. They might be told to use wikipedia for all information references. Maybe later down the road wikipedia will be replaced with something better.
Their once was a time I listened to music on a Sony walkman. I mean how else would I have listen to music.
I can also use the references that are located at the bottom of the wikipedia page. In some instances, these references may not be accurate. It is up to the reader to determine what to use and what to believe.
I am not saying that the Encyclopedia Britannica will one day mysteriously disappear like the Dodo bird. What I am saying is people would rather have immediate access to information using wikipedia. This may perhaps result in the replacement of the Encyclopedia Britannica. As time goes on, a much younger generation will take over. They might be told to use wikipedia for all information references. Maybe later down the road wikipedia will be replaced with something better.
Their once was a time I listened to music on a Sony walkman. I mean how else would I have listen to music.
Wiki vs Britt
Wikipedia and britt encyclopedia will always have their place and I think neither will push the other one out of the information race. I use Wikipedia on a regular basis to get my information and find it particularly useful for more current events. even though the information is updated by users but I think that's a good thing. If its continually up datable then it will never be outdated. Wikipedia also has a team of monitors that checks the updated information, so even if the information uploaded is false, it will be caught. This method over time can only be improved. Would I/do I use wikipedia for a research paper or use it for a scholoary journal? No but that doesn't mean that the information inst useful.
The encyclopedia is good for definite historical things like art history or etc because they really dont need to be updated like some things do, so I think both sources will have there purpose. The encyclopedia I feel like will be more trusting than wiki on somethings but the encyclopedia can only stretch so far I feel like. You can find probably the same information on Wikipedia but teachers and such I feel will always find as a more creditable source then wiki.
The encyclopedia is good for definite historical things like art history or etc because they really dont need to be updated like some things do, so I think both sources will have there purpose. The encyclopedia I feel like will be more trusting than wiki on somethings but the encyclopedia can only stretch so far I feel like. You can find probably the same information on Wikipedia but teachers and such I feel will always find as a more creditable source then wiki.
The Wisdom of Others
Online Communities and social networks can take advantage of the wisdom of crowds in numerous ways. Lets take social network marketing for example. If your business is thriving off of the consumer and they are posting comments as to what they would like to see and hear, it would be to your advantage as the marketer to follow or consider the advice.
It is also a way to show the development of trends, new products or entertainment that is slowly, but surely becoming popular. The products or entertainment that is new to the market is going to grow through word of mouth or posting the new found information online. The news will spread and soon a "new discovery" has been made through the popularization of the social networking crowd.
In ten years it is hard to say what will be most accurate. Wikipedia is composed of information added my numerous people but can provide more detailed information about a wider variety of topics since it comes from such a large variety of people. To judge the validity or true accuracy of their statements is the difficult part. Encyclopedia Britannica is something that is consistently updated, maybe not as quickly since it is printed, but can be used a valid source for writing material.
It is also a way to show the development of trends, new products or entertainment that is slowly, but surely becoming popular. The products or entertainment that is new to the market is going to grow through word of mouth or posting the new found information online. The news will spread and soon a "new discovery" has been made through the popularization of the social networking crowd.
In ten years it is hard to say what will be most accurate. Wikipedia is composed of information added my numerous people but can provide more detailed information about a wider variety of topics since it comes from such a large variety of people. To judge the validity or true accuracy of their statements is the difficult part. Encyclopedia Britannica is something that is consistently updated, maybe not as quickly since it is printed, but can be used a valid source for writing material.
Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen
Because I'm a working professional 40-45 hours a week, I can't help but relate discussions to my day-to-day. I read an article recently called, Why Design-By-Committee Should Die and there is quote by Michael Arrington, founder and co-editor of TechCrunch, that really stood out to me, "And when too many people have product input, you’ve got lots of features but no soul."
So in the workforce, just like online communities you run the risk of having too many cooks in kitchen. And when that happens you have to take the good with the bad and be resourceful enough to get a second opinion. Or a third. Or a fourth...
So in the workforce, just like online communities you run the risk of having too many cooks in kitchen. And when that happens you have to take the good with the bad and be resourceful enough to get a second opinion. Or a third. Or a fourth...
Wikipedia vs Encyclopedia
I feel as though wikipedia is a great resource for finding quick tid-bits about topics one is reasserting it is difficult to say weather or not the information is credible. An argument for wikipedia is that while the content is publicly driven it regulates itself because in people want to divulge the correct information. It also creates and interesting way of documenting history. Instead of few people deciding how history should be written the entire world community can pitch in and argue their point. The danger of a system like this that their are bound to be arguments about how something should be written.
Perhaps a medium between socially driven networks and for professional works like Encyclopedia Britannica could be found. Those who wish to post something on a site could still do so however perhaps wikipedia could have a section for the information that is actually credible and back by professional historians. I feel as though a common grown between the two types of media would be best. However in reality I believe that wikipedia will win out in the end. People are inherently lazy and they will flock to whatever is the easiest way of doing something is. Even if that way might not be the most credible way hence illegally downloading music.
Perhaps a medium between socially driven networks and for professional works like Encyclopedia Britannica could be found. Those who wish to post something on a site could still do so however perhaps wikipedia could have a section for the information that is actually credible and back by professional historians. I feel as though a common grown between the two types of media would be best. However in reality I believe that wikipedia will win out in the end. People are inherently lazy and they will flock to whatever is the easiest way of doing something is. Even if that way might not be the most credible way hence illegally downloading music.
Wikipedia / Britannica
In ten years I truly do believe that Wikipedia will be more accurate than Britannica. I even read a few years ago that Wikipedia already had more correct information on it than Britannica according to some report Google put forth. Even in this class a lot of the sources we read for these blogs are from Wikipedia. And as the audio file from npr.org stated, a lot of journalists and scholars use wikipedia as a primary source, but never admit to it. To be honest, I have gone to wikipedia and read an article searching for answers I needed, found them, and cited the website from which Wikipedia said the information came from; and I'm many others have done the same.
But as far as Wikipedia replacing Britannica goes, I doubt that will ever happen. Sure I believe Wikipedia will be better and more accurate, but there will always be those purists out there who will deny it as a reputable source, and will require students and journalists alike to collect their information from elsewhere. Another interesting point is the Britannica is a ".com" site, where as Wikipedia is a ".org" site. In the past I have been told, when doing research, to never cite a ".com" site, and only to use ".net, .org, or .edu"... So it'll be interesting to see where this goes in the next ten years.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Wikipedia vs Encyclopedia
The public has been using both the Encyclopedia and Wikipedia for information. More people are known to go straight for wikipedia since we most likely hear that rather than encyclopedia online. We can still use both online but it is just instinct to go to wikipedia since there is more talk about it. More people usually use wikipedia quickly and not for indepth research.
Personally I dont think Wikipedia will be taken over by the Encyclopedia because wikipedia isn't as reliable. Since anyone is able to update wikipedia the information can be based on opinions rather than facts, or "facts" that had been heard through stories not actual events. I know I use wikipedia for everyday reference but when I am doing a project and I need real facts I will not use it because of that fact. The way it is set up is a lot easier as well but I know that when it comes to finding real facts I will use what I know I should. I dont see wikipedia ever changing and becoming more accurate so I dont think that the encyclopedia will ever be obsolete.
Personally I dont think Wikipedia will be taken over by the Encyclopedia because wikipedia isn't as reliable. Since anyone is able to update wikipedia the information can be based on opinions rather than facts, or "facts" that had been heard through stories not actual events. I know I use wikipedia for everyday reference but when I am doing a project and I need real facts I will not use it because of that fact. The way it is set up is a lot easier as well but I know that when it comes to finding real facts I will use what I know I should. I dont see wikipedia ever changing and becoming more accurate so I dont think that the encyclopedia will ever be obsolete.
Wikipedia Will Evolve
Wikipedia is a place where almost all reports are started. If a student is required to do a research paper about something they have no clue about, they go to Wikipedia to get some information and a better understanding of the topic. Wikipedia is hated by teachers and professors for its user input system where anyone can post incorrect information. But what about the correct information. Can you cite Wikipedia if it is correct? I would if I knew I wasn't going to get an "F" for it. So I have to find that information somewhere else and almost lie about my sources so professors see me doing "the right thing" on sourcing. As said in the clip, most scholars rely on Wikipedia, its a dirty secret of theirs.
From this I feel that Wikipedia could evolve into a reputable source for information. It is already a good source for information but it can actually be something worth citing in a research paper. If the information is correct on Wikipedia and the writer using the information is wrong then it is the writer's fault for portraying the wrong meaning. But nonetheless, Wikipedia will evolve into a reputable source and notable asset for a majority of information.
From this I feel that Wikipedia could evolve into a reputable source for information. It is already a good source for information but it can actually be something worth citing in a research paper. If the information is correct on Wikipedia and the writer using the information is wrong then it is the writer's fault for portraying the wrong meaning. But nonetheless, Wikipedia will evolve into a reputable source and notable asset for a majority of information.
Wikipedia and Britannica
Both Wikipedia and Britannica are used by the general public. Wikipedia is primarily used more by people to answer quick questions and is normally frowned upon in classrooms by teachers and professors alike because the information given on wiki can be changed by anyone who is a member. Britannica is more detailed and researched driven however it is not something that people go to for everyday answers, normally they would go to for projects, research (help included), and other things in this category.
I personally feel that Wikipedia is not going to become more accurate in the next ten years unless they have professionals write the information instead of the general public so that information is not constantly changing because people disagree with what is already posted. Encyclopedia Britannica however might stand the chance of time and become more accurate over the years. The information derived from an encyclopedia is always going to be used by people for research and other information as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.britannica.com/
I personally feel that Wikipedia is not going to become more accurate in the next ten years unless they have professionals write the information instead of the general public so that information is not constantly changing because people disagree with what is already posted. Encyclopedia Britannica however might stand the chance of time and become more accurate over the years. The information derived from an encyclopedia is always going to be used by people for research and other information as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.britannica.com/
Creative Collective Intelligence
Every year the internet becomes more interwoven with collective creative processes. This is apparent not only on the larger scale of knowledge synthesis, in such sites like Wikipedia, but in the creative process of smaller collaborative arts as well. There are different levels of collaboration that vary in level of automation. In sites like Wikipedia, the system of rules in place on the site engineers a more or less effective collaboration of self motivated individuals who are very loosely interested in each others contributions. The smaller the scale, and the more contributers are willing to support the ideals of the collective intelligence, the more incredible result.
I recently read that one of the leading rock bands in the world, The Killers, was assembled using an open Craigslist.com ad. This is only one example of a wider trend of 'finding perfect matches' using the internet. More individuals are not willing to settle for the resources that are immediately available in their world, but use the internet to maintain contact with better human resources and create things that would not otherwise be possible. This is also evident in the dating site trend that now allows people to shop for compatibility before actually meeting the other human being. The downside can be a high probability of distortion of reality, but the upside is a much wider pool of possibility.
I now use the internet to kick recordings and art back and forth across great distances between musicians and artists, which can create amazing collaboration with very little effort or necessity of location.
I recently read that one of the leading rock bands in the world, The Killers, was assembled using an open Craigslist.com ad. This is only one example of a wider trend of 'finding perfect matches' using the internet. More individuals are not willing to settle for the resources that are immediately available in their world, but use the internet to maintain contact with better human resources and create things that would not otherwise be possible. This is also evident in the dating site trend that now allows people to shop for compatibility before actually meeting the other human being. The downside can be a high probability of distortion of reality, but the upside is a much wider pool of possibility.
I now use the internet to kick recordings and art back and forth across great distances between musicians and artists, which can create amazing collaboration with very little effort or necessity of location.
Social networks can take advantage of people
Yes, we all know that social networks can be beneficial, but it can also be unbeneficial and even dangerous.
Disadvantage:
- Sell our personal information to advertising companies
- Receive lots of junk emails
- Identity theft
Each day social networks collect so much of personal data from everyone. With knowing or not knowing, we let those applications to collect and share our data.
That is why we need to be conscious what kind of information we allow to share publicly such as birthday, address, and phone number. Lastly but most importantly has different username and password for different social networks.
Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica
I do not believe Wikipedia is the end of the Encyclopedia. Many do rely on wikipedia now a days more than the books in general. People don't even read as much as they used to because everything is made easier for them by being placing online for easy access. Wikipedia is a quick fix to find unreliable facts. People have become so dependent on wikipedia and for that reason have become lazy to do research for themselves. The encyclopedia goes much more into depth and in detail than Wikipedia whose information is editable by anyone who comes across it. While wikipedia is just a click away it is still quite limited. Many professors if any at that, do not allow wikipedia as a reliable source when doing research papers. That in it itself says a lot.
I too have gone to wikipedia for quick answers but understand it has it's limitations. The encycolpedia has it's strengths and weaknesses as well. By the time the latest encycolpedia comes out the information is already outdated. Still, it is down on paper and more reliable unlike wikipedia where it can be changed and revised day to day. When you go back to refer to your source online a different answer may appear. The encyclopedia can also be found online but some information is at a cost. They have access for those who prefer to use the web and those who prefer to have it the information in the palm of their hands.
In the end we have a choice. We can either choose to believe in those who place information on Wikipedia or believe in those who gather the facts and publish them in the encyclopedia. Either or we have to choose in what and who to believe in and make that our primary source.
http://www.britannica.com/
http://www.wikipedia.org/
I too have gone to wikipedia for quick answers but understand it has it's limitations. The encycolpedia has it's strengths and weaknesses as well. By the time the latest encycolpedia comes out the information is already outdated. Still, it is down on paper and more reliable unlike wikipedia where it can be changed and revised day to day. When you go back to refer to your source online a different answer may appear. The encyclopedia can also be found online but some information is at a cost. They have access for those who prefer to use the web and those who prefer to have it the information in the palm of their hands.
In the end we have a choice. We can either choose to believe in those who place information on Wikipedia or believe in those who gather the facts and publish them in the encyclopedia. Either or we have to choose in what and who to believe in and make that our primary source.
http://www.britannica.com/
http://www.wikipedia.org/
Social wisdom
The idea that people working together as a group can produce more beneficial results than any one singular person is more often than not a true statement. The online social communities of the internet have now given us endless examples of how people of varying backgrounds come together to solve problems and contribute valuable information. As well as showing us the exact opposite. Sites like Wikipedia that create their content from users and have been extremely successful at producing (for the most part) valuable and accurate data.
The keys to the success of harnessing a groups intelligence, according to James Surowieki, requires several things. First being is variety. the more varied your sources, the more the group will benefit from having an aggregation of think. A dash of random does wonders. Another key to success is to be sure that the group does assume intelligence in itself. People in nature tend heard towards the decisions of those that went first. The author uses the example of 2 identical restaurants across the street from one another. A couple walks by and chooses one based on no information, which is no big deal until the second couple walks by and sees the first couple inside one of the restaurants. 9 times out of 10 that couple will enter the same restaurant based on no other information except that people are already in that one and not the other. this then starts what is know as an information cascade. Where the right decision is socially accepted by the fact that everyone is already doing it. Which is one of the biggest cautions about trying to pull useful information from social/online networks. The best way to be a productive member of a network (according to James Surowieki ) is to keep your network loose. No not allow too few people to have too strong of an influence on your decisions. This way you will maintain most of your very valuable individuality and be of the greatest worth to the group.
The keys to the success of harnessing a groups intelligence, according to James Surowieki, requires several things. First being is variety. the more varied your sources, the more the group will benefit from having an aggregation of think. A dash of random does wonders. Another key to success is to be sure that the group does assume intelligence in itself. People in nature tend heard towards the decisions of those that went first. The author uses the example of 2 identical restaurants across the street from one another. A couple walks by and chooses one based on no information, which is no big deal until the second couple walks by and sees the first couple inside one of the restaurants. 9 times out of 10 that couple will enter the same restaurant based on no other information except that people are already in that one and not the other. this then starts what is know as an information cascade. Where the right decision is socially accepted by the fact that everyone is already doing it. Which is one of the biggest cautions about trying to pull useful information from social/online networks. The best way to be a productive member of a network (according to James Surowieki ) is to keep your network loose. No not allow too few people to have too strong of an influence on your decisions. This way you will maintain most of your very valuable individuality and be of the greatest worth to the group.
Wiki>Encyclopedia?
I believe that both the wiki and the encyclopedia have their place and neither will take over the other. I use wikipedia on a regular basis to get my information and find it particularly useful for more current events. Knowing that the information is up-dateable by users makes me feel like the topic will never be outdated. Wikipedia's site is monitored so I don't think too many faulty facts have much of a shelf life. As the user, I'm aware that the site is run by users so I take the information with a grain of salt. For some serious research it's probably not the most reliable but it can't hurt to gain a little personal knowledge from the site.
I rely on an encyclopedia for historic events because those are not changing in the least bit. The outcome of the Civil War will never change so why would the entry need to be updated? The events have happened and no one needs to edit or update the details. You can probably find the same information on Wikipedia but the encyclopedia is a more legitimate source. Wikipedia is gaining credibility but I don't think it will every be as widely credited as the encyclopedia.
I rely on an encyclopedia for historic events because those are not changing in the least bit. The outcome of the Civil War will never change so why would the entry need to be updated? The events have happened and no one needs to edit or update the details. You can probably find the same information on Wikipedia but the encyclopedia is a more legitimate source. Wikipedia is gaining credibility but I don't think it will every be as widely credited as the encyclopedia.
This Week's Assignment
Read:
http://news.com.com/Digg+continues+to+battle+phony+stories/2100-1025_3-6144652.html
Listen to:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10731811
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail468.html
Assignment:
Blog about one of these articles. Perhaps answer this:
How do you think online comm/social networks can take advantage of the wisdom of crowds?
What do you believe will be most accurate in ten years – Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica? Why?
http://news.com.com/Digg+continues+to+battle+phony+stories/2100-1025_3-6144652.html
Listen to:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10731811
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail468.html
Assignment:
Blog about one of these articles. Perhaps answer this:
How do you think online comm/social networks can take advantage of the wisdom of crowds?
What do you believe will be most accurate in ten years – Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica? Why?
Wikipedia vs Encyclopedia Britannica
I’m not sure who will be the most accurate, but I think both will grow more to be like the other. Wikipedia will find more ways to verify their content and Encyclopedia Britannica will find ways to appeal to the masses with a more extensive (& more current) wealth of knowledge as Wikipedia does. I use Wikipedia to look up random facts about pop culture. As a test, I searched for “Alicia Keys” in both encyclopedias. Encyclopedia Britannica had a 438 word article while Wikipedia had a 4000+ word article. Wikipedia even mentioned her giving birth to a baby boy not even a week ago. I think that’s the strength of Wikipedia. The weakness of Wikipedia is that I could edit Alicia Keys’ article to say that she gave birth to a green alien. :)
In the future, I think it would be great if Encyclopedia Britannica & Wikipedia became partners. People would visit Wikipedia first and then follow the link to Encyclopedia Britannica’s content to find more in-depth (and verified) information. Perhaps Encyclopedia Britannica could be the “fact checker” of Wikipedia.
Also I think it would be great if Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica created smaller encyclopedias based on specific subjects. Since I am still thinking about Alicia Keys, I’ll throw out that they should create an online encyclopedia of Hip Hop Culture that updates instantly like Wikipedia. I would subscribe to the RSS feed of that encyclopedia if it existed. Also I would consider purchasing the encyclopedia in printed form at the end of every year, if I knew that it was nicely designed, organized, and verified. Growing up, I remember people having printed encyclopedias, and bragging about having the newest encyclopedia collection in their home. Now it wouldnt surprise me if smaller library systems didnt have current encyclopedias.
In the future, I think it would be great if Encyclopedia Britannica & Wikipedia became partners. People would visit Wikipedia first and then follow the link to Encyclopedia Britannica’s content to find more in-depth (and verified) information. Perhaps Encyclopedia Britannica could be the “fact checker” of Wikipedia.
Also I think it would be great if Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica created smaller encyclopedias based on specific subjects. Since I am still thinking about Alicia Keys, I’ll throw out that they should create an online encyclopedia of Hip Hop Culture that updates instantly like Wikipedia. I would subscribe to the RSS feed of that encyclopedia if it existed. Also I would consider purchasing the encyclopedia in printed form at the end of every year, if I knew that it was nicely designed, organized, and verified. Growing up, I remember people having printed encyclopedias, and bragging about having the newest encyclopedia collection in their home. Now it wouldnt surprise me if smaller library systems didnt have current encyclopedias.
Wiki Rules
I feel that in ten years, Wikipedia will be the go to source for accurate information. I think that as time goes on, because Wikipedia is the go to source, a better way to weed out inaccurate posts will be developed therefor leaving us with a solid foundation for information. I remember in grade school, Encyclopedia Britannica was the go to source. But even then, when researching current topics, they were nowhere to be found in the encyclopedia.
Ironically I wiki'd Encyclopedia Britannica and learned that the editions only come out every 25 years or so. This is a ridiculously long time to wait to get the most up to date scholarly information. Even with new publications, each edition takes about 10 years to compile, which also adds to how inaccurate this reference can become. Even though wikipedia definitely has it's inaccuracies, at least an incorrect fact can be corrected instantly. Also, wikipedia contains the most up to date information.
I tested this theory by seeing what information they have for the Philadelphia Phillies. They have last week's NL East Championship listed in the stats and below the box it states that "These statistics are current as of October 11, 2010." I think this way of getting information is the quickest and best way to get information. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't stand a chance in our society. We expect instant results. Having to wait 25 years for the latest scholarly information sounds quite silly for someone who grew up with the internet boom and seeing how the world has evolved around current technology. I personally feel that wikipedia is an accurate way to get information. I'd rather rely on this source and risk being wrong than risk looking into an outdated, biased book.
Ironically I wiki'd Encyclopedia Britannica and learned that the editions only come out every 25 years or so. This is a ridiculously long time to wait to get the most up to date scholarly information. Even with new publications, each edition takes about 10 years to compile, which also adds to how inaccurate this reference can become. Even though wikipedia definitely has it's inaccuracies, at least an incorrect fact can be corrected instantly. Also, wikipedia contains the most up to date information.
I tested this theory by seeing what information they have for the Philadelphia Phillies. They have last week's NL East Championship listed in the stats and below the box it states that "These statistics are current as of October 11, 2010." I think this way of getting information is the quickest and best way to get information. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't stand a chance in our society. We expect instant results. Having to wait 25 years for the latest scholarly information sounds quite silly for someone who grew up with the internet boom and seeing how the world has evolved around current technology. I personally feel that wikipedia is an accurate way to get information. I'd rather rely on this source and risk being wrong than risk looking into an outdated, biased book.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
deviantart.com, redbubble.com
For the past year I have been a member of two social networking groups designed for artists, deviantart.com and redbubble.com.
The aim of both of these groups is art sales, printing, and merchandising, as well as to provide a forum for critique and fan building. Both sites take a portion of the print sales and ship merchandise to fans or the artists themselves. Artists get a discounted price on merchandise.
Redbubble is less well known, and particularly suited for an older crowd of more serious artists, particularly fine artists and vector-pop artists. The comments tend to be insightful and the art is generally well developed and original.
DeviantArt is a more popular site primarily populated by artists between 18 and 24 years old, and includes fan art. There is a larger amount of less developed artwork on deviantart, due to its popularity and its inclusiveness to fan-artists. DeviantArt has a wider variety of mediums than redbubble, including video and flash .swf files.
This article expresses the worry for low levels of copyright protection on DeviantArt.com :
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/05/29/art-theft-scandals-rock-deviantart/
As an example of the sites' services, here are my public profiles on each:
http://audiovisualsoul.deviantart.com/
http://www.redbubble.com/people/audiovisualsoul
http://audiovisualsoul.deviantart.com/
The aim of both of these groups is art sales, printing, and merchandising, as well as to provide a forum for critique and fan building. Both sites take a portion of the print sales and ship merchandise to fans or the artists themselves. Artists get a discounted price on merchandise.
Redbubble is less well known, and particularly suited for an older crowd of more serious artists, particularly fine artists and vector-pop artists. The comments tend to be insightful and the art is generally well developed and original.
DeviantArt is a more popular site primarily populated by artists between 18 and 24 years old, and includes fan art. There is a larger amount of less developed artwork on deviantart, due to its popularity and its inclusiveness to fan-artists. DeviantArt has a wider variety of mediums than redbubble, including video and flash .swf files.
This article expresses the worry for low levels of copyright protection on DeviantArt.com :
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/05/29/art-theft-scandals-rock-deviantart/
As an example of the sites' services, here are my public profiles on each:
http://audiovisualsoul.deviantart.com/
http://www.redbubble.com/people/audiovisualsoul
http://audiovisualsoul.deviantart.com/
I made a twitter account to see what it was about, Im already part of face book and had a myspace so I wanted to do something different. After trying twitter I'm not really impressed. Twitter is used to follow your friends or famous people or anyone in general and they post short little messages. If you ask me all this is is short AIM away messages saved and posted for people to "like or comment" on. You can tweet where you are, what your doing, what your eating, everything you give to the public is for them to see, if you choice to twitter can make your life a pretty open book.
Postings are usually no more than 1-2 sentences. For example this is a tweet from Chad OchoCinco, " Cooking a huge breakfast at home, 2 boiled eggs, 3 packs of Quaker Oats Peaches n Cream oatmeal and a big ass glass of Simply Orange OJ" This was tweeted at 9:49 AM Oct 10th. Now I know what Mr.OchoCinco eats for breakfasts when hes really hungry, the point? Not sure but it does have an interesting concept behind it, gets you a step closer to other people which is kind of cool.
Profiles are customizable to fit your attuitue/style and they can be colorful and different, Along with a profile picture this page becomes your own personal diary to say or do whatever you want really (within reason). Twitter is interesting to say at the least but its not for me.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/twitter/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=twitter&st=cse
Sorry this is late, I thought I hit the send button but missed it.
Postings are usually no more than 1-2 sentences. For example this is a tweet from Chad OchoCinco, " Cooking a huge breakfast at home, 2 boiled eggs, 3 packs of Quaker Oats Peaches n Cream oatmeal and a big ass glass of Simply Orange OJ" This was tweeted at 9:49 AM Oct 10th. Now I know what Mr.OchoCinco eats for breakfasts when hes really hungry, the point? Not sure but it does have an interesting concept behind it, gets you a step closer to other people which is kind of cool.
Profiles are customizable to fit your attuitue/style and they can be colorful and different, Along with a profile picture this page becomes your own personal diary to say or do whatever you want really (within reason). Twitter is interesting to say at the least but its not for me.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/twitter/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=twitter&st=cse
Sorry this is late, I thought I hit the send button but missed it.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Do You Know Anyone Still on MySpace?
Myspace.com was once the country’s leading social network. Now it is losing users according to an article found in the New York Times. This is obviously old news considering many people here at this university can’t remember the last time they logged on to their MySpace account. Matter of fact, a lot of people can’t remember their account login name or password because it’s been years since they last logged on.
The article mentions that when generally talking about social media, Facebook comes up in the conversation and MySpace never does. The article also mentions that the only time MySpace is mentioned is when someone is referring to a band or a musician. I for one still have a MySpace and mostly visit the page to check out new musicians and get free downloads of EP’s or find out when a band will be touring.
When I recently logged on to MySpace, I visited pages of bands I typically like to follow, checked pages of friends to see when was the last time they logged on (which looks like I’m the only one left), and tried to browse through people I didn’t know. For the most portion of MySpace many users set their pages to private (including myself). As for bands and comedians, the user is free to browse as much as they want. MySpace seems to be leaning more towards the entertainment side of things rather then connecting with your friends instantly like Facebook.
Here are some interesting quotes taken from the New York Times article.
“Clearly there is some inertia in social networking. You’ll be lonely if you are the first one of your friends to move to a new site. But MySpace always had a bit of a disco feel to it, and I wonder if it is simply vulnerable to changing fashion.” -SAUL HANSELL
“Three years ago, I quoted Heather Candella, a college student from Sloatsburg, N.Y., saying “When you meet someone, the question is not ‘What’s your number? It’s ‘What’s your MySpace?’ ” -SAUL HANSELL
Do any of you ask people any more “What’s your MySpace?” -SAUL HANSELL
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/do-you-know-anyone-still-on-myspace/?scp=5&sq=myspace&st=Search
The article mentions that when generally talking about social media, Facebook comes up in the conversation and MySpace never does. The article also mentions that the only time MySpace is mentioned is when someone is referring to a band or a musician. I for one still have a MySpace and mostly visit the page to check out new musicians and get free downloads of EP’s or find out when a band will be touring.
When I recently logged on to MySpace, I visited pages of bands I typically like to follow, checked pages of friends to see when was the last time they logged on (which looks like I’m the only one left), and tried to browse through people I didn’t know. For the most portion of MySpace many users set their pages to private (including myself). As for bands and comedians, the user is free to browse as much as they want. MySpace seems to be leaning more towards the entertainment side of things rather then connecting with your friends instantly like Facebook.
Here are some interesting quotes taken from the New York Times article.
“Clearly there is some inertia in social networking. You’ll be lonely if you are the first one of your friends to move to a new site. But MySpace always had a bit of a disco feel to it, and I wonder if it is simply vulnerable to changing fashion.” -SAUL HANSELL
“Three years ago, I quoted Heather Candella, a college student from Sloatsburg, N.Y., saying “When you meet someone, the question is not ‘What’s your number? It’s ‘What’s your MySpace?’ ” -SAUL HANSELL
Do any of you ask people any more “What’s your MySpace?” -SAUL HANSELL
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/do-you-know-anyone-still-on-myspace/?scp=5&sq=myspace&st=Search
Poop the world
One day as I was walking through the city, I found myself in dire need of a bathroom, but didnt know where I could go. I thought to myself, wouldent it be great if there was an app that would tell you where all of the closest places to use the bathroom are? So I googled it and low and behold, There is an app for that.
You can read all about it in an article from PC called
"There's An App For That!? Track Your 'Movements' With 'Poop The World'"
http://www.pcworld.com/article/169763/theres_an_app_for_that_track_your_movements_with_poop_the_world.html
The app uses the iphones GPS to allow users to locate nearyby restrooms, Give ratings, share the details of their movement, and even keep tabs on which one of their friends is poo'ing the most. When you post something from your iphone it automaticly puts it up on the website
http://www.pooptheworld.com/
The app can now interact with facebook and twitter, and they have their own blog
http://www.pooptheworld.com/blog/
It seems like there is an online community for everything these days, It really makes you wonder what comes next?
Facebook is by far the largest social network. It was founded in 2004 by Harvard student Mark Zucjerberg. Facebook was only open to college students at one point but it became so popular that everyone was then allowed to join. There are currently 500 million users on facebook and many more continue to register daily.
There was a movie filmed called "The Social Network". There are currently legal disputes between founder Zuckerberg and four classmates whom say Facebook was their idea. As always people want to get credit for something when it becomes popular. This type of CMS was just a class assignment but the question still remains of whom is the real creator. This reminds me of our last assignment of copyrighting and patenting your ideas. They should have been taught as we are currently being taught to protect their ideas. I guess Harvard did not thoroughly teach their students the fundamentals to prepare them for the real world.
Trends come and go but for some odd reason I believe Facebook is here to stay. This social network will be around for much time to come or until something bigger comes along. With the way technology is coming along these days i due time someone will come up with a better idea.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/facebook_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org
There was a movie filmed called "The Social Network". There are currently legal disputes between founder Zuckerberg and four classmates whom say Facebook was their idea. As always people want to get credit for something when it becomes popular. This type of CMS was just a class assignment but the question still remains of whom is the real creator. This reminds me of our last assignment of copyrighting and patenting your ideas. They should have been taught as we are currently being taught to protect their ideas. I guess Harvard did not thoroughly teach their students the fundamentals to prepare them for the real world.
Trends come and go but for some odd reason I believe Facebook is here to stay. This social network will be around for much time to come or until something bigger comes along. With the way technology is coming along these days i due time someone will come up with a better idea.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/facebook_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org
The Danger of Facebook Places
Facebook places is a fairly new application that allows members of Facebook to post their locations on everyone's news feeds. It's gaining popularity in the Facebook community, and you can access it from your phone. I read an article about how they're advising military personnel not to use Facebook Places, as it is extremely easy for anyone to locate them. This puts them in unnecessary danger. Although Places is a fun, probably harmless add on to Facebook, its probably best for people that could be potential targets (military, political figures) to not bother with it. Its important to note that you can choose to not allow people to tag you when they're with you and they're using Places. When technology allows for these new types of community interaction to take place, there are always going to be careless mistakes that may put people in danger. this is The Facebook of blogging.
I don't get very involved with most internet communities because I think if i did, my time would be completely consumed. But i have been on a few (and i agree with the post below, chatroulette is not a place to ever visit unless you're looking for that 80%) and i regularly use facebook. Everyone knows what it is (it even has its own movie now), its a place to put yourself out there on the big wide world of the internet and have other people acknowledge you're there through comments, pictures and status updates etc. I think it's a good thing. There's nothing wrong with keeping in touch with your friends from close by and far away-- in moderation. However for most people thats not entirely the case.
Facebook has become the giant monopoly of social networking. And now after reading the article it seems it has now become a coined term for anything that lives up to that level. For example "Webster is the Facebook of dictionaries" This means its the topnotch, most used and referred to. Google is the Facebook for searching, urbandictionary is the Facebook for slang terms. You get it. It has become more than a social network. It's a state of being. If you are the Facebook, you are pretty damn awesome. And to be honest I don't know if this is cool or just scary.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9190261/Seems_everything_is_the_Facebook_of_something
Technological Interaction
I read an article called Keeping Our Distance, The Facebook Way. The author Damon Darlin discusses how Facebooks enables the current generation to know what is going on in other peoples lives with out the hassle of actually talking to the person or going to see the other person. Making it easier for people to become detached for actual human interaction due to the fact that it is not as efficient as interacting through social networks. He then goes on to argue how technology is making human interaction less and less frequent in hopes of making everything more convenient and efficient.
While I do use Facebook and check it almost everyday I don’t really use it to interact with anyone a great deal. I find it more of a hassle to write on someones wall then it is to text them. I do comment of the occasional picture but I am no where near at the level of the average Facebook user. To me it is more like just another email account I check every day just to see what messages I received and respond if needed. After reading Darlin’s article one sentence stuck out in my mind: “After all, technology has a grand tradition of distancing people from one another for the sake of efficiency.” This quote stuck out because it is quite a suggestive quote. One that I do not completely agree with. Technology in many ways brings people closer more then ever. Today people can have friendships with people half way around the world and even see them with out ever meeting them in person. Perhaps the ability to connect with so many people deprives us of more intimate relationships. Due to the fact that today's world encourages us and enables us to interact with as many people as possible.
While I do use Facebook and check it almost everyday I don’t really use it to interact with anyone a great deal. I find it more of a hassle to write on someones wall then it is to text them. I do comment of the occasional picture but I am no where near at the level of the average Facebook user. To me it is more like just another email account I check every day just to see what messages I received and respond if needed. After reading Darlin’s article one sentence stuck out in my mind: “After all, technology has a grand tradition of distancing people from one another for the sake of efficiency.” This quote stuck out because it is quite a suggestive quote. One that I do not completely agree with. Technology in many ways brings people closer more then ever. Today people can have friendships with people half way around the world and even see them with out ever meeting them in person. Perhaps the ability to connect with so many people deprives us of more intimate relationships. Due to the fact that today's world encourages us and enables us to interact with as many people as possible.
Online Community
My little sister and I are members of this online community called LiveJournal a virtual community where users can keep a blog or journal about their daily live experiences, share common interests, and meet new people. I like this site because each day someone would post a question for users to comment and/or read other people comments. Today's question is “What is your favorite John Lennon song, and why?” This site is good for expressing your feelings and thoughts by writing it online instead of writing it on paper.
The article I read is called “LiveJournal Integrates with Facebook.” It’s about this new feature that the LiveJournal is offering to their users. Their users can cross-post comments with other social networks such as Facebook or Twitter. However, the majority of LiveJournal users dislikes it and don’t want it to occur. They prefer it to be separated from other social networks because they want to keep their online journals comments private for themselves or for their closest family and friends.
I consider myself a private person, but I don’t mind the cross-post comments with Facebook or twitter as long as I have the options to allow or not allow others to read my post. And the other thing is while I’m checking out Facebook or Twitter; I can also checkout LiveJournals all in the same site. How convenient!
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Instant News
I found an article on mashable.com called “Social Networks Dominate Online News Distribution”. To sum up the article, it says that 43% of online news sharing occurs through social networking. Then it goes on to say how the average person shares 13 news stories a week. I found this intriguing because I usually get my news via my facebook wall feed. I’ve found that I’ve begun to rely on my newsfeed to keep me current on ongoing topics. I’ve been liking more and more fan pages that generate daily news just to get the most up to date news possible. I’ve even been trying to log in to twitter daily, just to check the trending topics to see if there is anything going on that I haven’t heard about.
When a breaking news event happens, the way I hear about it is someone sharing the story via facebook. If it wasn’t for social networks, I’d probably turn towards another sources, but with the instant updates through social networks, there is no need to go to other sources, especially when I am already on a page like facebook; it’s like killing two birds with one stone!
I feel what I read and what I experience are very accurate. The next highest source of news sharing is email, which I also feel is accurate, because I definitely share and receive current event updates through my email. What’s great about news sharing via social networks is that privacy setting don’t matter. As long as you’re friends with a person, you can see their current newsfeed. Also, once a link is posted, it’s just a click away to read the story if one chooses to. Instant news, with little effort, why would anyone want to get their news any other way?!
When a breaking news event happens, the way I hear about it is someone sharing the story via facebook. If it wasn’t for social networks, I’d probably turn towards another sources, but with the instant updates through social networks, there is no need to go to other sources, especially when I am already on a page like facebook; it’s like killing two birds with one stone!
I feel what I read and what I experience are very accurate. The next highest source of news sharing is email, which I also feel is accurate, because I definitely share and receive current event updates through my email. What’s great about news sharing via social networks is that privacy setting don’t matter. As long as you’re friends with a person, you can see their current newsfeed. Also, once a link is posted, it’s just a click away to read the story if one chooses to. Instant news, with little effort, why would anyone want to get their news any other way?!
I'm Mayor!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/fashion/19foursquare.html?pagewanted=1&sq=four%20square&st=cse&scp=6
I actually recently became a member of foursquare along with Sarah to learn more about different social medias out there. Foursquare is an interesting social network. As a member you can sign in to the area that you are currently at. If you do it enough you could even become mayor of that area. "Even more baffling is why users have become so emotionally invested in being a mayor, as there are few, if any, tangible benefits. While some bars award free beer and some shops give small discounts as a marketing ploy, the majority do not"( Who Elected Me Mayor? I Did). I personally haven't become crazed like that; I will admit I do feel a bit of it when I travel across campus using it and feeling anxious if I could take over as mayor, but that feeling dies soon after.
After reading different articles (before choosing the one above) it was to my surprise that businesses push their employers to use foursquare, they also look into foursqaure to see where people are and what they want. "With the new tool, businesses will be able to see a range of real-time data about Foursquare usage, including who has “checked in” to the place via Foursquare, when they arrived, the male-to-female customer ratio and which times of day are more active for certain customers. Business owners will also be able to offer instant promotions to try to engage new customers and keep current ones"(Foursquare Introduces New Tools for Businesses). Some businesses go as far as giving out incentives to frequent costumers.
I actually recently became a member of foursquare along with Sarah to learn more about different social medias out there. Foursquare is an interesting social network. As a member you can sign in to the area that you are currently at. If you do it enough you could even become mayor of that area. "Even more baffling is why users have become so emotionally invested in being a mayor, as there are few, if any, tangible benefits. While some bars award free beer and some shops give small discounts as a marketing ploy, the majority do not"( Who Elected Me Mayor? I Did). I personally haven't become crazed like that; I will admit I do feel a bit of it when I travel across campus using it and feeling anxious if I could take over as mayor, but that feeling dies soon after.
After reading different articles (before choosing the one above) it was to my surprise that businesses push their employers to use foursquare, they also look into foursqaure to see where people are and what they want. "With the new tool, businesses will be able to see a range of real-time data about Foursquare usage, including who has “checked in” to the place via Foursquare, when they arrived, the male-to-female customer ratio and which times of day are more active for certain customers. Business owners will also be able to offer instant promotions to try to engage new customers and keep current ones"(Foursquare Introduces New Tools for Businesses). Some businesses go as far as giving out incentives to frequent costumers.
The new Groups of Facebook
http://mashable.com/2010/10/06/facebook-groups-2/
For a while now facebook has been announcing its new Group features that is going to add a whole new set of functionality to the site. The biggest new feature is the Group Chat which is exactly what it sounds like. Now people of the same group can chat with each other simultaneously. Until this is added the only form of group communication that people can share are posting to a groups wall. Other features include new security settings which allow you 3 levels of privacy ( Open, Closed, and Secret) and another feature (if I read this correctly) allows a postable doc file which is editable and updatable by any member.
Everyone could always share information to each other, but in a very static way through the posting of information. Now that we will be able to talk live with groups of people through the largest online community on the earth a whole new group of users may begin to show themselves on facebook. Online facebook meetings with the your coworkers? maybe.
For a while now facebook has been announcing its new Group features that is going to add a whole new set of functionality to the site. The biggest new feature is the Group Chat which is exactly what it sounds like. Now people of the same group can chat with each other simultaneously. Until this is added the only form of group communication that people can share are posting to a groups wall. Other features include new security settings which allow you 3 levels of privacy ( Open, Closed, and Secret) and another feature (if I read this correctly) allows a postable doc file which is editable and updatable by any member.
Everyone could always share information to each other, but in a very static way through the posting of information. Now that we will be able to talk live with groups of people through the largest online community on the earth a whole new group of users may begin to show themselves on facebook. Online facebook meetings with the your coworkers? maybe.
Foursquare
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/technology/internet/19foursquare.html
Foursquare is an online community where you are able to speak with your friends about where you are and what you are doing. When you are in this community you log in where you are at certain times and then you are able to see where other people are and what they are doing. Then you can leave comments about the place or other places close by. This turns into a slight game becuase you are trying to check in as many places as you can so you can earn more badges. As you check into these places you become a mayor (which is the highest rank) and that means you have been there the most times. This is all linked to gps tracking in the mobile devices. Many people have mixed feelings about communities like this because they give away your location and what you are doing.
This article talks about the growing of this community and how things like this are catching on and can lead to more face to face communications. People are beginning to see where you are and who you are with so that you can find more people with the same interests as you have. Which is a bonus when it comes to apps like these because you can make more social connections.
Foursquare is an online community where you are able to speak with your friends about where you are and what you are doing. When you are in this community you log in where you are at certain times and then you are able to see where other people are and what they are doing. Then you can leave comments about the place or other places close by. This turns into a slight game becuase you are trying to check in as many places as you can so you can earn more badges. As you check into these places you become a mayor (which is the highest rank) and that means you have been there the most times. This is all linked to gps tracking in the mobile devices. Many people have mixed feelings about communities like this because they give away your location and what you are doing.
This article talks about the growing of this community and how things like this are catching on and can lead to more face to face communications. People are beginning to see where you are and who you are with so that you can find more people with the same interests as you have. Which is a bonus when it comes to apps like these because you can make more social connections.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Life and Death of Online Communities... how will they be archived?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/08/map-of-online-communities-2010_n_755545.html
This link is a map, just for fun, of Online Communities, but I still feel it is a pretty accurate representation of what people use today.
I also read and article about the Life and Death of Online Communities. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=neo_cities It was quite interesting to read, even though it was published a year ago, it focused on the end of GeoCities, a popular online community from the early 90's. Towards the end of the article, someone asked, how do you archive bits? There is no method to archive bits, but if you wanted to print something out on paper with a good quality ink, you can read it in 50 years. However, with modern technology Bruce Sterling noted, "Tape demagnetizes. CDs delaminate. Networks go down." So what happens to an online community when it is retired? Who owns the rights to the content since it comes from all different sources? It is an interesting topic to think over... I highly doubt this would happen anytime soon, but how much would the work force change and communication among humans change if there were no longer online communities. Would we all be lost? Or would something greater have come along by then?
This link is a map, just for fun, of Online Communities, but I still feel it is a pretty accurate representation of what people use today.
I also read and article about the Life and Death of Online Communities. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=neo_cities It was quite interesting to read, even though it was published a year ago, it focused on the end of GeoCities, a popular online community from the early 90's. Towards the end of the article, someone asked, how do you archive bits? There is no method to archive bits, but if you wanted to print something out on paper with a good quality ink, you can read it in 50 years. However, with modern technology Bruce Sterling noted, "Tape demagnetizes. CDs delaminate. Networks go down." So what happens to an online community when it is retired? Who owns the rights to the content since it comes from all different sources? It is an interesting topic to think over... I highly doubt this would happen anytime soon, but how much would the work force change and communication among humans change if there were no longer online communities. Would we all be lost? Or would something greater have come along by then?
Friday, October 8, 2010
NYT Twitter
This week I read an article about Twitter from the New York times back in January. This article, Why Twitter Will Endure, spoke about the lasting power that Twitter has It's not the mindless social networking site that people assumed it was after it's 2007 launch. The author writes about how useful Twitter can be and the way it's changed his daily routine. He no longer surfs the web, checks his RSS feed or scans news sites because he can find the latest headlines that are relevant to him all in a few minutes.
When Twitter was launched no one thought that a short burst of text would be satisfying to anyone, who cares that you're watching TV or taking out the trash. Being a Twitter user I could care less about the mindless tasks people do throughout the day so I don't follow people who post that way. You can modify who you follow so you're getting the most relevant and interesting tweets as possible. I follow people and companies that I'm interested in and 9 times out of 10 their posts are something I want to read. Companies are getting loads of marketing through twitter with giveaways and discounts to followers, as well as a fair amount of feedback from other tweeters. It's a win win situation for the follower and the user.
Being a tweeter I agree with the NYT assessment of Twitter: it will be around for a while. Once people figure out how to use Twitter to benefit themselves then they are hooked. I no longer mindlessly surf the web, I go on Twitter and check out the websites other people are posting, because chances are it will interest me as well. I've chosen who is in my online community and can kick people out if I want too. Twitter has the staying power to be a great social network.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)