Category Archives: data mine

Data pooling or data streaming in social networking

Facebook logo
Image via Wikipedia

Over the last few months, my startup has really been taking off so we have been working on different ways to engage with our audiences. We have two distinct startups – one an ebook publishing firm, and one a comic book seller.

What has been interesting to see though is that as we turn on social components, we see a pooling behavior in the way that the data is presented rather than a streaming behavior depending on the system. Facebook seems to handle data streaming better, while Twitter and FriendFeed tend to pool data then carpet bomb the reader with a ton of stuff.

This seems to be based on the polling cycle of the systems involved. If Facebook is indeed better at streaming in near real time what is being posted at all the web sites we are using, then the overhead in processing is going to be fairly large as there is a near continuous polling cycle. While twitter and FriendFeed seem to have inbuilt delays into their polling cycle, meaning the carpet bombing effect. Which from my viewpoint as a startup owner is a net negative, as it is our belief that no reader wants to be carpet bombed with data as the polling cycle catches up with the post or comment rate on customer and potential customer engagement.

While the net effect remains to be seen, it is an interesting observation on how social networking components work, either as a pool of data (carpet bombing) delivered all at once to the reader, or as a steady stream of data that updates in near real time. It would be interesting to see how people relate to the idea of data pooling with a rapid release or a steady stream of data throughout the day. If you have a preference, talk about it here.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Promiscuous online culture changing social interactions

Panopticon
Image by andygates via Flickr

If you do not read O’Reilly Radar – you might want to subscribe. This morning O’Reilly Radar was bringing up the idea of how social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, FriendFeed and others are changing not just how we hire, but how we determine credibility and trustworthiness in the communities we interact with.

What is interesting in the O’Reilly article this morning was the discussion around security clearances for the military and for contractors. The security clearance routine is almost a rite of passage, if you want to work in government or the military as anything you have to be deemed trustworthy by a series of investigations. The more secret squirrel information you are going to see, the higher the clearance level, and the deeper the investigation into your past, your activities, and your beliefs. Anyone who as sat through the “lifestyles” polygraph test can attest to some very interesting questions that are designed to elicit a reaction from the person taking the polygraph. It was one of my more unique experiences that I can never talk about.

What was very cool about my military experience is that I was literally living with anywhere from 7 to 175 of my closest newest friends depending on where I was and what team I was with. The military attempts to foster a deep sense of loyalty to not just the people you will fight and die alongside, but a sense of trust throughout the entire community from your immediate supervisor all the way through the President. But it was all based on “trust but verify”. Your clearance was the “verify” part of the process.

The military experience is one with a very small town feeling, we all know our neighbors, we all live in a fish barrel, and if you have a clearance, in many ways you are living in a fishbowl. Everyone knows everything about you that you have publicly and in many cases privately stated. It is the old TV Show “Cheers, where everyone knows your name”. Cheers monetized alcoholism, Facebook wants to monetize conformity into a social norm based on a person’s stated friends, likes, and interests. Either way there is a monitization component to the process that might offend folks, and indeed does raise worries about what web sites are doing and how people are tracked across the internet.

Facebook is offering a “panopticon” into your life, the more you share the more you are part of the “group”. This is the same kind of social pressure to conform that happens in high school or in other groups where norms can be enforced publicly. Military people, especially military people with high level clearances will get this concept immediately. Kids in High School will get this immediately, the pressure to conform and be like anyone or everyone else is what Facebook is offering, under the gentle guidance of having what you do so immediately public that deviation from the societal norm could result in losing a job, or a clearance, or friends.

The panopticon can be many things, but as we move deeper into social networking we are going to learn things about each other that will homogenize us into the populations that we deal with on a daily basis. Those that fall outside the norm behaviorally or socially within that small group of people will quickly be drummed out of the group. Internet consumers already have a long experience with this by combating trolls from the early days of the internet. Facebook simply provides us a one stop shop, are they really all that they seem; are they socially and culturally going to fit into the culture/society of the work place? Are they who they state they are?

Clearances aside, we have plunged head first into this world without a safety net, without guidelines, and without any recourse under law that is firmly established to protect people or keep companies from building the “walled garden” panopticon that social networking can represent. When the CEO of the major social network states they do not believe in privacy, that organization will implement the fishbowl process that we see with government and security clearances. We all know everything about each other, and we know how startlingly similar we really are, regardless of where we are in the world.

The thing we need to remember, and the thing that we seem to continually forget is that anything we post on the internet is public. If we are going to understand this we need to start hammering this message home as much as we hammered home the message “don’t click on that attachment in email”. While education will not solve all problems, there are still people who click on those enticing email attachments, it is at least a start. The public debate we are having now is good, but it is time to start reminding people that what they post is public, open to public interpretation, and societal pressures to conform to societies determination of what is right and appropriate behavior. We see this in military communities around the world, including those with security clearances. This small town fishbowl is starting to be incorporated into everyday lives, how we live, what we do, where we go, what movies we watch, what music we listen to, and even to what we had for dinner.

The good thing about the internet is you can find a support group for just about anything, the question is how much do you want to post about yourself, and how much do you want people to really know about you?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Jesse Stay hits the Copyright Wall

Jesse Stay is one of the better people to follow on the internet and his writing is always interesting to read, plus he also owns Social Too and has written two books as well. Jesse is no stranger to generating content, startups, and some generally interesting reading on his blog. What has apparently happened is that Jessie has noticed that Google is stripping his ads off his RSS feed, shoving his full content into Buzz, and then monetizing the content without Jessie getting a dime. As he states on his blog today

To be clear, I’m fine with them either displaying the ads that I put there (and allowing me to monetize off the other ads that are on the page), or just summarizing the article and encouraging users to click through to my site. I’m not okay with Google scraping my content, stripping my ads, altering my content, and pushing it out for them to get 100% of the revenues off of something I spent time and money making. Source: Stayin’ Alive

What makes this interesting to me is that there seems to be two types of copyright, copyright for big corporations under the rule of Law like the DMCA, and the forthcoming ACTA (which should scare you if you read Micheal Geist), then there is copyright for the rest of us. Bloggers who deal with scrapers is a daily issue. What makes this more interesting is the number of headlines from such companies as the MPAA who had to remove the MPAA Toolkit for copyright infringement. There is the long drawn out battle between Shepard Fairey and the AP over a picture of Obama where copyright was clearly in dispute over who owned what. Pictures of Obama being used in Fashion Ads. There is a 15 year old Dallas student who without permission find their pictures ripped from Flickr and used in an advertising campaign in Australia. Or even big media companies like ESPN playing commercials that used pictures that did not belong to them and the owner was not compensated. Google is no new comer to this controversy – they are desperately trying to get a book settlement through the courts that allows them to scan books that are without findable owners and drop them into their search system.

Jessie, and indeed many bloggers and people who actually do create new content are at the rock and hard place. While it great to add a CC 2.0 share and share alike copyright, or even insist on full copyright of all materials on our blogs, the reality is that many people are trying to make money off of what creators write. It is not just limited to shady scrapers, it has permeated the entire culture, we scrape we make money. It is everywhere, my fair share notification each week shows me tens of sites that scrape every single article I write. I have only authorized two sites to use content from my two original blogs.

This is where things get interesting, and where it might be time for bloggers to take a deep look at what is happening to our content on the internet. How it is used, who uses it and who monetizes it. How we share monetization from the major advertising systems that use our content to make money. How we view full text feeds which are popular and in many cases necessary to keep readers. I do not recommend a RIAA/MPAA style pogrom, but a deep research project in how much money is really made by others monetizing content while the creators get little or nothing. We might find that we are ahead of the game or behind the game, but maybe it is time to seriously look at the blogging model we have now, and see if there is a way to ensure that the few copyrights we do have are respected and not subverted by a larger company.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

You might have noticed that I turned off Ads here is Why

Search Engine Land Traffic Stats: December 2006
Image by dannysullivan via Flickr

For those of you who noticed that I turned off ads on my web site there is one simple practical reason for doing so, and it is all about the people who visit the web site. Not that I turned off ads only for my readers, but I made a decision based on engagement numbers out of Google Analytics.

Like most people, I track how people engage with my web site, and a surprising number shows up in my analytics regardless of what the date range is.

That is not the only reason, but on a couple of other web sites (almost across the board regardless of where or who the websites are) the numbers are the same.

Given that across the web sites most people hang out on site with barely enough time for the page to load (call it five seconds on average) having ads on site is a complete waste of time. I am focusing on 17% of the population that hangs around long enough for the page to load, then expecting click through on an ad for those that actually stop to read the article, or somewhere around 10% of all visitors that hang around long enough for the page to load and might actually read the article. Realistically then, given the data analysis I did when I did my five year old birthday message, only 6.25% of all my readers hang around long enough and of those only 1% or .625 people per day are going to click on an ad on the site.

That is not enough even with the millions of people who have read what I had to say to justify taking up space on the blog for ads. Turning them off an improving load times by running a streamlined template and adding things that really mattered to me was more important than the statistical improbability of someone clicking on an add on a site that I run own and operate.

This is also probably the ugly truth across not just my web sites but also many of the web sites out there, and one of the reasons that VC’s are starting to shun companies that have based their revenue model on advertising alone. It would be interesting to hear about others engagement and length of visit stories and find out if my model holds true across a wide variety of properties, not just blogs.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Social Media as Storytelling

Making Friends - Marketing Cartoon
Image by HubSpot via Flickr

The more I look at social media, the more it reminds me of storytelling. A person can be telling stories around a camp fire with a small audience, or telling stories around the world in mass releases of information. The better the story the more people that will engage with the subject and the better your social media efforts will be. Social media people must be excellent story tellers that can engage and get an audience participate in the story so that it becomes theirs.

The major issues with that are getting people to do an action. We are passive by nature, and you can see this in a great many things that we do, we are numb already, we find it difficult to take action as evidenced by this attack in the Seattle Metro Tunnel – people including those in authority stood by as a young 15 year old girl was attacked. The public outcry afterwards was a form of action, but our numb inactive society in the USA precludes people participating in the story. We view everything as a passive information flow from the computer or TV to our brains to be digested. Honestly under the good Samaritan laws I would have been in the middle of this trying to keep the two people apart screaming for the cops, but then that is the kind of person I am, I am rarely passive in my actions.

You can see a different form of call to action with Conversation Marketing supporting a Portland Oregon SEO firm that was attacked by a Colorado based SEO firm. But the call fell short when I read all the information on it, it seems that the whole thing is unhappy, but not a story that I will get involved with.

Then the final kind of argument that resonates and hits me where my belief system lives, and that is in Amber Naslund (From Altitude) where she talks about Social Media and Accountability. She spins a down to earth story in that yes we really can do the things we need to do to be measurable and accountable, even if we do not want to. This is a story I can dive into and feel the need to respond, even if there is not a good response other than “hear hear”.

Sometimes all we can do is agree with the story teller, other times we fail to engage because it seems like both parties were at fault, and in other ways we are so outraged that we have to do something. This is the art of good story telling, you get the response you need by how well you tell the story.

If you look at Dairy Queen as a case study and go back to all the places that DQ invested in, their blog, Facebook, and other systems, they are telling a story. But they are telling everyone’s story as they encounter the brand. You see behind the scenes processes and real people with pictures, contests, prizes and the ability to connect with DQ on a level that is impossible when you walk into the store. The story telling on the DQ Blog is enough to lead someone to the belief that they are real people doing real things to bring you tasty treats. Dairy Queen has made an art form of storytelling on the systems that they engage in. The approaches that DQ takes in their social media process is low key, responsible, providing an opportunity for people to engage on a much deeper level than walking into the local DQ and ordering a Blizzard.

It is the social media that fails that we see where the art of storytelling has failed. You see this in the thousands of fly by night twitter accounts, failed blogs and failed outposts in Facebook. It was not that these people did not have a story, but that the story being told failed to engage the audience. Of course there is always the chance at twitter millions for 29.99 (just drop a check in the mail), but you have to take a look at social media not only by what can be measured, but by what story you are trying to tell.

If you are a university and you want to talk about student life, do not just tell everyone about the great benefits that students have interview people and get their stories, post pictures of student life, have a podcast, have an outpost on Facebook for students, and engage students in how they access and consume information. If you are running an active student life section, do not forget the calendar to show what is coming next so that people can make plans to attend. Student life is not your life, it is theirs and they should be telling the story. You are simply the person in the middle that is writing text and editing audio and video segments.

This brings me to the many open jobs I have seen in social media over the last 90 days, because companies are starting to get serious about being on board with social media. I looked over a couple of the job openings and the first question I had is what is the companies’ story? You can go visit their web site and see what they do, you can go visit Glassdoor and Jobvent to see how happy the employees are, you can talk to current employees via Facebook or LinkedIn. But you do not get the companies stories; you get individual stories about the company through the lens of job satisfaction. This often leads to thoughts on corporate reputation management which in some ways what corporate level social networking is also all about.

On two different sides we are telling stories, we tell stories to tell what a responsible corporation we are (brand management) and we tell stories to engage people into action (to sell stuff). The question we need to start asking now of our social networking folks is “Just how good a story teller are you”?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

ss_blog_claim=3c1696ce5b8393dba57964d7ee0d0875 ss_blog_claim=3c1696ce5b8393dba57964d7ee0d0875