Category Archives: Internet

Life in the Meta City

Posted on by

I found the following in a brief Q&A with William Gibson (Scientific American):

“The Internet, which I think of as a sort of meta-city, has made it possible for people who don’t live in cities to master areas of expertise that previously required residence in a city, but I think it’s still a faith in concentrated choice that drives migration to cities.”

I paid $6 for the PDF of Gibson’s article (September issue). A few nuggets:

“Cities afforded more choices than small towns, and constantly, by increasing the number and randomization of potential human and cultural contacts. Cities were vast, multilayered engines of choice, peopled primarily with strangers.”

“Cities, to survive, must be capable of extended fugues of retrofitting.”

“Relative ruin, relative desertion, is a common stage of complex and necessary urban growth. Successful (which is to say, ongoing) cities are built up in a lacquering of countless layers: of lives, of choices encountered and made.”

If I wore a younger man’s clothes, I think a city would be the place for me.

“Google+ is a bank”

Posted on by
Reply

Dave Winer believes Google+ wants to “move money around the same way Amazon does. They need your real name because it’s a business.”

“Google-Plus is their integrated communication system. Over time, it’s going to be at the core of everything they do, from auctions, to paying for things with Android phones, to their groupon and yelp clones. They’re going everywhere, and this is the system that will tie it all together. So, at the outset, of course they need real identities. That Google-Plus account you’re playing with today is going to be your bank account next year.”

Tailor-made usually, but not always, better

Posted on by

We’re talking websites now. The new theme here started me thinking about this.

This theme was created by StudioPress and was very affordable. Took me 15 minutes to download and install. My only contribution to the design was picking a color scheme I liked.

When I started blogging 10 years ago, I spent HOURS futzing with the design of the blog. Graphics, colors, fonts… anythign that could be changed, I changed.

And with each tweak, the site looked a little less professional. I thought I was making it “better,” but looking back, no way.

I have a theory that –in most instances– an off-the-shelf design, like the ones I get from StudioPress (and there are lots of good places to buy themes) is going to look better than a site designed from the ground up.

This is based on two assumptions:

1. The client will be very involved in the design of the custom theme

2. NO change is made to the stock theme.

When paying a lot of bucks for a custom design, the typical clinet will insist on a lot of input. The designer will try to stay close to her original vision, but it’s difficult. And once the client gets his hands on the site, he will –if humanly possible– fuck it up. We can’t help it. We have to tinker.

Let us consider now the design of the stock theme. There IS no client yet. The designer has the time and freedom to create a perfect theme, if there is such a thing. Every element carefully chosen to work with every other element.

Yes, a good developer can take one of these themes and customize them in such a way as not to destroy the original, but the client will make that very hard (see above)

Am I concered that hundreds or thousands of websites are using this exact theme? Nope. Only a fraction of said sites would ever have enough traffic to make it likely someone would notice. And if they do, well, it’s like to gorgeous models wearing the same gown to the ball. They both look great.

It’s taken me a while to get to this place. To be willing to accept that I can only make the original worse… not better.

If you want to comment on my little theory, join me over at Google+. I’ll cross post there.

“The machine we’ve made”

Posted on by

“I think we should prepare ourselves for all kinds of new religions based around the idea of a planetary soul. As in a single web of electronic neurons around the globe, connecting all sentient beings. The Noosphere will go from a hypothetical speculation by a Catholic priest to an outright competitor to the Catholic faith. We will see the rise of Noosnics, Globalists, Overminders, Bit Monks, Quantumarians, and a hundred other sects and cults that take seriously the idea of a glorified planetary spirit as a reflection of the divine.”

“The internet will become a religion in part because everything will happen on it, including all other religions. But mostly because it will be the first platform for true Otherness that will appear on the planet. Not Other as in other variety of human, or other variety of animal, but Other as in an agent not like us, yet bigger than us. A true alien being. Of which we are part. This conundrum will trigger so many spiritual and religious buttons that it will also shake the established religions.”

— Kevin Kelly interview in CHRISTIANITY TODAY

Is the party moving?

Posted on by
Reply

Been a while since I went five days without sharing something here. Most of Friday and Saturday in Tulsa with family. Busy at work. But the real culprit is almost certainly Google +, the new social “project” from Google. I’m spending a lot of my online time there, and less all other places (here, Twitter, etc).

I won’t try to explain it. I learned that lesson with Twitter. If I have to explain it, you probably won’t use G+.  And I’ll be very surprised if it “kills” any of the other social sites. But for those who like and use Google products/services, Google + is fun.

Like most users, the Circles approach to following and sharing is the big thing for me. I have a circle of friends & family; work; and interesting people who I don’t know but like to read. This is pretty close to how my life works.

So what about smays.com. That’s a good question. Some of the Cool Kids have already shuttered their blogs and moved lock, stock and barrel to Google +. Unlikely I will do that. I have almost 10 years invested in this blog and I like having my on place to park things. But I do expect to post less.

I’m thinking I’ll share something here here when I have something “original” to contribute. All of the the “did you see this?” stuff will get posted to my Google + stream. That’s got to be a 10-to-1 ratio. Maybe higher.

As for Twitter, who knows. I really like the Twitter format. And the people I follow on Twitter. If many/most of them migrate to G+, Twitter becomes that much less interesting. We’ll see.

Learfield videographers

Posted on by

When I started messing around with putting video online, I was one of the few in our company doing so. Oh, there were lots of folks who knew more about video than I, but the crude tools and results in those days wasn’t worth the effort to most folks. Today, we have lots of talented young men and women doing video. I’m discovering more every day.

Here’s a nice one by Allison Blood, one of the new reporters in or Missourinet newsroom.

Slightly revised Gadekunst from Allison Blood on Vimeo.

 

It would be a sad thing if, after 15+ years of Internet, I was the go-to guy for putting a video clip on line. Which was the case for a while. But no more. I think I’ll use this post to link to the work of these talented men and women.

Juice, stroke, Klout!

Posted on by
1

Interesting article in the Sunday Review section of the New York Times (I think I used the last of my 20 free accesses for the month). It’s about the growing importance (?) of online influence.

“If you have a Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn account, you are already being judged — or will be soon. Companies with names like Klout, PeerIndex and Twitter Grader are in the process of scoring millions, eventually billions, of people on their level of influence — or in the lingo, rating “influencers.” Yet the companies are not simply looking at the number of followers or friends you’ve amassed. Rather, they are beginning to measure influence in more nuanced ways, and posting their judgments — in the form of a score — online.”

Yes, I check my Klout score from time to time but it’s never gotten above 40. 39 as of a few minutes ago. But 40 suggests “a strong, but niche, following.” Niche being the operative word. And the average Klout score is in the high teens, so…

“After analyzing 22 million tweets last year, researchers at Hewlett-Packard found that it’s not enough to attract Twitter followers — you must inspire those followers to take action. In other words, influence is about engagement and motivation, not just racking up legions of followers.”

Is there any sort of analogue to this in the world of traditional advertising? Do we even care about the influence of someone hearing our radio ad?

“Industry professionals say it’s also important to focus your digital presence on one or two areas of interest. Don’t be a generalist. Most importantly: be passionate, knowledgeable and trustworthy.”

Half the fun of checking your Klout score is comparing your score to your friends and acquaintances.

My pal David Brazeal is off on his own now and needs as much Klout as he can get. He’s something of an expert on “weather, lightening & tornados.” Jonathan Brownfield should be higher given his access to beautiful, large-breasted young women.

My plan is to stand outside Hooters and wait for a bad storm.

Moving from ownership to access

Posted on by
Reply

“Who owns this data? Who owns your friendships? There’s another party involved. Who owns your genes? 99.9% are shared by other humans. Who owns your location? The knowledge that you’re in a public space is hard to own. Your reputation or history? Your conversations? The real issue is that we’re moving away from ownership altogether to access. The benefits of accessing are eclipsing the benefits of (owning) it – consumers may eventually not own anything at all. Netflix means you can stop owning movies – if you have access to all movies anytime, why would you buy movies? This may be leaking from the virtual to the material world, particularly once we have personal fabrication. It may eventually play out into data, because access is often better than ownership.”

From Kevin Kelly’s remarks at the Quantified Self conference in May this year. More of Kelley’s speech.