Tag - social media

we love the web but you can’t put it in your pocket

October 9, 2006

Apparently I’m influenceable by blogs. Don’t tell anyone.

I just saw Tara Hunt’s post on Moo cards, and I had to have them. So I ordered them. It was fun, it was fast, and it was only $20.

Now I feel like a kid waiting for Christmas.

[tags] flickr, moo cards, tara hunt, horsepigcow, john koetsier [/tags]

Digg cheating: are digg circles a necessary evil?

October 8, 2006

Shane at WallStreetFighter is trying to get a Digg circle going. Is this good, bad, or just plain necessary?

Digg circle?!?
First off, let’s get this out of the way: a digg circle is a group of people that agree – formally or informally – to digg posts that any member submits to Digg.com. Digg is a social content site, so whatever stories get attention, get posted to the home page. Stories that are posted to the home page get tons of traffic. Traffic is attention, and attention is good.

Generating traffic with Digg?
The problem with Digg – from the point of view of an individual blogger – is that it’s an incredibly haphazard proposition. Blog posts abound with idiotic titles like Using Digg and Netscape to get Traffic, which basically say: write good stuff with compelling posts and submit it to social content/news sites. But it is very hard – maybe almost impossible – to get a submitted story promoted to the home page. And without getting promoted, your story just dies on the vine, expiring from the upcoming queue before getting enough diggs to make it to the next level.

Respect the community?
On the one hand, saying things like “using digg” is a major signal that you’re not respecting the community process that social content aggregators supposedly employ. They’re not there to be used by content providers seeking traffic; they’re there to be helpful to content seekers looking for interesting relevant information.

On the other, this is not utopia. It’s not a democracy, and there’s no such thing as one person one vote. Or not precisely, in practice.

Circle jerk: getting to the home page
That’s because getting to the home page is not a matter of simple arithmetic. It’s not equally accessible to any user.

So how do stories get to the home page? Simple: people who “friend” each other can see what their buddies are submitting and digg those stories. Why would someone do that? Well, when you digg an acquaintance’s story, he or she is more likely to digg yours in return. An article with a lot of quick diggs – maybe as few as 50 if they’re really fast, can quickly become a category page leader, and then – because a ton more users are seeing it – a home page story.

Voila – you now have a Digg circle, and you now have the reason why the top 100 users control more than half of what makes it to the home page.

Ethical, legal, moral?
So what’s an honest hard-working content provider (errr, blogger) supposed to do? Here are the options:

Nothing – just write good stuff
(Then hope someone it gets dugg)
Submit it to Digg yourself
(Then watch it get buried almost immediately)
Become a Digg groupie
(Suck up to a Top 100 digg user, and then ask for a digging favor)
Become a Digg fanatic
(Submit everything to Digg and “friend” all the top Diggers, hoping to become Top 100 yourself. Which, of course, would leave no time for actually creating interesting useful creative content of your own.)
Start a new Digg circle
(Get 100 of your own friends and acquaintances together and make a pact to Digg each other’s stuff.)

Option one is morally great but also least likely to result in positive results. Two is a little more proactive, and, in addition with some digging tools built into your site or blog, might have some effect. Three is annoying and degrading, and four is not tenable if you actually want to have a life in addition to blogging (oh, and yes, you probably have a job too!).

So five starts to look attractive to people.

But is it cheating?
I don’t know. It certain appears to be how Digg works, and therefore could be argued to be within the engineering constraints of the system, and therefore OK. But it sure feels like cheating.

So why does it feel so attractive to me?

[tags] digg, digg circle, cheat, social content, aggregator, john koetsier [/tags]

Labeling the labels and other blog usability oddities

October 6, 2006

I know a woman who got a labeller and went a little crazy. When my wife and I visited her a couple of weeks later, everything was labeled.

TV? Labeled. Phone? Labeled. VCR? (It was a few years ago.) Also labelled.

I was wondering about that a little bit as I’ve been tweaking and adding to this new blog design. Phil Gerbyshak at Make it Great had given me a few suggestions, and I had wanted to do both of those things better:

Meaningful categories
Provide a better way for new visitors of this blog to get a very quick visual sense of what’s buried in a couple of years of blogging.
Best of bizhack
Showcase some of the best posts (IMHO) to give new (and long-term) visitors a bit of exposure to the best of what I have to offer.

The first – meaningful categories – was the main priority for me (more on the second in another post). I like the Category Cloud plugin (for WordPress) because it sizes your categories in relationship to the number of posts they contain. It also allows you to display an astonishing number of categories in a very compact but not visually busy space. (It’s not busy or cluttered-looking because to the quick glance, all the categories form a visual whole.)

But it wasn’t working out well:

Under the ads
First I had it under the Google AdWords/AdSense block. Too low – not visible enough. If the goal was to allow visitors to get a quick visual sense of what’s on this blog, they might never see it.

Not good.

Up top, labeled
Then I moved it up top. Great … but the title was bothering me. Why was I labeling my categories? Wasn’t it fairly obvious that they were categories? I mean, you might as well label the sky, the moon, or the sun.

So I took all the labels off – including the Search header. That proved to be too much – too bare, naked, and possibly confusing for those who aren’t full-time web addicts.

The perfect solution
So. Now I have it as you see it: “search” is still a label, but “category” or “tag cloud” is no-where to be seen. It just is … which is perfectly sufficient.

Enough, not too much, just in the right proportion: perfect. In my humble opinion, naturally.

As Strunk and White would say:

A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.

Just like design.

[tags] blogging, usability, design, tag, cloud, categories, labels, john koetsier [/tags]

Bloggers care enough about Technorati to want it to be better

September 30, 2006

Update: Technorati CEO Dave Sifry has responded in the comments. Thanks!

Technorati board member and venture capitalist Ryan McIntyre is the only upper echelon person associated with Technorati who has even commented on the quality of service that Technorati has NOT been providing lately.

Kudos. But why aren’t we hearing from Dave Sifry about it?

When I saw McIntyre’s post which mentions the issues, I posted the following comment on his blog:

If you’re on the board, are you able to affect the situation at all?

Technorati’s service has always had great PROMISE, but always been greatly “spotty,” as Liz Dunn quaintly referred to it.

First of all: some major effort to solve the problem with the million$ that Technorati has recently raised should be a number one priority. And secondly, some honesty and openness about the situation would be greatly appreciated.

I mean … the arbiter of the blogosphere has what, 2 posts on its blog all of last month – a horrible month, when it’s been up and down like a yo-yo? This is ridiculous: be upfront, be honest, be real.

(This is something that Dave Sifry should take to heart too … as I’ve tried and tried to bring a few issues to his attention via email, links to his blog, and comments on his blog … all without the least sign of success.)

The issue is not only being up or down, or the notorious, infamous “Technorati is experiencing a high volume of searches right now and could not complete your request,” which I’ve seen on the HOME PAGE.

It’s also data integrity as the service appears to wildly swing between mutually inconsistent datasets. Links appear and disappear with disconcerting frequency.

Some kind of information about what the company plans to do about it would be nice. How about telling bloggers the plans for ensuring that it won’t happen again? A little PR wouldn’t be out of place.

As a member of the blogosphere, I suggest that could start on the Technorati blog.

Why am I doing this? Why am I harping on this?

I care about Technorati’s service. I care about what they do. And I keep getting corroborating comments ever so often, weeks and weeks after writing various articles about Technorati’s woes.

Bloggers care about Technorati. Enough to want Technorati to be better.

[tags] technorati, Ryan McIntyre, sifry, john koetsier [/tags]

5 ways to get positive product reviews from bloggers

September 28, 2006

You’ve got a new product. How do you get bloggers to review it positively?

Call it a beta
Even if you think your widget is really, really good, tell bloggers that you’re still in testing, but wanted some early feedback. That way, if they find something that you didn’t know was wrong with it, they aren’t overly surprised or disappointed.
Offer a free production version later
If the demo model you’re giving out now can’t be kept by the blogger you’re sending it to, promise to send a production version later. The blogger will probably still be honest about what he or she finds, but will usually avoid calling you the Son of Sam in hopes of getting free gadgets later on.
Pre-cushion
If your think your product might have a couple of warts, mention them upfront. It’s better to hear about problems than to discover them, and it lets the blogger know you’re not a complete idiot.
Be straightforward
If your product is a really early iteration, and has major problems, present it that way. Tell bloggers that it sucks, and ask for help to make it better. Let them know that you’re not planning to take it to market as is, but are just looking from some good product input.
Don’t. Just don’t.
Be brutally honest with yourself. If it’s really bad, or just stupid, go sell it on the Shopping Channel or local weekly newspapers or some other meatspace MSM outlet. Don’t bring it within a hundred feet of bloggers, or you’ll lose control of your branding, positioning, and marketing almost instantly. (Assuming you have any to begin with.)

Whatever you do, if you’re tempted to give free stuff to bloggers, think twice. Is it good enough? If not, stop. You’re in for a nightmare. Unless you think no PR is bad PR.

If you ask me, I’d rather get positive spin.

[tags] product, reviews, bloggers, blogging, social media, marketing, pr, john koetsier [/tags]

The secret of making $2.3 million/year by blogging

September 22, 2006

Today, Dave Winer said that he made $2.3 million via his blog, Scripting News. How on earth did he do that?

I would really like to know, and I bet thousands of other bloggers would as well.

But – little hint up front – it’s a secret. A very intriguing secret, and a secret with clues, but, in the end, a very secretive secret.

Here’s what Dave says:

People think blogs are about advertising, and I would agree, but they’re thinking in terms of clicks and eyeballs, and I’m thinking of technology that’s created using the intelligence of community participation.

Want to see how it’s done? It’s here in the archive of this blog. Don’t have the time to read the archive? Read today’s blog. We will get a whole new flow built here, through persistent experimentation, refinement, listening, promoting, thinking, and looping.

Hrm. OK.

It’s one of those non-explanatory explanations. Kinda cagey, vague, and secretive in an elementary school “I know something you don’t” kind of way. What on earth does he mean?

It’s fairly obvious right away from just looking at Scripting News that it does not carry advertising. That seems to jive with his comment above.

So what is it about? “Technology that’s created using the intelligence of community participation” sounds wonderful and interesting and web 2.0-ish … but what does it mean in relation to $2.3 million of annual revenue?

Dave teases us by saying: “It’s here in the archive of this blog.” Is it? I have some time, and I’ve been checking through his archive. Maybe I’m too dense. Or I’m just not seeing the forest for the trees.

But I don’t see things generating $2.3 million of revenue.

Perhaps there’s a clue in the most prominent feature in Scripting News’ right sidebar, the Community Directory. Maybe there’s a site there with ads, or some other revenue model, that is generating significant revenue.

There are a lot of links there to feed directories of sorts, and a whole bunch of errors … but nothing that looks like a money machine.

Knowing that some of us are dense, Dave gives us one more clue:

Don’t have the time to read the archive? Read today’s blog. We will get a whole new flow built here, through persistent experimentation, refinement, listening, promoting, thinking, and looping.

OK. So today’s blog, September 22, 2006 has clues to what is earning Dave a couple of megabucks a year. Does someone else see them? I sure don’t.

Unless Dave is charging $100/link (and he’s not … he’s linked to me two or three times, and I haven’t paid him any money … not that he would do that anyways), how the heck is he making money? His only other comment there is a vague futuristic statement.

I’m stumped. I’d like to hear others’ ideas.

Because if no-one else knows how Dave Winer is making millions via Scripting News, maybe it’s just April Fool’s day and no-one told the rest of us.

Or the secret of making $2.3 million/year by blogging is just that: a secret.

[tags] dave winer, scripting news, blogging, millions, 2.3 million, advertising, john koetsier [/tags]

The browser hijackers: how aggregators don’t share the love

September 16, 2006

Whose browser window is it, anyways?

Link aggregators like Digg, Newsvine, Shoutwire, Fark, Delicious, Reddit, and Spurl are increasingly popular ways to find and track news … but there are some differences between them. Especially regarding how they treat your browser window.

Digg: mine, mine, mine
Digg likes your browser window – a lot. Just like the seagulls in Finding Nemo. So much so that clicking on links in digg opens up a brand new window. After all, why share when you can just have your own?

NowPublic: it’s … my … p-r-e-c-i-o-u-s!
Sharing does suck. But NowPublic would rather share the pie – even the bottom slice- rather than let everyone have their own pie. All is fair in love and war (and aggregating) and memories are short. Maybe you’d forget where that un-freaking-believably great link came from, if you weren’t constantly reminded.

Netscape: mommy, mommy, look at me!
Sharing doesn’t suck if you get the best piece. Why take the bottom of the totem pole? The side – especially the left side – is much more imposing, prominent, and lickable. Err … clickable.

Shoutwire: what do you mean, “your” window?
The bottom of the totem pole? The side of the totem pole? Are you joking? Shoutwire has nothing against sharing … as long as it gets top billing. Right across the top, baby, and yes, that’s our Flash ad making your CPU race. Click on it. Now.

Newsvine: other sites? What other sites?
Aggregator? What’s an aggregator? The news is here – we have the news. We are the news in fact, and there’s no reason to go anywhere else. Just vote already. OK? Or, if you really must, post a comment.

Some context for this post
I wrote this post because I’m tired of going to an aggregator, clicking on a link, and getting my browser window spammed, or new windows generated.

Aggregators, their value, their revenue
Aggregators are supposed to collect news or cool links. Social aggregators apply some mob logic to the equation, but it’s still news or cool links.

The value that aggregators bring is filtering.

There’s a lot out there on the long, long tail of the world wide web. Too much for any one of us to find everything. Too much for any one of us to find everything we’re interested in. And too much for any one of us to find the best of what’s interesting.

Filters let the cream rise to the top. (At least, that’s the theory.)

Since aggregators add value by filtering, they’re entitled to rewards. Money, not to put too fine a point on it. As our eyeballs dangle on strings, fixated on the flickering lights of our favorite filters, they paste ads on our brains. Occasionally, we click on one of them. The aggregator aggregates a few pennies.

That’s OK. That’s cool. That’s good. They’re happy, we’re happy. But. (Isn’t there always a but?)

But.

The map is not the territory
Aggregators are the map. They show us how to get from Bush bashing to techno-hippy news. And we appreciate it. But aggregators are NOT the territory. They’re not the Bush bashing or the techno-hippy news.

The pipe is not the water.
The lense is not the view.
The artery is not the blood.
The reporter is not the story.

When aggregators forget this, they try too hard. They want to be too much. Then they do things like Netscape and Shoutwire and NowPublic: trying to control your browser window.

More than they deserve
When they do this, they are trying to extract more value than they ought.

These aggregators are behaving like old media. They are acting like About, where links always circle the wagon and lead visitors on a merry-go-round inside the walled garden. They are framing other sites’ content … something that I thought we had shunned into nonexistence almost a decade ago.

They are trying to package and profit from others’ work. This is taking more than they deserve. This is hijacking. This is an ownership mentality, not a partnership mentality.

Bottom line: it’s not right.

. . .
. . .

The good guys
Reddit, Spurl, Simpy, and Delicious all open links in the existing open browser window. This is what they should be doing, and they are to be commended for it.

A final note:

I can’t get too worked up about aggregators that open links in a new window. It’s annoying, but those of us who are not newbies know how to open links in new tabs, or already have our browsers set up to do that. It’s the aggregators who try to control our browsing experiences that annoy me.

It’s worth noticing that popurls, the aggregator of the aggregators, also opens links in the same existing window in which the link was clicked. Way to go.

I welcome feedback, on your blog or in the comments below.

Social networking sites: you don’t own the community

September 11, 2006

Social media is huge. Community-building is in. And web 2.0 is the chariot of fire that’s going to take us all to web/business/marketing nirvana.

Rigghhht …

A couple of years ago my company introduced a quasi-Mahon methodology for our sales force. It’s a way of finding out what the client wants, and then presenting an exact solution that meets his or her needs. One of the things I remember from the training they gave the marketing and leadership groups before implementing the program was this:

“Intent counts more than technique.”

In other words, you can mess up on the technique a little if your heart’s in the right place. You can miss a word now and then as long as you’re really, truly, trying to meet your clients’ needs.

But it doesn’t go the other way.

You can’t screw up the intent but have great technique, and hope that everything will be fine. Because people will find you out. If you’re just a money-hungry commission-seeking sales machine, sooner or later it will catch up with you. Sooner or later your clients will be ticked off that you sold them product they don’t need, that you played footsies with the truth, that you don’t really care about their needs and goals.

This is true in the web 2.0 social networking world too.

That came to mind when I read The Facebook Lesson. The Facebook lesson is that the owners aren’t the owners … they’re the sponsors. They pay the bills, and they reap the lion’s share of the profits. But they don’t own the community. And if they ever start feeling like they do … there won’t be a community for long.

As we were settling in for a chat earlier this year with Threadless co-founder Jake Nickell so we could profile his company for Citizen Marketers, Jake said something that stopped us cold: “Our community could destroy us if they wanted to.”

. . .

During our chat, Jake was still a bit shaken from what had happened several days earlier. While redesigning the site, he accidentally deleted a good part of the content created by the community. Poof, it was gone and unrecoverable. Jake feared the worst: a community so angry that it would harm the company.

The Threadless community did NOT destroy the company … Nickell had the right intent. His technique – at least in this one case – sucked. Hard. But his heart was in the right place. And so the community accepted the error – and even helped them recover from it.

Threadless knew their “business” was all about the people who participated.

Contrst that with Facebook’s recent privacy gaffe. It doesn’t help Facebook when the inevitable mea culpa comes with a paternalistic “calm down.”

The point: the community is in charge. If you don’t like that, don’t start a social networking site. Don’t try to build a community in your own image.

Go sell tires instead.

[tags] social, media, social networking, web 2.0, myspace, facebook, threadless, community, participation, john koetsier [/tags]

Netscape’s Calacanis has the last laugh?

September 10, 2006

A couple of months ago I thought the new Netscape was doomed.

Jason Calacanis of Weblogs Inc. fame was taking a grand old dame of online news and giving her a social news facelift: lifting the everyone’s-an-editor philosophy from Digg and delicious and transforming an informative-if-stodgy site into what I saw as a wanna-be web 2.0-ish social media site.

Then he raided the Digg, Newsvine, Reddit larder: promising their top contributers cash for posting news to Netscape instead. Reaction was fairly vociferously negative from Digg and others.

Some thought it would never work. Others thought it was just smart business, including Scott Karp and Nicholas Carr.

I’m starting to think they might be right. And the recent tempest in a Digg teacup over the Digg algorithm adds fuel to that fire.

Due to a widespread perception that Digg is controlled by a small but influential cabal of users, Kevin Rose announced that Digg is changing its front page algorithm. Which promptly touched off a super-user rebellion … and interesting reflections on what a Digg without top users would look like. Top Digg users removed their user icons in protest.

All of which makes Calacanis’ Netscape moves look good: user-focused, friendly to the super-user, and appreciative of top contributors. Add to that increased traffic of late, and things are looking good.

I think that what we’ve seen recently from the Netscape.com team is that the way to win online is to learn: learn fast, adapt, keep learning … and make changes based on what you’re learning. Adapt faster than your competition, and you’re more likely to win.

Which is precisely what Calacanis has brought to Netscape.

Of course, this is not really the last laugh. It’s not even the 7th inning stretch.

But it is a good indication that Calcanis is more clueful than widely given credit for, knows where he’s going, and can take what many thought was a moribund Netscape web property to a new promised land.

[tags] calacanis, netscape, digg, reddit, social media, news [/tags]