Why let it trend?

The internet can be a racist, sexist, bigoted place as we all know, but it can also be a positive place where people stick up for and defend the rights of others.  Both sides of this can be seen on Twitter, where from time to time surprisingly offensive trending topics can pop up.

I remember a few weeks ago I was looking through my Twitter stream, and was caught with shock when I noticed that #blamethemuslims was a TT; I decided to check out why this was trending and what people were saying about it.  Most of the tweets were in fact not racist at all, but instead in solidarity with the Muslim people.  While there were a few offensive ones, but most read things like “#blamethemuslims for math and writing” or “don’t #blamethemuslims their faith is hijacked by those who don’t understand”.  I find this to be a very interesting concept, the people who are stating positive sentiments are the very ones keeping a very offensive hashtag trending.  This seems a bit backwards to say the least, inspiring what one is arguing against.

To me this shows how desperate for attention people are.  If they really cared, the best thing to do would be to completely ignore the TT or at least try to start a trend with something more positive, like #dontblamethemuslims. 

I just wanted to vent my frustrations; I’ll be back later with a more substantive post.

SM and TV

I recently had the opportunity to meet with a few people at Hill Holliday regarding a position.  Without going into too much detail, it seemed like it went well.  Time will tell if they think the same.  However, while I was there they threw some interesting questions my way, and gave me many ideas for future blog posts.  Thanks!

SM and TV have a strange relationship.  Most commercials now-a-days point you to their Facebook page or Twitter account, but recently there has been a trend, trying to get people to connect instantaneously using their smart phones.  Here is an example from an Old Navy commercial that uses Shazam:

So there are three things that I find wrong with this commercial initially.  One being Shazam in general.  In today's world who still listens to the old style radio?  iPods, Droids, Pandora, either you chose what songs you want to listen to, or the station digitally tells you the name of the song.  On my car radio there is a digital displays the shows the name of the song and who it's by, so there is no need to even use Shazam.

Moving past how unnecessary the Shazam app is, we also have the problem of the length of the commercial.  It's about thirty seconds.  By the time they tell you to turn to the Shazam app the commercial is about half finished.  I decided to see how long before they told me to use Shazam and how long it would take to look up the song.  The ad was just over twenty seconds in before I was able to take out my phone, find my Shazam app (hidden in some folder) and read the data.  Keep in mind I knew I was going to pull out my phone, if I was not ready it would have taken longer.

My last point relates to the issue of time sensitivity as well.  The commercial never gives me a reason to use my phone, why rush to pull it out if I have no incentive?  Do I get a discount? Is there some cool bonus content I'm going to get?  Who knows.  If I were sitting at home watching this commercial I would never have been tempted to even look at my phone (at least as far as this commercial is concerned).  Since the ad is only thirty seconds there needs to be some sense of urgency so people can act in time.

Until the issue of "why" is answered this style of commercial seems a bit pointless.  Perhaps I'm quick to judge, it could just be this commercial that is poorly made.  If there were a static Shazam logo in the bottom corner with a little text, something like "Shazam this for a 10% discount" it would be infinitely more effective.  I'll keep my eye out for commercials like this in the future and keep pointing out how effective they are.

Facebook's changes

I have been spending a great deal of time talking about Google+.  While Google+ is exciting and new, there are already existing networks out there that deserve some attention.  So without further ado, I present a post about something other than Google+.  (And if you're keeping count I mention Google+ four times in this paragraph).

Facebook has recently come out with new changes to their news feed feature that are noteworthy.  Search Engine Land does a great job simplifying the changes; I will do a basic rehash, but you should check out their post for more information (here).

Facebook now groups posts by relevance, grouping posts that are connected to the same topic or share the same link together in the news feed.  The rumor around the blogosphere is that they are doing this to appease businesses (it's the corporations brah!)  It makes sense that businesses would want the change so their brands could jump to the top of a person's news feed every time a comment, or a "like" were made to it.  The real question is how will this anger the everyday Facebook user.

Alot.  The Twitterverse hates the changes, as do I.

I understand that Facebook is trying to increase its revenue, but at what cost?  By now Facebook is definitely feeling the heat from Google + (five).  Can they bare to make anymore missteps?

A few posts ago I wrote about Google+ (six) angering businesses and how they can't afford to do so.  Facebook is in the opposite position, businesses have no choice but to use its service.  Facebook is so established that all it has to do is retain its users and the money will continue to flow.  That being said, Facebook has almost 700 million more users than Google + (seven), so it can afford to spare a few.

Whatever the changes, Facebook should be careful, Google is growing up fast.

Staying on top of it

Social media is an ever changing landscape and in order to stay on top of it you have to employ a variety of methods.

I recently read an article on Mashable (here) that detailed how the pros stay on top of it and felt inspired to throw in my two cents.

1.       Twitter. I find twitter is the best way to stay on top of new news in the digital world.  You can follow large news organizations and professional bloggers for the inside scoop.  Not only that, if you follow the right people you can get some gems that you may have otherwise missed.  Both the primary advantage and disadvantage is that twitter is continually updating; if you’re actively reading it’s a great place to find information, but if you check every few hours or so, great content can become buried.

2.       Google Reader, by far the best RSS reader out there (as the Mashable article states).  I use Google Reader for my favorite blogs, the ones which I do not want to miss a single post.  It’s great because, like twitter, it’s multi-platform.  The only downside (and this goes for Twitter too) is reading on the iPhone or other small screens can kill your eyes.

3.       Podcasts.  I love podcasts because of the ability to listen on the go.  If I’m on a train or bus where I can’t look at my phone because I’m too busy trying to keep my balance, I can still stay current.  The problem that I have with podcasts is trying to download while out-and-about, due to slow data speeds (though that could just be my poor cellular service).

4.       The internet.  I feel like this explains itself.  You go on and read what you want.

5.       Friends.  Ask them.  They may have some information you find relevant, if not just ignore it.

Gamification

Last night after browsing Twitter for a number of hours I decided to move on to something more educational, reading the news.  News.google.com is my most frequented news source; it has a nice array of articles from various papers and websites, and delivers a pleasant variety of opinions.  I expected it to go as most normal nights looking at the news goes: browse articles for about ten minutes then move on to more interesting and less depressing blogs.  This time however, something caught my eye. 

In the middle of the page, hovering over my favorite section, I saw a block of text with what appeared to be a badge.  “No” I thought, “this is the news” I thought, “Google would never do this”.  Oh, was I wrong.  What I saw blocking the technology section was an ad for Google badges or whatever they are calling it.  Before I closed my browser with pure disgust I read the brief description.  It read something like, “You can earn private badges for reading news stories”.  I’m sure there was more to it but I don’t really care.

Social gaming can be fun; I’m fine with Foursquare making checking into places a game, going to physical places and leaving your mark lends itself to social gaming.  There are other apps out there that let you essentially “check in” to television shows that you are watching, I don’t use them but I can understand how it could be fun.  How can checking into a news article have any utility?  I can’t begin to imagine a conversation with my friends where I would say something like “haha, I stole your mayorship of reading the New York Times”.  Does that even make sense?

Google, why would you take something as pure as the news and try to make it into a game?  If I am reading the news I am already doing so for my pleasure; adding bells, badges and whistles won’t change anything.   I’m fine with the constant gamification of everything, but it has to stop somewhere and that somewhere should have been before it got to the news.

Google +1 gets a -1

Why is Google messing with my search results?

I was doing a search the other day for something mundane, I think it was for movie times or fondue; whatever it was, it wasn't of importance.  The important thing is that when my search results came up there was a picture of my friend's face and a blurb that read something like "Bob likes this" or "Bob +1'ed this".  After processing this infomation for a moment I closed my laptop so fast I was scared that I may have broken it.  Is this what we have come to, incorporating social media into search?

I love my friend Bob and all (an no his name is not actually Bob), but I really do not want his opinion when it comes to anything.  He has horrible taste in movies, music, books and fondue.  We have different opinions on almost everything; just because we're friends does not mean that we must have similar interests in everything we do.  If I wanted an opinion I would have called, Facebooked or Tweeted Bob and asked him his advice, not have run a Google search.

Search should be just that, a search: aggregate the data of all Internet users and deliver me the most relevant and useful links!  Social media and search occupy two separate spheres of the Internet: one for communicating with friends, strangers and former high school friends who you have no interest in anymore, and the other for, well... search.

I fear Google becoming an "interests" page where the top search results are only those that one's friends have +1'ed.  I may be jumping the gun here, but Google is a trendsetter and if this is embraced, I fear for where search is headed.