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.

Klout: for better or worse

Imagine yourself in junior high.  Got the braces?  Don't forget the ugly clothing that you thought was cool. Now pretend that your least favorite teacher asked forced you to run for class president and everyday posted the results so the entire school could see it.  That's what Klout is.

A proper description of Klout would be to call it an online social influence tracker.  The service connects to various networks (with your permission) and through its algorithm calculates how influential you are.  Currently the networks are Linked In, Twitter and Facebook, though Klout claims that they are adding more in the future.

The idea of measuring social influence was bound to happen at some point but is it a path we want to go down?  Currently users choose to sign up for Klout and connect their accounts, however once in they can then see the Klout score of all the people they follow and all of their Facebook friends.  It is not hard to imagine a world where Klout score turns into a high school popularity contest where people compete for a higher number.

This is a problem.

Klout score can only be raised by interacting with one's networks.  It would be easy to game the algorithm by spamming your friends and your family with pointless content and becoming what amounts to a comment or reply troll (depending on the social media platform).  My anger lies in the fact that I feel like Klout could really decay the quality of current social networks.  Who wants to wake up with 50 posts from friends on their Facebook wall asking them to comment on whatever nonsense they type?  Not I.

If used for good Klout can be a positive thing, a way for people to measure and reflect upon their own self-worth in the online world.  For now it's too early to tell what will come of Klout, but if it continues to gain popularity we all will be forced to be subjected to its judgmental algorithms.

(Disclaimer): I am a Klout user with a score of 40.

For more information visit Klout.

The "War"

While I do not want to talk about Google+, as long as the chamber is echoing I might as well make sure my voice is one of them.

Let's talk about this "war" that is raging with Google+.  If you are not blind you may have noticed that I placed the word war in apostrophes; I did this because I do not believe there is really a war.

For the last few weeks, since Google+ came out, the blogosphere has been really up-playing the supposed fight between Google and its arch rival (insert name here).  Sometimes the rival is Facebook, which makes sense given the profile creation and maintenance aspect of Google's service, along with similar sharing features.  However, sometimes the Google rival is Twitter, which makes less sense.  I haven't really seen Google+ used for broadcasting or micro-blogging in my experience with it, but hell, why not?

The point is that nobody really knows who Google+'s rival is, it is still way too early to tell its purpose.

Now let's focus on the numbers.  Google+ is at what? About 20 million users.  Let's compare this to Facebook's 750 million users.  This is not a David and Goliath tale, this is Godzilla vs a labradoodle.  Google may be fast growing, but Facebook has a massive advantage that is not going away any time soon.  Not to mention that while people may be adopting Google+, I doubt they will be leaving their already established networks on Facebook.

Until you can use all the features of Google+ through text, it most likely won't really be taking a swing at Twitter either.  With the recent deletion of Google+ business pages, Google seems to be sending the message that it does not want companies broadcasting on their platform, a key feature of Twitter.

I know the people want to see blood, but it's far too early to start throwing around words such as "war" and "fight".  Can we all agree to let Google+ develop into something before we start over-analyzing  and cross-comparing it?  Everyone seems to want to see it succeed, so let's not doom it before it starts.

Enough Google+ already! (Not really)

So, if you're like me you have been reading tech blogs for awhile you have come to the conclusion that nothing else in the tech world exists aside from Google+.

Almost everyday, on almost all of my favorite blogs there is a new post about Google+.  Whether it be Google+ for business, Google deleting Plus accounts or how to market yourself using Google+, it's all the same.

While I acknowledge that since the service is new and still adding thousands people everyday, it makes for an interesting topic, but I do wish the tech-head love affair would end soon.

I can't tell if bloggers have just run out of ideas or if we're all just so excited to finally have a Facebook alternative that it's all we can talk about.

Either way, it's time to move on...

Oh and look out for my next post about Sparks on Google+.  (Irony intended)

Spotify

I was reading one of my favorite blogs, Spinsucks.com,  and today they did a post about the new music service, Spotify.  I thought, "you know I have time, and I'm in on the Spotify American Beta, so why not me too".  Here is the link to their post: Spinsucks: Spotify.

Being a member of klout you get free early access to Spotify.  I've been playing with it and enjoying it so far.  It is kind of like GrooveShark, streaming music for free as long as you're connected to the Internet.  But aside from being 100% legal, I can't really discern a different between Spotify and GrooveShark aside from Spotify being a downloadable app and GrooveShark being a webapp (definitions used loosely).  Sure the legality issue may make a difference to the RIAA and musicians, but to me and most other Internet users we do not really care as long as we get our music.

Spotify has a share feature that allows you to post your favorite songs to Facebook or Twitter.  It also allows your Facebook or Spotify friends to view playlist or favorite artists (assuming you grant your friends permission to do so).  It looks pretty clean and the buffer speed is fast to say the least, of course living in a major city with already fast Internet speeds buffering times have never been an issue.

Currently I am a Rhapsody subscriber (ya I'm one of those suckers).  I pay $10 a month to take my music on the go.  When you spend half as much time commuting as I do, it makes sense to have lots of music and not buy each song individually.  That being said, I just cancelled my Rhapsody account in favor of a switch to Spotify once my subscription runs out.

Spotify promises lightening fast sync times, and it's simplistic UI make it easy to manage music, create, and edit playlists.  Not to mention if the excitement around Spotify holds it could become an invaluable tool for sharing music.

I'm making the switch.  I'll say more once I upgrade at the beginning of next month.

Not worth it

I was talking to one of my friends about this blog, and how I write for non-existent ears.  He suggested that I get at least some readers or "what else is the point?"

First, the point is that it's out there.  It's online.  The world can access it, and it's contributing to some greater collection of knowledge or noise, depending on what you want to call it.

Also there is the problem of getting people to read what you have to say.  The best way to get traffic is to mercilessly pimp yourself out.  Whether it be to your friends or to the Twitter masses, what ever you do, it's still pimping yourself.  I could annoy all of my friend by continually linking my blog posts to my Facebook, Linked in or Google+ pages, but then anything decent I want to say gets drowned out by the noise I've created by linking my blog posts.

Another option is to use Twitter.  I could finish all my tweets with tiny url that links back here, but then I become all that I hate: a bot, a twitter troll, an e-pimp, whatever you want to call it.

As I sit here in front of my computer, typing away, I can sit happily knowing that though nobody is listening at least I stuck to my guns and didn't bot my friends or the world.

Social media why?

Why do people use social media websites?  Twitter, Facebook, Linked in, MySpace, Google+, Foursquare, the list goes on.

I am not only guilty using all of the sites above, but do so regularly.  WHY!? I have no idea.  Is is some latent desire to have more communication?  Do I want to be noticed and become famous somehow?  Do I think that people out there actually care what I have do say?

The answers are: no, no and no.  So then why?

Aside from Twitter I generally know all of the people that I communicate with on the other social platforms, so I can scratch out famous.  My friends already don't care what I have to say anyhow, and I have no desire to be famous.

The only other possible explanation I can think of is content.  To share videos and websites, but even that still it makes no sense, if that was the case why not just use one social media website; surely facebook would suffice.

Maybe social media is a niche hobby.  Some people collect stamps, some people are into cars or beer, others are into social media.  Discovering it, using it, finding the latest and greatest.

I don't know I can't really think of any other reasons, but why not?

Here is a picture of a cat: