Passing Through: Bus-Tops

bustops

Bus.tops – a city wide can­vas for shar­ing the art of our streets, our com­mu­ni­ties, our Lon­don, our experience.

Bus.tops – if you can’t tell from the slide above that I’m sure made much more sense with peo­ple talk­ing over it – is a series of LED pan­els that are going to be attached to the top of bus stops around Lon­don for peo­ple to view from the sec­ond floor of the famous double-decker buses.  The con­tent will come from a num­ber of artists and pro­gram­mers, and will pre­sum­ably be made inter­ac­tive using the inter­faces shown in the slide.  It seems like an inter­est­ing way to make a piece that is unique to Lon­don by uti­liz­ing a resource that wouldn’t be avail­able any­where else in the world (or at least, not as famously avail­able.)  I might ques­tion how much inter­ac­tion would be pos­si­ble dur­ing a quick stop of the bus, but that’s a chal­lenge for the artists to work out, not me.  I’m just glad it wasn’t turned into ad space.

via a project to trans­form London’s Bus jour­neys | Bus-Tops.

Creeping Inevitability: The Internet Improves Literacy

Image by sebilden

Image by sebilden

The fact that stu­dents today almost always write for an audi­ence (some­thing vir­tu­ally no one in my gen­er­a­tion did) gives them a dif­fer­ent sense of what con­sti­tutes good writ­ing. In inter­views, they defined good prose as some­thing that had an effect on the world. For them, writ­ing is about per­suad­ing and orga­niz­ing and debat­ing, even if it’s over some­thing as quo­tid­ian as what movie to go see. The Stan­ford stu­dents were almost always less enthu­si­as­tic about their in-class writ­ing because it had no audi­ence but the pro­fes­sor: It didn’t serve any pur­pose other than to get them a grade.

There’s an inter­est­ing piece of research out there called the Stan­ford Study of Writ­ing that points out that the sky, in fact, is prob­a­bly not falling when it comes to writ­ten lan­guage.  Despite the occa­sional puff-piece arti­cle describ­ing a 4th grade teacher’s frus­tra­tion with LOLessays, there is more writ­ing going on now than at any time in the past, and the qual­ity is actu­ally improv­ing with all that prac­tice.  Maybe that’s just because the study focused on col­lege fresh­men instead of 4th graders, I don’t know.

I won­der, though, if the gains that have been made by forc­ing social­iza­tion to be text-based are tem­po­rary.  There is a con­stant push to make computer-mediated com­mu­ni­ca­tion more audio and video based that ranges from pro­grams like iChat and Skype to YouTube’s user-generated broad­cast model.  Though­out the devel­op­ment of the net there has always been this idea that we’re just wait­ing for the tech­nol­ogy to get us to the point where we can use it as a glo­ri­fied video­phone.  Text has a lot of advan­tages, though…maybe video isn’t where we actu­ally want to end up.

via Clive Thomp­son on the New Lit­er­acy.

Passing Through: Unbreak Your Site on the iPhone

Photo by magic_quote

Photo by magic_quote

The site asks for the URL of your RSS feed, a name for the site, and an optional icon. In return, it offers an iPhone-ized URL and a snip­pet of HTML you can put in your website’s code to redi­rect iPhones auto­mat­i­cally. The opti­mized ver­sion of the site is com­plete with large links, but­tons and scrolling lists suit­able for thumbs and index fin­gers instead of mouse pointers.

This is a use­ful lit­tle feed-transform tool that takes any RSS feed and refor­mats it for use on an iPhone.  The dif­fer­ence between using Inter­squash and just load­ing the feed into an RSS reader on the iPhone is that Inter­squash is a devel­oper tool; the “snip­pet of HTML” they give you is actu­ally a Javascript that detects the iPhone’s user-agent string and redi­rects any vis­i­tors using an iPhone to Intersquash’s HTM­L­ized ver­sion of your RSS.  It’s not nec­es­sar­ily the best way to han­dle iPhone vis­i­tors (much less other mobile users) but it is at least a fast way to han­dle them.  You didn’t have any­thing impor­tant on your site that’s not going in the RSS feed any­way, right?

via Aut­o­for­mat Your Web­site for iPhones With Inter­squash — Web­mon­key.

Passing Through: 1stfans at the Brooklyn Museum

The Brook­lyn Museum has a pro­gram run­ning where they’re try­ing to use social media to expand the scope of their supporters:

The big change we’ve made is tak­ing some­thing that is all mar­ket­ing (mem­ber­ship) and turned it into some­thing that is about per­sonal inter­ac­tions and grow­ing the com­mu­nity. We’ve gone from a one-directional mem­ber­ship experience—we send you stuff again and again, and then you show up–to a tri­an­gu­lar rela­tion­ship where Shel­ley and I get to know the 1stfans, they get to know us, and they get to know each other.

The idea here is that they have a cer­tain num­ber of peo­ple who are will­ing to pay for a tra­di­tional mem­ber­ship and a cer­tain num­ber of peo­ple who use their free ser­vices, but they want to cre­ate a mid­dle tier that’s based on exclu­sive con­tent.  In this case, the exclu­sive con­tent is par­tially being dis­trib­uted via social media: a pri­vate Face­book group, pri­vate Twit­ter feed, etc.  They chose a price point of $20 and launched from there.

This pro­gram shows how hard it is to draw an audi­ence to exclu­sive con­tent.  It launched in Dec. 2008 and was tar­geted at 10,000 peo­ple who par­tic­i­pate in the museum’s free First Sat­ur­day events.  As of Feb­ru­ary, when the linked arti­cle was writ­ten, the paid pro­gram had 272 mem­bers.  I’m not sure what the total num­ber is now, but since the exclu­sive 1stfans Twit­ter account only has 218 fol­low­ers as of this morn­ing, it seems like it’s remained a very small per­cent­age of the total audi­ence the museum was tar­get­ing.  It seems to be a reminder that hav­ing an online audi­ence by no means implies that you have a mon­e­ti­z­able audience.

via Museum 2.0: 1stfans: An Audience-Specific Mem­ber­ship Pro­gram at the Brook­lyn Museum.

EDIT:  Will (from the linked inter­view) responds to this post in the com­ments with some inter­est­ing thoughts and points out a bad assump­tion on my part, you should take a look at those for a closer per­spec­tive on this.

Passing Through: Changing blog platforms without losing PageRank

How to Switch from Blog­ger to Word­Press With­out Los­ing Google Traf­fic — Step by Step Guide.

Saw this post a lit­tle while ago on mov­ing from Blog­ger to a cus­tom Word­Press install.  It has a neat lit­tle mis­use of Blogger’s tem­plate sys­tem to cre­ate a cus­tom 301 redi­rect tem­plate on Blogspot.  Kind of a nice idea since it’s not just redi­rect­ing every page of the old blog to the front page of that new one the way that Blogger’s default migra­tion tool does.  I’m not quite as con­fi­dent that it will main­tain PageR­ank seam­lessly, but it’s cer­tainly a bet­ter solu­tion than the default tools.

Digestion: Users Love Stupid Content

Image by Kevin Marks

Image by Kevin Marks

Twit­ter has become a play­ground for imbe­ciles, skeevy mar­keters, D-list celebrity half-wits, and pathetic atten­tion seek­ers: Shaquille O’Neal, Kim Kar­dashian, Ryan Seacrest. Sure, some seri­ous peo­ple, like George Stephanopou­los and Al Gore, use Twit­ter. And a lot of pub­lish­ing com­pa­nies and blog­gers (myself included) use Twit­ter to send links to arti­cles we’ve pub­lished. But most of what streams across Twit­ter is junk. One recent study con­cluded that 40 per­cent of the mes­sages are “point­less babble.”

via Twitter’s Pop­u­lar­ity: Users Love Stu­pid Con­tent | Newsweek Daniel Lyons | Tech­tonic Shifts | Newsweek.com.

Really?  40% of Twit­ter mes­sages are “point­less bab­ble”?  Maybe it’s just me, but com­pared to tele­vi­sion, radio, blogs, and, well, every­day con­ver­sa­tions, that’s an amaz­ingly good signal-to-noise ratio.

While Daniel Lyons catches up with those of us who have seen Idioc­racy, a cou­ple of other thoughts:

  • $55 mil­lion in ven­ture cap­i­tal I can see.  But is some­body going to pay $1 bil­lion to acquire Twit­ter, the com­pany that has trum­peted how uncon­cerned it is with mak­ing money?
  • Twit­ter has an audience…but what kind of audi­ence is it?  Twit­ter users have become accus­tomed to fil­ter­ing their mes­sages pre­cisely because of the spam, inane com­ments, and mis­di­rected per­sonal replies that fill the net­work.  How respon­sive are Twit­ter users going to be com­pared to users of tra­di­tional web sites?
  • The intro­duc­tion of AdSense to gmail was one of the key moments in turn­ing Google from the “don’t be evil” com­pany into a bur­geon­ing Big Brother.  It was seen as sig­nif­i­cant for two rea­sons:  the ads were being placed in the con­text of per­sonal com­mu­ni­ca­tions, and Google was scan­ning email for key­words to tar­get ad place­ments.  Twit­ter would be vul­ner­a­ble to the first claim, but what about the sec­ond?  It seems like con­tex­tual place­ment would be the best/only way to effec­tively adver­tise on Twit­ter, but with that be sub­ject to as big a back­lash as gmail saw?
  • Twitter’s ser­vice is already pretty bad, quite frankly.  Con­stant server out­ages, flaky search, and no real sup­port sys­tem adds up to a ser­vice that prob­a­bly would have been aban­doned were it not free.  Are users going to put up with bad ser­vice when they have to see ads as well?  Are adver­tis­ers going to pay to place ads on a net­work that always seems to be a stiff breeze away from collapse?

Creeping Inevitability: Using Twitter Hashtags, Just Like Usenet!

Hash­tags are essen­tially a sim­ple way to cat­a­log and con­nect tweets about a spe­cific topic. They make it eas­ier for users to find addi­tional tweets on a par­tic­u­lar sub­ject, while fil­ter­ing out the inci­den­tal tweets that may just coin­ci­den­tally con­tain the same key­word. Hash­tags are also often used by con­fer­ence and event orga­niz­ers as a method of keep­ing all tweets about the event in a sin­gle stream, and they’ve even been used to coor­di­nate updates dur­ing emergencies.

via HOW TO: Use Twit­ter Hash­tags for Busi­ness.

Not a whole lot to say on the con­tent of the arti­cle itself as its pretty basic and self explana­tory.  What I find inter­est­ing, though, is the hash­tag idea itself.  It breaks the idea of a social net­work because you’re no longer just broad­cast­ing to your friends, you’re attach­ing a global tag that can be found any­where.  I won­der what would hap­pen if Usenet were intro­duced as a new prod­uct today?  That’s essen­tially what we’re look­ing at with tags, except for the char­ac­ter limits.

The fun part about Usenet was that it cre­ated com­mu­nity by start­ing with the tags (group names, as top­ics, are essen­tially just tags).  Twit­ter, though, starts with a loose com­mu­nity and has now emer­gently added tags to it.  What do the net­work maps look like for both ser­vices?  It seems to me that Usenet was actu­ally a more ‘social’ ser­vice in the sense that new com­mu­ni­ties were formed…users used to be more atomic, whereas now they’re more locked in to their indi­vid­ual, pre-determined cir­cles.  Not that Usenet was a utopia of course, even the groups that weren’t over­run by spam, porn, and bina­ries even­tu­ally devel­oped into impen­e­tra­ble tribal cliques…but that seems to be largely how Twit­ter is start­ing out.

Passing Through: Linkbait Your Blog

Scan the tabloid rack for head­lines that make you want to shout, “Hey Martha, come see!” Try to cre­ate the same “must share this” effect in your own head­lines. Really, who can resist “fem­bots and the geeks who love them”?

via Linkbait Your Blog — Wired How-To Wiki.

Oh dear.  This is an excel­lent the­ory.  It’s also exactly the wrong way to think about it.  Maybe the tabloid rack isn’t the best place to look…

I’m not sure why, but the idea that this came out of a wiki post seems wrong to me.  Is tabloid really the direc­tion we want to go with social media?

Interesting Things: EAFail

circles

EA has a new game com­ing out, shock­ingly enough.  You might be able to guess its name from the image above, or maybe you can tell it from the cou­ple of times it was men­tioned in Ars’ cov­er­age of its con­tro­ver­sial adver­tis­ing cam­paign.

Why exactly it’s con­tro­ver­sial, though, I’m not sure.  It’s really not doing any­thing any worse than adver­tis­ers have done in the past, and it’s far bet­ter than many.  The inter­est­ing part is that they’re actu­ally admit­ting what they’re doing.  As in many things, it’s all about fram­ing an action with an idea, and EA has decided that their idea is sin.  The fact that what they iden­tify as sin is no dif­fer­ent than what goes on all the time is a bit telling about the adver­tis­ing indus­try in general.

I sus­pect what peo­ple are really react­ing to is two things:  the trap and the expo­sure.  It’s a trap in the sense that there’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t sense for the peo­ple who would like to react neg­a­tively to the cam­paign.  If they talk about it, it’s adver­tis­ing, if they don’t, they’re miss­ing the oppor­tu­nity to throw stones (and who doesn’t want to do that?).  Expo­sure is what I already men­tioned; these are the things that go on all the time any­way, and now they’re being labeled as sin.  That peo­ple are out­raged by it is even more telling about the level of cog­ni­tive dis­so­nance that’s float­ing around in the aver­age ad target’s brain.

Passing Through: Spam Among Friends

Mr. Know-It-All on Spam Among Friends, Blog Con­tests, Naked Babies.

That said, there’s noth­ing wrong with aggres­sive self-promotion. Sift through your con­tacts to iden­tify peo­ple who might be inter­ested, even though they haven’t explic­itly opted in. Focus on folks with whom you’ve enjoyed at least one warm exchange. Then tai­lor the mes­sages. “Per­son­al­ize each email,” says Chris Bro­gan, pres­i­dent of New Mar­ket­ing Labs, a social-media con­sult­ing firm. “Send them one at a time and say one per­sonal thing at the begin­ning of each.”

Yes, because form let­ters are clearly vastly supe­rior to fliers.  Just make sure you put the right blandly-friendly triv­i­al­ity in the right enve­lope or you may end up in an old sit­com episode.