Enter World: exploring mediated cultures

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Everywhere I look in my feeds and alerts there are short pieces about the increase in lawsuits against bloggers popping up. But what does 4 lawsuits in 1997 versus 89 in 2007 really mean?

The madness seems to arise from division: 89 is 22.25 times 4. That sounds pretty impressive.

But what if we use something a little more meaningful like the percentage of the blogs involved in lawsuits to compare this much-cited statistic?

Blogging began in the 1990s. As far back as 1993 there was a forest protection blog, in 1994 there was a student writing a diary online, but it wasn’t until 1999 that blogs took off. And it wasn’t until 2001 that they became mainstream. Then in 2004 they flew into the spotlight. The number of people blogging increased with the popularity of blogging. The question becomes: How many bloggers were there in 1997?

We’ll start in 2007 and work backward. In 2007, there were over 70 million blogs. It is important to note that this is only how many blogs Technorati was tracking at that time, the actual number of blogs was most likely higher.  With 89 lawsuits spread out between 70,000,000 blogs that would be .0001% of blogs in 2007 that were called into courts. 

The State of Technorati only goes back as far as 2004 when the 3 millionth blog was tracked and 12,000 new blogs were being created every day.

It’s more difficult to find the number of blogs from 1997. A BloggerCon post estimates no more than 4 to 5 blogs were up in 1997. That would mean 100% of blogs in 1997 were called into court!?

The BBC says in 1998 there were 23 blogs. Just for fun, let’s use this number—because it’s hard to believe that ALL the blogs in 1997 were sued. If there were 23 blogs with 4 having lawsuits brought against them, that would mean that 17% of blogs were involved.

Let’s recap:
1997/1998: 17 or 100 percent of blogs are involved in a lawsuit
2007: .0001 percent of blogs are involved in a lawsuit

Does this sound like an increase warranting all of the hype? It is still a good thing to know the laws, and taking the free online media law class won’t hurt—but I’m beginning to think these “posts” I’ve seen are actually press releases pushing the sale of buying insurance.

Friday, September 19, 2008

We hear about issues of cellphone overuse: poor driving, lack of etiquette, interruption of co-present interactions, cellphone addiction. But what about the low level of service that is available in the United States? Before SMS was even available through my carrier I was using websites to send text messages to friends in Europe. They received the messages without a charge. Yet even now that SMS is popular in the States, we pay for incoming texts. With AT&T I even pay for the minutes used to listen to my own voicemail.

This fee-based receipt of messages creates another level of etiquette. Is it more polite to call someone, subjecting those around you to your conversation, or to send a text that will automatically force the receiver into paying for it?

Alternative media outlets and public information networks in developing nations use SMS to send out news to people who don’t have computer or email access but have a high level of mobile phone ownership. There are many areas in the States where local media could use such a service. However, with carriers charging for incoming texts the potential for this method of communication becomes limited. 

Sunday, September 14, 2008

I’ve been noticing commercials lately that promote products that are under attack by health and environmental trends. It’s interesting to see what angle the ads take to promote the products.

Examples:

Dixie paper plates

Overt message: Paper plates are good for your kids because you get to spend more time with them instead of washing dishes. The product makes life easier.
Indirect message: Washing dishes, teaching kids to clean up after themselves, and using more economical reusable plates are not family-oriented things.

Corn Refiners Association

Overt message: HFCS is natural. Cool moms serve HFCS.
Indirect message: The people complaining about HFCS are just parroting what “they” say and are not informed.

Although the debate about corn syrup rages at a different level, connected to public health issues such as obesity and diabetes, it seems like commercials are being targeted against the healthy eating and sustainable living trend on multiple levels. Advertising urging families to stick with simplicity and give up arguing against potentially unhealthy, unsustainable living practices gives me the impression that this change in public attitude is hurting businesses...some businesses.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Back in May I ran across a link to a site that allowed users to test whether their ISPs were throttling connections to specific sites. It was a German sitethat I never was able to connect to—first the servers were full, now it’s gone.

Friday Google announced that it is working on software to allow users to find out just this information.

There have been some observers pointing out that Google would benefit from this by retaining a stronghold on searches, because in a world where people fear they are being watched a competitor could create a masked search engine. I have little doubt everything done in the Internet is already being logged and watched in some way. My concern lies more in the area of ISPs accepting payment for restricting access to specific sites.

Google has been coming out with some spectacular programs lately. I was on the fence when the company went public, but so far I do appreciate the new bells and whistles being offered. When they do release this tool, I’ll be jumping to test it.

Saturday, June 07, 2008

The concept of a truly democratic internet culture is being eroded by access. Although large corporations have been building sites and trying to take over the internet terrain for years, at least users still have the choice of what to visit—or we did.

Our limited options for accessing the internet are beginning to take even that decision away. I’m staying at a place right now that uses Comcast, and it’s like constantly hitting my head against the wall. I work from home, so I need to be able to upload and download large files. But the more you use, the slower your service gets. I’ve also noticed a significant difference in accessing lowes.com and homedepot.com—Home Depot’s site works and Lowe’s doesn’t. This makes me feisty and annoyed, so I drive to Lowe’s and buy things there since I can’t compare prices online and the stores are in opposite directions. I don’t like the idea that Comcast might be partnering with Home Depot to slow down my access to competitors. So Lowe’s wins. Another company site I’ve noticed is extremely slow is Netflix. Could it be because Comcast has Fancast—a competitor to Netflix?

What really are our options for internet access? It seems like any smaller company providing access is just renting the lines from Comcast or Verizon, so the services will still have the same limitations. Here’s what I can come up with ...

Comcast. High speed, unless you use it. Don’t be fooled by the connections they offer, since they admit to “managing” your access.

3G wireless internet access anywhere you roam. ATT (also available through other providers). Limited to a single computer, but accessible from anywhere with satellite, radio, or cell phone signals. Drawback: ATT sells wire tapping of phone lines, so prepare to sign up for exhibitionism along with service.

Verizon FiOS. This is my choice for now. I’m sure there are problems with Verizon just like any other company, but at least they won’t tell me what I can and can’t access. Plus the FiOS option, as opposed to DSL, finally brings their service up to a competitive speed with cable service providers.

Are there other options I’m missing?

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Diane Cipa, of The Closing Specialists in Pennsylvania, keeps up a blog about title insurance issues called Title Insurance Talk. I know this because about a month ago I was looking for recommendations on local title insurance companies so I posted to a Pittsburgh community blog. Diane got my question through Google Alerts, created an account on the community blog, and responded to me. She also included a link to her blog.

It may be a bit rash to jump to the conclusion that you want to work with someone because of a blog, but I fully support business transparency and her blog was definitely a good sign in my eyes. We had a good conversation via email about Braddock, and since then I have sent at least two more jobs her way plus recommended her to the mayor for anyone else new to town.

The Closing Specialists’ service was top notch, but it was really the personal connection with Diane during that first day that made all of the difference.

Using Google Alerts to watch for business leads is smart, especially when followed up properly. Unlike the situation with Comcast following Tweets, this interaction with a stranger left me very pleased.

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Today a friend of mine had a problem with Comcast and posted about it on Twitter. They responded, and her internet is working again.

I had heard that the company is monitoring tweets with its name in it when I was at the New Comm Forum, so I replied to her about it. I added in a little criticism of Comcast too, as much as my 140 characters would allow. Even though following Twitter is a smart move for a company to put out the small fires before they become something more, it isn’t a substitute for improving their overall support.

Some background: I have never been a direct subscriber to Comcast, but I was forced into servitude while renting in Portland, OR. We rented two different places from the same property manager and had vastly different experiences with Comcast service in each. It was enough of a difference to make me question if the address on the bill shaped the quality of service available to customers.

Before heading back to Juneau for a month in December, we were staying at apartments on NE Prescott & NE 20th. During that time we shared an internet connection through a quadraplex and not once did we have a problem with Comcast. When we returned in January we moved into a house on NE Rosa Parks Way. We did not have consistent internet service for longer than a week during the three months we were there. In fact, when we arrived both the cable tv and internet were down even though the owner had been paying Comcast when the house was empty. It was a non-stop battle with the worst customer service I’ve experienced the entire time we were there, and enough to make us swear off Comcast at the expense of potentially slower internet service in the future.

So when wscottw3 and comcastcares responded to my response to my friend, rather than feeling all warm and fuzzy from the attention I got a case of the creeps. It turns out I’m not alone, there are other tweets about this type of invasion of personal space by Comcast on Twitter.

Can a tweet really go that far? Twitter isn’t private—it’s very public. Watching tweets is not so much eavesdropping on conversations, it’s more like perusing blogs. We all know our Twitter messages are all over the web for anyone to see, unless we chose to lock it down.

There is a definite need to explore the concept of personal space online. Is it different when a representative of a corporation contacts you than when a person finds you because of similar interests?

Perhaps our spaces on the internet can be understood in a similar way to how anthropologist Edward T. Hall looks at interpersonal spaces. It becomes more acceptable to be (physically and digitally?) close to someone the more you like that individual.

My friend can certainly respond to my tweet, others that I know or who have similar experiences can as well. And Comcast helped her, as a customer, fix a problem so their interaction was not invasive. But when it extends beyond the social realm, and turns into brand management, that does feel like an invasion of personal space despite the public nature of the conversation.

Sites to use to search Twitter posts:

• TerraMinds
• TweetScan
• Google Beta Twitter Search

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

I was shocked and angered to see Jakob Nielsen’s response (below) to a student highlighted in his April 21, 2008, Alertbox email:

I WON’T DO YOUR HOMEWORK

Last week I got this email:

“My name is Donald Duck, and I am currently a junior psychology major at Duckburg College. For my senior thesis, I would like to conduct some usability studies in the process of redesigning my old high school’s website. In making this my senior thesis, part of what I have to do is find out what research is currently being done in the field, in order to build upon it. I do not know much about usability or interface design from a research perspective. I am wondering if you might be able to point me in the right direction for where I can get started learning about this field.”

Sorry - I am not going to do your homework for you. Even today, there is such a thing as the library. Or search engines that rapidly will turn up articles such as “Usability 101” to serve as a starting point for online research if you can’t be bothered to crack open a book or research journal:  > http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html

What good is a usable site if you refuse to connect with the readers? The ability to contact people otherwise remote is at the center of the internet’s democratization of networking. Unless more than the name, “Donald Duck” is surely not the sender, was edited by Nielsen, it appears that the student was asking for resource suggestions to start researching not a 250-word essay to plagiarize.

On top of that, although I am an avid fan of libraries—why discount the student for contacting the most notable primary resource on the topic rather than relying on secondhand information watered down by publishing houses and buried in the stacks? Yet another thing that a usable internet gives us is access to the source.

Nielsen was flat out rude and inconsistent with usability—on top of which, he downplays his own site by referring to it only as a source to use as a last, lazy, resort. Poor form.

Sunday, March 09, 2008

TrueCrypt is absolute horror.

The idea of encrypting files in a folder seemed practical and like something I should do before embarking on my cross-country drive. I researched some available Mac programs and settled with TrueCrypt. I installed it, set up a space, and copied over every file I deemed really truly special: my Very Important Files. The top of the top. Receipts, business licenses, applications, taxes, scholarship info, student loan info, scans of important documents, everything financial, everything with personal information.

I did not immediately trust the program, instead I shut it down, reopened it, refusing to make a new backup or delete the files from their original locations until I had thoroughly tested it. Over about a week I opened, accessed, read files, moved files, renamed folders, closed, shut down, remounted, accessed, etc. without troubles.

Finally, I trusted the program and removed the original files. Then I didn’t look at the files between February 28 and last night when I decided to whip out my business tax files and start preparing what is needed ... and the whole thing was blank.

No files. No folders. Nothing.

I can open it, the password works, but it says all 400MB allotted is free and there are 0 files, even though on February 28 there were 4 folders with files dating back to 2001 that took up 149MB. I spent most of last night trying to find them. They no longer exist. Even the backup of that file is empty (or corrupted?) now.

Saturday, August 04, 2007

New York passed the first passenger bill of rights.

I am disappointed that they only require water after three hours ... but any future travel plans I make will surely take this law into consideration. When presented with the option of a layover there or anywhere else ... it will be New York.