Amid my twitter stream being awash with #goldenglobes activities, I take to the mic and expound on the liars who tell me how "easy" everything is.
Well folks, the LHT has been around for two years. 730 days' worth of blog posts, podcasts, loving and hate things that range from lifechanging to mindless minutiae. Thanks to everyone on Posterous and Twitter who follows me. Thanks to everyone who's taken the time to comment on a post or retweet.
I never thought that I would get so much joy and satisfaction from communicating in this manner, but I'm thrilled that it's working. I don't know what lies ahead for the LHT as it has gone through several evolutionary steps already, but I hope you're all there to go through it with me.
Thanks for a great 2 years, and high hopes for many more.
Anthony
Is it just me or has Google really come up short in calling its latest endeavour "Buzz"?
Sounding more like something you'd mix with Vodka at a party than a segue into microblogging, Google has not only pursued an exercise in redundancy by ripping off the brand of a years' old Yahoo service, but they've reminded me of the evil sound my clock radio makes every morning.
Is it just me, or does someone wish that Google would just prefix "G" onto everything ala Apple's "I" moniker. We could call it Gstatus or Gstate. Isn't that infinitely cooler? The question by your update window could ask "What kind of Gstate are you in?" Instead, I'm expected to revisit Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice by answering "What's the Buzz, tell me what's a-happening?"
You know, I don't throw the word "stupid" around too often, mostly because it's an unimaginative insult that begs for a more creative insult. And so, in considering the best descriptor for Google Buzz, I considered the words uninspired, doltish, inane, puerile, or witless. And the reason I settled on stupid, is because I figured it appropriate to just follow your model and go with the first crass idea that came to head: stupid.
Come on Google. You're more creative than that. I love your products and your flair for the dramatic with brands like: "Gmail, Maps, Videos, News, Books, Docs, Reader... hang on a sec! Other than Wave, Buzz is about the most creative name you've come up with for one of your web services. If this evidence is an indication of what we're to see in the future, can we expect animals, cars, or countries next?
At least I can hope you won't name a service after feminine hygiene product. I mean, I don't know what Google Douche will do to freshen the web, but I imagine it may put some people off.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for Serendipity.
While I've posted on a similar topic before, I found last week's announcements regarding Google's social search and Bing's full pipe search of Twitter and Facebook APIs cool, yet, at the same time, also a bit disconcerting.
In as much as one the greatest downfalls of early search algorithms was the assault of flotsam that was returned with every query, it is precisely an aspect of that muddled result that I fear losing. A great characteristic of the early graphic web was serendipity.
We're talking Web 1.0 here. It was a time before the great permeation of referral engines and aggregators, when a reader had to scour through fathoms of muck and mire NOT to find something good, but often just to find something of interest. If it was good, that was an added bonus.
There were regular occurrences of finding fantastic useful and interesting stuff, that enabled you to expand your horizons and knowledge, which had nothing to do with your original search term. Such is one of the great benefits of raw research; you don't only hope to find what you're looking for, you hope to find a whole bunch of other bizarre, eclectic, and brilliant knowledge as well. Click this webpage randomizer link five times and tell me that, by the end, you haven't learned something.
When Social Network algorithms become integrated into your average Google or Bing query, your results will be throttled tighter than they ever have before. And I'll be the first to acknowledge that's probably what most people want. We love the idea of not having to wade through the morass of Web 1.0 where it sometimes took hours to find what we wanted. We lust after authority-based aggregation and recommendations that will point us in the right direction so that the content-drenched world of Web 2.0 won't swallow us whole.
There is a little part of me, however, that enjoyed the search and the discovery that went along with it. There is a piece of my brain that expanded by being forced to make connections in wondering why, when I queried one term, would I get a result that included this specific link. Don't we all have a small part of our brain that yearns for the open road, not caring where we're going or how we get there; productivity be damned! Don't we wish that upon being asked "where you goin'", we could just say "not here"?
One of the things I love doing is going to a site like StumbleUpon and doing random "stumbles". But, even then, they aren't completely random. They are a subset of the users of service, who, by themselves, are a generally pretty savvy group of web users. It is still fun nonetheless.
The search tools are necessary. There are plenty of times that I need to really find something, and swimming around in the trillions of bits and bytes of information trying to find one piece would be useless and foolhardy. It's the evolving pattern that is beginning to scare me a bit. The pattern dictates that as information multiplies, search results become more focused.
When static web pages ruled, results were more widely varied, partially due to the fact that web communities were less automatic and SEO was above the head of the average Geocities or Lycos user.
When social networks emerged and blogging ballooned, subjective content resulted an exponential explosion that threatened to muddy up you average search, but, conveniently enough, technology allowed the results to get even better. SEO, easy tagging, and a more educated internet-savvy content creator was being bred, and we found what we needed easier.
As "social search" and like-minded approaches start to filter into user habits, every search will now pass through yet another filter, distilling the purest result to the end user. This is great for answers. This is a boon to productivity. This is what everyone wants when they search for something. This is what I want when I search for something. But has serendipity died online? Does filtering a search through ever-increasingly effective algorithms which factor in popularity, and adding a filter of authority based on a list of people I have on Facebook or Twitter allow me to expand my horizons or does it effectively quash them.
If you walked into a bookstore and in the first room there was only one shelf with "Books You Will Like", would you be tempted to forage beyond the curtain at the back of store to see what's being hidden?
Maybe it's just the adventurer in me, but sometimes I like the open road, even with the occasional undercooked Stuckey's chicken and glaring billboards for adult stores and firework warehouses.
Yeah, I can ramble a bit, but when someone says "Citizen Journalism" it kinda gets my back up a bit. It's not that I don't think the person on the street can't contribute to the ongoing dialogues and diatribes about everything from the crucial to the mundane. It's simply that, almost all the time, it ain't journalism. And with Twitter, there's even less of a chance... but I digress... give a listen.
Droppin' some science on pop can color archetype,
the online petition, and "snippet education".
Concerning the lacklustre first week of Internet
Explorer 8, the whining about Facebook changes, and yet another idea of how
someone can make money on all these "free" social networking
services.
"The 39th Step" of lovehatethings includes some ruminations on the "next" great social network, saving money on lethal injections through last meals, sleeping in a hamburger, and why I can't bring myself to care about award shows and Mac announcements.