Group items tagged

really more *net than HBSN, but thinking ahead>>> architecture posted earlier with content producer literally keeping posession, serving out content with a pay and privacy wrapper to sites who do nothing but resolve to the content (ie don't keep it) sort of like video embeds that can be yanked remotely - I will be paying attention to this guy

incidentally though I have yet to clear through his blog, lots of interesting headings in there, it's not just the content that can be bought and sold, the metadata sets (aspects, object types, class types) can be much more readily sold as can the next level of indirection, presentations for those aspects - next item up for bids is the structure (or instance relations) when one 'adopts' a piece of someone's perspective it could register a microtransaction of value. paying for interest in a piece of content makes more sense than paying for reading it, though interest is a bit trickier to ascertain - value assignment can be done in arrears by tracking liquidity events through the corpus of material the person getting that liquidity has 'experienced' in their travels, ie they may have been 'influenced' by another piece of music in their composition and not even realize it, but the music analysis bot and history bot will suck that money down to the original composer, which takes me to a post wildcat shared about IP, will go find now... scuffle scuffle

FishMan - this sounds a little bit like Ning, a socnet for all folks (build your own!) Why do you think there is no monetization by any one of these efforts? That's a key part to what I'm imagining for HBSN. Hmmmmm

Checking into ad.ly, their pay rate and advertisers aren't based on your attention, they are based strictly on the number of followers you have. Their whole model is wrapped around slight-of-hand diversion. They figure that by dropping an ad tweet into your own personal twitterstream on an every other day basis, will appear innocent enough on the surface, that some (>1%?) will mistake it for something you personally tweeted and since they follow you blindly like hooded lemurs in Jonestown, they;ll drink your koolaid and make a buying decision. Seems a bit underhanded to me. And they aren't paying me because I might be a good target, they are paying me because I have a high enough unwashed masses quotient to justify the exposure. I set my rate for $5000 figuring that even though I have fewer than 100 followers, they are quality followers and not bots (except for Kurt) and that my endorsement to them is worth a great deal. So far, the till's empty.

if you advertise to me I will recycle it on an hourly loop and feed it back to you

so we are not the only ones discovering that it is the more of the social and less of the network...so, the network is the issue???

I think it's an issue more of human attention span and capability. It's much easier to keep tabs on and interact with a smaller group because we lack the ability to divide our attentions out beyond a certain point. There are already enough distractions in the world between family, work, neighborhood, town, city, state, country, etc. Adding another layer of interaction complicates everything else that is going around. In a small group, voices can be picked out from the crowd and heard--attended to. In a large group, a single voice gets drowned by the activity of everyone else, and the 'group' loses identity as a group, and becomes a mob. Besides, I like the bulletin board analogy--it really brought this idea. Time to stop looking at all the pinheads and pair down the clutter, right?

SEE!?!?!?! It's happening!!!

This is amazing!! In a down economy to get 1% engagement and double the revenue is just amazing. There's something to this new engagement stuff.

I know several examples of my friends (non-techie) that are already doing this. They seem to like it much better - all their friends in one place. The favorite if Facebook. I can't figure out who's reading what that I write, so I'm less interested right now, but if preferences/settings were much more obvious, this seems like it will happen. Right now notification seems to be working for me in Diigo.

this seems like so much bs to me - facebook will be used for one to many, email client will be the notification/alert single screen of attention for everyone over 30. kiddies will likely embrace the new tech, and text will be their notification or they will use a phone client of some sort to aggregate. hopefully we can come up with a device independent alert/notification management interface that can 'replace' the email client (I'm getting pretty tired of managing social networks from an email client), but I bet it will be one of the email client providers who will figure that out and own it. it may mean handling more protocols in email client. the cardinal example in my mind is iCal handling in email clients - it automatically presents a different UI for that message - why shouldn't an email client be able to do everything facebook does? I think the paragraph from Gartner is so much bs as we have no real fixing of terms - will the email client as we know it today disappear, YES will the experience of messaging be more like facebook, GOD I HOPE NOT, but perhaps, but is this research worth paying for? frigging sound bites

Yet another social bookmarking service?

Jack, I connected with you on Strings. So, from now on, you'll get an email whenever I do something on my PC or in my bedroom... No, just joking: I haven't shared anything and don't really see the point yet. But if you share something, I'll probably get a notification :)

haahaaa...T.M.I. with strings. despite their assertion of multiple privacy levels, the mere fact that they WANT to follow everything you do in order to make personalized recommendations is what frightens me about the directions of Web 3.0. Who will watch the watchers? Goog is one thing with their 'do no evil' credo, but the idea of 24/7 active monitoring smacks of more than just altruistic effort to me. I'm gonna let someone else play with this strings...

and look--a bookmarklet. Now where have we seen THAT before?

Lists can have sections: once you've created a list, you can organize it, ie move items up and down just as with Diigo lists, but you can also create sections and then move items to those sections. Now can you have subsections? Apparently not. Well, one level of subsections may be good enough after all.

another project waiting for attention. I had all sorts of good intentions to explore 'lists', but have gotten really busy at work these days--typical 'right-sizing' actions by my employer have cut design staff to save money, while at the same time, pressuring the sales-force to bring in more business, meaning more efforts required by fewer bodies, under increased pressure to perform under tightened time constraints. this fish has no time to swim--too occupied dodging sharks! I am hoping that lists on google become more functional--as it is now, you have to bookmark first, then go to your bookmarks page to share to a list. they shoulda bought Twine just to learn that one!

People can actually do this. Looks like a pot of trouble to me.