Group items tagged

I didn't find any of my friends using this, but I did find an old account of my own that I had completely forgotten about. For a split second I was like, "how did this person find all those photos of me???" Lol.

Any thoughts on the privacy issue I raised above? Revealing information about users shouldn't be something a user has to opt out of. For example some people may not want their co-workers or potential employers to know that they have a flickr account. They should have to opt in instead of opt out. I think this could get ugly for some people who don't want to be found. Also the setting for opting out should be changed. I may want to be found by my flickr buddy name, but just not by the new email address way. There should be a way to leave things the same way they were before. Now I can only opt out of everything or opt in for everything.

Proggie: Privacy is something we take very seriously at Flickr. People have actually always been searchable by email address on Flickr (via "People Search"), and we chose to respect our member's existing people search preference settings (as well as make that preference page easier to find). On the opt-out versus opt-in issue, this is something where we carefully weighed the options, and chose the default option based on what we feel would have the greatest benefit for the majority of our members. Just as we chose to make "public" the default for uploaded photos, we chose to preserve opt-out as the default for people search on Flickr.

Flickr is more fun with friends, but it is a big busy place, and sometimes it can be hard to find the people you know. The new Find Your Friends feature can help with that. If you have a Yahoo! Mail, Gmail, or Microsoft Live Hotmail account we can look for people in your address book who are already using Flickr. Then you can add them as a Flickr contact. How neat is that?

社交網絡的資源有隱性與顯性兩種，顯性就是當事人與其創作，隱性就是當事人的最愛、朋友名單和標籤，例如我在slideshare上的帳號是goldred，我的slideshare空間（slidespace）上，不但有我上傳的投影片，還有我的最愛和朋友名單，另外還有我的標籤（tag）區，因為我把最愛當成書籤來使用，累積了一百多個投影片，要逐個檢視很費時間，若透過標籤來搜尋，就可縮小範圍，不但方便，也利人利己。 在真實世界中，我們結交朋友，就只是認識他這個人而已，大家感情好的話，就會常在一起聊聊天、吃飯、唱歌、參加讀書會或旅遊，雖然我們了解他這個人，跟他分享了許多時光，卻不見得非常清楚他內心深處有甚麼想法，有那些創作，或是有些甚麼其他朋友？ 在虛擬世界，我們或許沒見過創作者本人，卻讀過好多他的作品，也能藉由科技的協助，看到他的朋友名單和最愛的紀錄，再從中去發掘其他資源，真實與虛擬世界的朋友，我們都需要，兩相對照，既有趣又互補。 像Facebook或Myspace這兩個當紅的社交網絡，都是從高中與大學的校園起家的，以學生為主要參與者，因此他們所強化的是真實世界的人際關係，很多老外讚嘆Facebook的原因，是他們經由Facebook的協助，找到失散多年的同事或同學，但我用Facebook用得很乏味，因為Facebook目前還是英文介面，每個台灣 人的學校或公司翻譯成英文後，可能產生許多版本，就很難以它們為關鍵字，來找到以前的朋友了。 Slideshare或Flickr也很紅，同樣是以物件為中介的第二代社交網絡，他們的運作方式跟facebook卻很不一樣，它協助我們找到現實社會中難以尋覓的人際資源，像我初學攝影，很想觀摩高手的作品，也希望獲得高手的鼓勵，這些需求都在Flickr上獲得滿足，我在Flickr上認識了歐美、南美與日本各地的專家，參加了以花或樹為攝影主題的社群，它透過共同的興趣和網際網路，讓許多原本無緣相見的人能夠連結在一起。 在物質世界中，朋友的東西不見得是我的，在虛擬世界中，只要朋友把它公開，朋友的朋友，就是我的朋友，朋友的最愛，就是我的最愛，「朋友的朋友」和「朋友的最愛」都是讓我們在網路上發現寶藏的好幫手！

从一个手工书的计划，到一个被全球手工创作人关注的flickr group，这一切，仍然很渺小，不伟大，但却给我力量。

5/31/2008豆瓣颠覆我的精神世界豆瓣的标签实在是让人崩溃的概念。 要不要新建标签在我每次添加一本新书或电影或音乐的时候都很挠头。rock和post-punk和pop-rock显然不是并列的概念。既然有了TVshows的标签还需要sitcome的标签么？还有动画片的标签之外还要不要另外有宫崎骏。后者显然是子标签，不应该和夫标签在一起。更有甚者用诸如“年少时候看的”这样的标签来定义一张DVD，这实在是让我崩溃。可我是一个专业人士我怎么可能为了精彩纷呈的大千世界把我的井然有序的树状结构给打破！ 世界是棵美好的井然有序的大树。我们发明了1和0来表述一切。我们有逻辑让每一个东西都有自己所在的位置。只要你这样这样这样这样，你就得到那样那样那样。然后就出现了这些不懂规矩的使用者，他们在豆瓣上用标签来定义世界，一切都变得乱七八糟，沮丧的我找不到任何东西跟其他东西的逻辑联系，完全迷失在标签里。 唉，难道我们建立的井然有序的世界就要被标签吞没了么？

Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder（万物因此而多姿多彩：新数字无序的力量）：http://www.douban.com/subject/1984367/有人在那里留言说，本书将由中信出版社于2008年6月出版。看来大陆的朋友很快就可以看到中文版本了。

豆瓣的真正主要决定性力量在于两点，我只说其中一点：介于“硬分类”和纯粹tag之间的逻辑结构――从“我注六经”到“六经注我”。在豆瓣之前，BBS的社区也好，门户也好，都是“硬分类”。比如一个典型的BBS被站方少则分成几十个版块，多则上千个版块，这是一种“刚性”的分类和结构，框架住了网站的发展，使得社区要么做不大，要么水化。或者说，web2.0概念以前，国内以BBS为主的社区只能走媒体化的道路，而如果要纯粹做社区，不是某个网站的能力问题，而是“硬分类”的逻辑架构“框死”限制了他们的发展。严格说来，在web2.0概念以前，国内没有真正的大型社区。而tag的出现，以及以此为逻辑结构的网站，比如flickr的发展，为国内社区网站带来了曙光－－Tag是一个用户自组织的“软分类”概念，它几乎无限延展，使得社区也存在了无限拓展的可能。但是，慢着，tag也有其最致命的问题。比如我现在的logo图片，你可以tag为“优伴猫粮”、“猫”、“加菲猫”或者“休闲”等等，没有统一标准－－tag扩展是扩展了，但是又过于去中心化，缺乏了讨论的基础。而豆瓣的力量即在于此。豆瓣没有硬分类的“狭隘的刚性”，也没有tag的“无法讨论的发散”，豆瓣在硬分类和tag之间寻找到了一个平衡点――书目数据库。因为一本书你再怎么给它标签，它的书名也是固定的。而围绕着书目数据库而展开讨论，就是豆瓣从另外一个角度组织了信息。

On my last day in Beijing, I was having breakfast and perusing China Daily, an English-language newspaper, when I came upon a full-page ad that captured succinctly – better than any economist’s speech could – two of the most powerful signs of China’s emerging economic growth. The photo in the ad was one of the many spectacular skyscrapers rising up across Beijing as far as the eye can see. The copy, brilliant in its simplicity, read, “Believe in the power of brands.”

This is what Yochai says and if you think blogs or Flickr or del.icio.us or YouTube or Wikis and especially Wikipedia, you begin to get a sense of what he means by ordinary connected folk having the “physical capital necessary.” This physical capital is simply a modem and a computer. Have that and you can participate. Now contrast that very low barrier to entry with what is needed to start a television or radio station, or to publish a magazine or newspaper.

OAuth and OpenID OAuth is not an OpenID extension and at the specification level, shares only few things with OpenID – some common authors and the fact both are open specification in the realm of authentication and access control. ‘Why OAuth is not an OpenID extension?’ is probably the most frequently asked question in the group. The answer is simple, OAuth attempts to provide a standard way for developers to offer their services via an API without forcing their users to expose their passwords (and other credentials). If OAuth depended on OpenID, only OpenID services would be able to use it, and while OpenID is great, there are many applications where it is not suitable or desired. Which doesn’t mean to say you cannot use the two together. OAuth talks about getting users to grant access while OpenID talks about making sure the users are really who they say they are. They should work great together.

Is OAuth a New Concept? No. OAuth is the standardization and combined wisdom of many well established industry protocols. It is similar to other protocols currently in use (Google AuthSub, AOL OpenAuth, Yahoo BBAuth, Upcoming API, Flickr API, Amazon Web Services API, etc). Each protocol provides a proprietary method for exchanging user credentials for an access token or ticker. OAuth was created by carefully studying each of these protocols and extracting the best practices and commonality that will allow new implementations as well as a smooth transition for existing services to support OAuth. An area where OAuth is more evolved than some of the other protocols and services is its direct handling of non-website services. OAuth has built in support for desktop applications, mobile devices, set-top boxes, and of course websites. Many of the protocols today use a shared secret hardcoded into your software to communicate, something which pose an issue when the service trying to access your private data is open source.

比如Pownce支持的Links，可以将youtube和flickr内嵌在某个post里面，这就是话题的来源。我没有统计数据，但统观起来，这些links不但达到了信息散播和传达的目的，而且回复数目比非链接的确要多一些。这些回复就是社区性的养料，而Links这种功能本身就提供了这样的养料生产平台。

Event这种功能更是如是。笔者住在悉尼，因此常常关注悉尼的Powncers。在悉尼，Events的公告非常多，我看到过的BBQ、Bar party等等的聚会通知不胜枚举。也就是说，Pownce甚至成为了线上社区线下化的途径。当然，笔者确未参加过这些聚会，无法给出线下聚会的评价。但这种社交性的延伸，在企业运作角度而言，笔者很欣赏。Pownce在未来可以对此多做文章，形成俱乐部或者其余一些可盈利模式，对其盈利模式的探索很具建设性。终究没有哪个mini blog现在能够有线下盈利模式的机会，更不要说尝试。

Pownce里有一个写诗的美国女孩，post出自己的诗歌，然后说如果能够得到15个decent responses就会贴出下一首。我们可以在这件事中看到，用户已经可以做self-promotion了，可见这种社区性在mini blog中的需求是可以这样具像化的。而具体的运作，仍然在于为用户提供了多少赋权。Twitter的重点在于“发生”，沟通的基础在于“做过什么”； Pownce的重点则是“议论”，沟通的基础在于“说过什么”。 Pownce对“说”这一功能的赋权相当之大，同时也赋予了相应的责任。一旦将评论打开，自己的言论随时有可能被跟风或被抨击。但这的确是社区化的基础。Twitter有@功能，那又怎么样？两个人互相@，然后就能整合起一个话题的主线么？如果有第三个人想参与，怎么办？Twitter能让三个人一起@么？一群人呢？