Microsoft is planning for the next Windows Live update to offer a social networking features to its various applications such as Hotmail and Messenger.

This move will help Microsoft against competitors such as Facebook and MySpace. The company has hundreds of millions of users of its popular applications but is behind when it comes [...]]]>

Microsoft is planning for the next Windows Live update to offer a social networking features to its various applications such as Hotmail and Messenger.

This move will help Microsoft against competitors such as Facebook and MySpace. The company has hundreds of millions of users of its popular applications but is behind when it comes to social networking sites.

The new version of Live will combine contact lists from Messenger, Hotmail and the blog network Spaces. Users will be able to set up a ‘network’ of people from that list and then allow the information exchange  of their online activity.

For example, within the Windows Live home page, users can have their Twitter messages show up, as well as Flickr photos, Yelp reviews and WordPress blog entries. When users add new information, such as a photo, this information will be shared with their network of friends, who can then leave a comment. People can also invite friends to join online groups.

Okay, some people will like this. To me, however, it sounds like volunteering to be stalked, and not just Facebook stalked.

Garmin has aligned itself with the location-specialists in the app world – ULocate, integrating Where.com’s software with Buddy Beacon to be compatible with some of Garmin’s products. If you’re not familiar with this [...]]]>

Okay, some people will like this. To me, however, it sounds like volunteering to be stalked, and not just Facebook stalked.

Garmin has aligned itself with the location-specialists in the app world – ULocate, integrating Where.com’s software with Buddy Beacon to be compatible with some of Garmin’s products. If you’re not familiar with this software, it shares your current location with those you have dubbed as friends, and viceversa. Of course, this can be integrated with the Facebook app, as well.

What makes Where’s Buddy Beacon software unique, is its ability to operate over multiple networks, allowing users to enjoy the service with friends, whether they use the same carrier or not.

The models that Garmin intends to have supported with Buddy Beacon, as well as the launch time, have not yet been released.

It will be interesting to see if there is a real demand for this, as location-based networking, both online and device based, have somewhat flopped in the past. Personally, I think I’d feel just a little bit too much like dog embedded with a microchip, and doubt many people are comfortable with anyone apart from immediate family having access to their whereabouts at all times. However, as always, the market will decide the success or demise of this one.

The title of this post was originally going to be “Delicious: A Review from a Late Adopter.” But that was four months ago and only a few days after I started using social bookmarking site Delicious. At the time, I found it useful even if lacking in a few areas.

It’s no secret that I’m a fan of Amazon MP3, but that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. And I’m glad the Amazon MP3 team doesn’t think so either. Here’s a copy of an email I received from them asking me to fill out a survey. [...]]]>

It’s no secret that I’m a fan of Amazon MP3, but that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. And I’m glad the Amazon MP3 team doesn’t think so either. Here’s a copy of an email I received from them asking me to fill out a survey. Check out some of the more interesting questions asked followed by commentary (after text of the email below):

Greetings from Amazon MP3,

As you have previously purchased music from Amazon MP3, we would like to ask for your participation in a short, anonymous survey. The survey asks about your music-related preferences and experiences with Amazon MP3, and should take about 5-10 minutes to complete. Your feedback is very important to us as we continue to enhance Amazon MP3 to better serve customer needs and interests.

The survey is active for a limited time only, so please respond as soon as possible. Just click the link below to begin. As our surveys are hosted by an external company, the link below does not lead to the Amazon.com site. Your information will be kept secure and confidential, and your name will not be associated with your answers. If the link is not active, or if you have concerns about authenticity and security, please type the Web address into your browser’s address bar.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/xxxxxxx

Thank you for taking the time to help improve Amazon MP3, and we appreciate your support!

Sincerely,
The Amazon MP3 Team

Here are some of the questions asked (I bolded my answers):

Why would you choose to buy digital music instead of a CD? (please pick your top reason)

To have the music immediately after purchase
Lower price
Can easily transfer to my MP3 player
Can buy individual songs, not the full album
Other (please specify):

It was difficult for me to specify just one reason for buying digital music, but I think “easy transfer to my MP3 player” has to be the top reason. I don’t listen to CDs anymore, so any purchase of a CD results in an extra step for me before I can listen to my newly purchased music. But some of the other reasons are just about as compelling.

How would you best describe your music discovery and purchasing habits with regards to Amazon MP3?

Discover and buy on Amazon MP3
Discover on Amazon MP3, buy elsewhere
Discover elsewhere, buy on Amazon MP3
Discover and buy elsewhere

Amazon’s site in general is way too busy. I have a hard time browsing on it even if I end up making purchases there after researching/discovering elsewhere.

Which technology-oriented websites do you regularly visit?

Techcrunch
Slashdot
Gizmodo
Boing Boing
Engadget
Wired News
CNET
I do not regularly visit technology-oriented websites
Other (please specify):

I visit all the sites listed but probably TechCrunch the most. Oh, and I couldn’t help but write in “TechConsumer” in the “Other” section…

Which social networking websites are you an active member of?

MySpace
Windows Live Spaces
Facebook
Friendster
LinkedIn
Classmates
I am not an active member of social networking websites
Other (please specify):

Amazon may have made a mistake by not defining “active” for this question. The two I selected I visit maybe weekly. But that’s much different usage than those that use them every hour.

Which following statements best describes your level of familiarity with MP3s?

I could describe its advantages and disadvantages
I could describe what it generally refers to
I am not familiar with the term

I’m pretty sure Amazon is hoping that few people will answer this question like I did. They are hoping to validate that MP3 is “good enough” for the masses even if plenty of better music formats exist.

Indicate the #1, #2 and #3 attributes you value most about Amazon MP3 (from the list):

MP3 downloads that play on any device (#3)
Music recommendations
Automatic import to my music library (#2)
Reliability of Amazon in general
Digital rights management-free (DRM-free) music (#1)
Offers the music I want
Ability to use my Amazon account
Low prices
One-click purchasing
Other (please specify attribute and rank):

Another tough decision, I like all the things listed above. But, first and foremost, I have to own my music (no DRM) and need its use to be as easy as possible (my #2 and #3 choices).

Is there anything you would like to see added or improved on Amazon MP3?

Why can’t I add Amazon MP3 items (single tracks or albums) to my Wishlist? As it stands, I have to use CDs for the Wishlist, which is kind of annoying.

TechCrunch made the announcement today that all of its blogs will have the option for you to leave video comments via a service called Seesmic. It’s a powerful idea with a dead simple execution. As a result, comments are now a mix of text [...]]]>

TechCrunch made the announcement today that all of its blogs will have the option for you to leave video comments via a service called Seesmic. It’s a powerful idea with a dead simple execution. As a result, comments are now a mix of text and video. Take a look.

I want to be on record for saying that this could be huge despite my own personal reservations. (I’m not a fan of posting videos of myself, though perhaps I’ll be converted sooner rather than later.) The biggest real problem is that you read faster than you watch video. This is especially true for those video commenters that tend to ramble. My solution:

There should be technology in place that automatically transcribes what people say in their video comments. The transcribed comment could be right along side the thumbnail of the video. I know that, for me at least, I’d be interested in seeing the “live” context of any particularly interesting comment. But in general? I’m not about to quadruple (at a minimum) my time reading (watching) comments on the blogs I check out.

Of course, there are also the standard problems of spam and porn. And then there are new problems like general weirdness of communicating with strangers. I do it all the time in text form, but in a video? It feels like it should be reserved for sci-fi movies. It might take some getting used to before “regular” (read: non- early adopters) people are willing to do this.

But imagine the implications if this takes off. Right now, this feature from Seesmic is available as a WordPress plugin. And just like comments can now be video, the same holds true for blog posts. Imagine then, what would happen, if this got implemented on a site like USA Today (an early adopter of comments, at least out of the traditional media group) or the New York Times.

And what about social sites like Digg, Reddit, Slashdot? Could video comments work in these communities? Is the TechCrunch implementation the beginning of video taking over content on the Internet? Or is it just an isolated incident?

TechConsumer has had its fair share of Digg coverage lately. But for those of us who remember what Digg was back in the glory days, we can’t help but draw attention to its flaws in the here and now.

First, we had our April 1st interview with Digg’s founders discussing [...]]]>

TechConsumer has had its fair share of Digg coverage lately. But for those of us who remember what Digg was back in the glory days, we can’t help but draw attention to its flaws in the here and now.

First, we had our April 1st interview with Digg’s founders discussing priorities and progress and how Digg is just a game. Second, we discussed the Digg paradox and how getting rid of the editor/gatekeeper just creates new gatekeepers.

But today’s topic, for me at least, feels like the most interesting twist on the story of where Digg started as compared to what Digg has become:

Digg is based on an algorithm that makes sure a certain “diversity of diggers” threshhold is met before a story makes it to the front page. So even though Digg has a friend system with “shouts” for sharing stories, if used, it doesn’t necessarily help any story you’re sharing get to the front page. What you really need are diggs from users you don’t know (if your goal is to bring maximum awareness to a story or submission).

So how do you get people you don’t know to be interested in what you are interested in? Well, what Digg hopes is that this is intrinsic to your submission. Meaning, if what you are submitting to Digg is really interesting, lots of people you don’t know will be interested and push it to the front page.

But Digg is so huge now with ten thousand submissions every day. As a result, Digg’s upcoming queue–where all new stories sit for up to 24 hours–moves quickly and is difficult to sift through. This means that even if your submission is interesting, you can’t rely on the Digg site itself as a mechanism for other diggers you don’t know to find the story you submitted.

So now we’re back to the same question: How do you get people you don’t know to digg your [assumed to be interesting] submissions? The easiest way, I’ve found, is to submit only content from sites that have a) a huge audience and b) Digg tools integrated (buttons on the story itself that show if it’s been dugg and how many diggs).

These sites are generally so well known that they have plenty of readers that make for the perfect storm for getting content to the Digg front page. That is, readers that are Digg users but aren’t friends with each other. Let’s take a look at an example that illustrates how this works:

Yesterday, TechConsumer had an article in the upcoming queue with over 100 diggs (see image below):

Right around the same time the above screenshot was taken, this story from Gizmodo (image below) hit the front page with 33 diggs:

About a half hour later, I noticed something even more interesting and decided to take a screenshot (see below). I was browsing the front page of Digg and realized that the top six stories on the page all had less diggs than the TechConsumer story that never made it. All these submissions were from major websites (BBC, Yahoo News, Gizmodo, New York Times).

In fact, you’ll notice that it took the previously mentioned Gizmodo story 30 minutes of being on the front page to accrue the same number of diggs as the TechConsumer story that never made it.

So what does this mean? For one, I can tell you that the TechConsumer readership doesn’t even come close to any of these sites. And, as a result, any readership and Digg user overlap is much more likely to be by Digg users who know each other (i.e., are friends on Digg). This is likely to be the case for any smaller site.

More importantly, though, this means that Digg favors traffic heavy sites. The irony being that Digg’s “diversity” algorithm does exactly the opposite of diversifying: It keeps the majority of front page stories coming from a small group of traffic heavy sites.

And for your double dose of irony today, this makes Digg closer to Yahoo Buzz. Yahoo Buzz is described as “a Digg-like site that takes stories from pre-approved news publishers (100 to start) and let’s users vote on stories and push them up to the top of the page.”

It should be noted that how Digg works currently isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s just no longer a model that follows what Digg itself claims to be. In fact, Digg should really update its “About Us” page. Here is what the first two sentences say:

“Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. From the biggest online destinations to the most obscure blog, Digg surfaces the best stuff as voted on by our users.”

It’s obviously not that simple.

From my experience, Digg is turning more into a place to see what is popular in the mainstream yesterday (since it takes nearly a day for many stories to hit the front page). Again, not necessarily a bad thing, but that kind of information (i.e., “mainstream yesterday”) seems to be available all over the place nowadays…

When I first heard about Digg I was quite excited. Digg is a site where you can submit articles, pictures, or other content that you think is interesting. If other people like the story they can “digg it,” and it pushes the story to the top. The content on the front page only contains [...]]]>

When I first heard about Digg I was quite excited. Digg is a site where you can submit articles, pictures, or other content that you think is interesting. If other people like the story they can “digg it,” and it pushes the story to the top. The content on the front page only contains articles with a lot of diggs.

What appealed to me is that you don’t have a “gatekeeper.” You can submit content to Slashdot, but there is a group of editors who have been hired to sift through stories, find the good ones, and ultimately determine what makes it to the front page. When you have gatekeepers, you will have bias. If they are not interested in a certain topic, you’re out of luck. If a thousand people are interested in a topic, but the editor isn’t, you’re out of luck.

With Digg, this isn’t a problem. It’s democracy in its purest form.

Which leads to the problem.

Let’s look at an example. This article about Yahoo rejecting a Microsoft bid was submitted to Digg 59 days ago. You can’t tell by the time any longer, but it was submitted several hours before this article, about the same topic. The latter article was the one which ultimately made it to the front page.

I see four problems with this scenario.

First, although the one article was submitted first, ultimately it was the second submitted article that made it to the front page. Not a big deal, but it starts to raise a red flag. Why did the second article make it, even though the first article had several more hours to collect diggs? The Digg submissions were linking to different articles on the same topic – maybe the article that made it to the front page was of higher quality?

Which leads us to the second problem. The article that made it to the front page can be found here. It is three sentences long. The rest of the page seems to be nothing but ads, ads, and more ads. The article that didn’t make it can be found here. In my opinion, the article that didn’t make it is superior because it links to outside sources, is clear and concise, and goes into depth. So it can be argued that the article submitted later, which made it to the front page, is of lower quality.

The third problem is that of duplicate articles fighting to get to the front page. The article that didn’t make it got 95 diggs. Anybody who has submitted articles to Digg knows that it can take a long time to get that many diggs. If you have 5-10 articles on the same topic, and they are all getting dugg, a “breaking story” might not make it to the front page for some time because the votes are being spread over a number of articles.

Finally, what I ultimately see as the biggest problem of Digg takes us back to the “gatekeeper” issue. My initial excitement over Digg was the removal of this gatekeeper. If a story is good, it will make it to the front page. But this example shows me that this might not be happening. Instead, what I’m seeing is a group of submitters who have risen to the top and now have a better chance of getting material to the front page. In fact, we’ve ended right back where we began, with a group of gatekeepers. But it’s worse than that.

Often these power diggers seem to push their own site or maybe a site with which they have an existing relationship. Otherwise, why the low quality submissions? Minimal content or stories are copied from others sites and then combined with tons of ads on a new site (as is the case in our example). In other words, these gatekeepers now aren’t pushing material they think is interesting. Rather, they seem to be pushing whatever reused content is on a predefined set of sites with which they are likely to have a relationship. Conflict of interest in its purest sense.

So, in the end, we’re left in the same situation as we were before, except the gatekeepers aren’t paid employees who must demonstrate competence in their job or risk being fired, but people who are pimping unoriginal, copied content – likely for personal gains. There will always be bias in these “gatekeepers,” but blatant bias can be dealt with in the first model, not as much in the second.

There has been a lot of talk about Digg vs. Slashdot (which uses paid gatekeepers). In my mind, there is little comparison. Slashdot is not a perfect model, but Digg is even less so.

So, if you want pictures of cute puppies, stories about topless women, and random interesting tech articles posted as a copy of a copy on somebody’s personal website (that you can see after you’ve closed all the popup ads), then keep digging away. If you’re looking for something a bit meatier, I recommend Slashdot or any of the other “traditional model” sites.

For more on issues with Digg, albeit addressed in a different way, see this article.

Marion Jensen

When you do things in a crowd with no organization, no plan, and no clear leaders, chaos is usually the end result. And then sometimes the opposite occurs.

A few weeks ago there was a post on digg about being rickrolled. If you are not familiar with what a rickroll is, you can read [...]]]>

When you do things in a crowd with no organization, no plan, and no clear leaders, chaos is usually the end result. And then sometimes the opposite occurs.

A few weeks ago there was a post on digg about being rickrolled. If you are not familiar with what a rickroll is, you can read about this most interesting phenomenon here. Haha! No you can’t. That was actually an example of being rickrolled. You can really read about it here.

Ok, I’ll stop, I promise. The real article is here. Basically what happens when you get rickrolled is somebody posts a real response or comment to a discussion at hand, and then says something like, “you can find more information on this topic here.” They post a link and when you go “there,” you discover this dancing boy from the 80s. Don’t think that’s hilarious? Then you’re an old fogy.

Anyway, back to mob organization. A person posted about this phenomenon on digg. An unusual thing happened in the comments section. The first comment was somebody making a funny joke. The second comment was somebody who posted the first line of the song. The third person posted the next part of the song. And what happens next was very interesting.

Everybody who posted the next line of the song got “dugg up.” Meaning their comments were displayed. Everybody else who made a comment other than the next line of the song, got “dugg down.” By hundreds of people! There comments were buried (not displayed), and you were left with the lyrics of the song.

Nobody said, “Hey, I’ve got an idea, let’s try this…” It just happened. Hundreds of people just started all doing the same thing, and order sprung from chaos.

So, there you have it. Your daily dose of chaos theory. And speaking of chaos theory, if you want to read a great primer on this very interesting and applicable theory, you definitely should check out this site.

Or better yet, this is a fascinating site in order springing from chaos. You can get to the good stuff by jumping right to this page.

Bite me, Blockbuster Online. Oh, and you too, Facebook.

About three years ago, I signed up for Netflix, Walmart DVD Online, and Blockbuster Online. I wanted to see which interface was better, and who was quicker about sending me DVDs in the mail. Netflix won, hands down.

Blockbuster has recently come out with an [...]]]>

Bite me, Blockbuster Online. Oh, and you too, Facebook.

About three years ago, I signed up for Netflix, Walmart DVD Online, and Blockbuster Online. I wanted to see which interface was better, and who was quicker about sending me DVDs in the mail. Netflix won, hands down.

Blockbuster has recently come out with an interesting idea, however, where you can rent online, as well as in the store. They have been pestering me to “come back” for years, and yesterday they sent me a free month. So I thought, what the heck. I’ll sign up, rent a few, and then cancel after 29 days.

I canceled after one. Here’s why:

I put Enchanted in my queue, because the kids have wanted to watch it. I thought it would be a fun surprise. It was a surprise, all right.

I wandered over to Facebook sometime later, and there in my newsfeed is a proud proclamation, “Marion Jensen added Enchanted to his Blockbuster queue!”

WHAT?!

I’m glad I didn’t add what I wanted (Beaches, Sense and Sensibility, and Pretty Woman).

Now, I’ve gone through the settings of Facebook long ago and have turned notifying all actions from external sites (nobody is so bored that they run to the web to see what I’ve been doing), but that didn’t stop Facebook. Even though the default to Blockbuster Online was “notify me first,” it posted this breaking story to my newsfeed. My co-worker logged in and saw that I had added Enchanted to my Blockbuster queue.

I’m pretty ticked.

So, the lesson? Screw Blockbuster, go with Netflix. And as far as Facebook goes, BACK OFF.

As soon as I see an alpha version of Justin Ball’s app that brings social networking to blogging, I’m bailing.

*Update* Several readers have asked why I added the Blockbuster app if I didn’t want my queue broadcast to the world. The fact is that I didn’t add the app. The app was added for me, by Facebook. I can only assume that the two systems talked to each other because I login with the same e-mail address.

Marion Jensen