Universal sued Youtube last week, OJ and Fox sunk to a new level of tastelessness, millions ate turkey and millions more suffered post Thanksgiving food hangovers and through it all the United Steelworkers were on strike… While it seems that more and more unions are opting to strike as jobs flock overseas by the thousands- what I find the most interesting about this particular labor battle is that the traditional placards and picket signs have been replaced by sophisticated videos released on the internet onto sites like Youtube… Rather than walking in a circle and yelling at passing cars- unions are smartening up and talking advantage of the latent power of the internet… While the corporate communications department at Goodyear scrambles to control their messaging and image- the Steelworkers release one damning video after another…. Unrestricted by broadcasters’ standards for taste, fairness and accuracy or the high costs of radio and print placements…. Right or wrong- the internet has placed a new tool in labor’s arsenal… One that allows the union to play to consumer’s emotions and fears both quickly and easily- as the union continues to turn up the heat on Goodyear- it will be quite interesting to see just how the corporation is able to counter this new threat…

The Guardian, a newspaper in London, ran a story last week that touched on the identity and tracking issues we discussed in class.  Recently the UK launched biometric passports for all its citizens, a trend that will surely make its way to the US very shortly I’m sure, the launch however, has not been without its problems.  It seems that just as fast as governments create new technologies, hackers find a way to ruin them… In this case all it took was a newspaper staff and a few months, bringing the UK’s rollout to a screeching halt. 

The hoopla all began after the Guardian conducted an investigation of the new passports and found that according to the article, “the 3m micro-chip could be electronically attacked and cloned with a £174 microchip reader and that biometric data was transferred to a PC after gaining access to the chips in three passports.”  Now the government is facing angry demands to recall all the passports- which cost British citizens a pretty pound to purchase in the first place…

The Identity and Passport Service in Brittan has already spent £60m on the new passports, first introduced in March, apparently it wasn’t enough.  The article quotes Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, as demanding a full recall. “Three million people now have passports that expose them to a greater risk of identity fraud than before,” he said.

It truly astonishes me that as a society we continue to put more and more sensitive data out there and yet seem completely incapable of protecting it… These new passports were supposed to make identity theft harder, instead they basically give you the name with the face and the biometric data to back it up- literally.  

In fact- the newspaper that conducted the test used a computer expert “who spent just 48 hours writing software designed to suck information from the chips.”  This begs the question of will there ever be a truly un-hackable solution- a document so secure that it can never be counterfeited?  It seems to me that the more technological the solution the easier it is to break into… Perhaps we should go back to the good old days of hand written documents- at least then forgers had to learn multiple different sets of hand writing- rather then being able to write one program that could then hack everything…

Much hype has surrounded the degradation of the online world and the proliferation of crap that is clogging the electronic galaxy, but no one has stopped to ask the question, how is this different than the physical world?  Has anyone actually counted how many truly awful songs and novels there have been since time begun?  Granted, the web enables users to create crappy content much more quickly and easily and distasteful items to circulate much more widely, but I would argue that the content online is no worse then what happens in our everyday lives.  In fact, it is a reflection of it, a mirror image of the inner thoughts and desires that humans keep pent up during polite conversation and that is why so many people are so critical of the web, they do not want to face the animal lurking inside them.

Glaser’s statement that “the horrors of the online world are just the horrors of the offline world in another format” supports this point.  He goes on further to say that “the freedom of expression online has opened up global distribution for every human thought or deed, good or bad,” unfortunately it is often the bad that gets the most attention. 

This new instant-access world where anything seems to go has created a very difficult situation for print journalists.  They are faced with some pretty stark questions such as, how does my work fit into this new order, how do I compete in a world of would-be journalists not constrained by “journalistic integrity” and free to show as many beheadings as their bandwidth permits, and for many the answers have not been encouraging…

Glaser raises a great point when he asks, “when rumors run rampant on gossip sites, do newspaper sites and wire services report that? If videos of beheadings are some of the most popular content online — or represent the most searched-for sites — does that mean that broadcasters need to consider showing them to their audiences?”  These are very compelling questions indeed, Nielsen ratings decide what shows stay on the air, text messaged votes decide who gets booted off American Idol, why shouldn’t page hits determine what makes the news?  Why not replace those old talking heads (no pun intended) with what the public actually wants to see?  The inherent bias in the news would be replaced with a particular audiences’ likes and dislikes and just like today, different segments of people would be drawn to different channels based on content.

Our culture and journalism in particular, is possessed with an air of seriousness that does not mirror reality.  As McBride says in the Glaser article, “We are sicker than we thought.”  I agree and I say lets just embrace our dark sides, stop sweeping them under the rug and then perhaps the internet won’t be so full of subversion and the news won’t be so out of touch.  People won’t have to hide anymore.  Much like children in Europe don’t run around drunk everyday even though there is no drinking age, putting control of content into the hands of the viewer might actually improve the content…  Particularly as the novelty wears off I think you will find less and less of the sensationalist stuff and more and more serious news.

 Wikipedia works doesn’t it?  Why can’t the same thing happen with the news or online news sites?  And if there happened to be a channel full of disgusting content, viewers who had other tastes could ignore it in favor of different sites, ones dominated by people with less “vulgar” tastes, that is the votes of the “vanilla” people would drown out the votes of the dissenting weirdoes.

Ward says that “the ethic of “just show everything” is no ethic at all. It is an abandonment of ethics. It is a trendy-sounding ethic that conveniently excuses the journalist (and news organization) from the difficult ethical decisions in deciding what to publish.”  I completely disagree with his point, plus Ward probably falls into the category I mentioned earlier i.e. that of suppressed inner animal.  The ethics of let the people decide what content they want to see frees us from the pompous journalists who think that they own the news.  The ethics of show me everything takes the control out of the editors’ hands, removes the media companies’ filters and finally lets me decide what I think is best for me.  In short, the ethics of let the users decide are the ethics of true democracy.  After all what do we have to be so afraid of?

Glaser says in his article that “when covering online media over the past couple years, there have been times when I have felt dirty, disgusted and thoroughly dispirited about the human condition. And that was just from going through my anti-spam filter.”  He would probably be even more dismayed to know that 1% of all content on the internet is porn- that’s right folks…. An entire percentage- though I have to say that I am a bit surprised- in a way I expected it to be more.  In an article from CNN yesterday- a government study on internet porn was released – here is the link:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/11/15/internet.blocking.ap/index.html

The article cuts right to the chase and starts off by saying, “About 1 percent of Web sites indexed by Google and Microsoft are sexually explicit.”The premise for the study was a revisiting of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which according to the article, “required commercial Web sites to collect a credit card number or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material deemed “harmful to minors.”Interestingly though, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked this law in 2004.  The court ruled that the law would encroach on peoples right to free speech, the court also suggested that filtering devices be used instead as a way of keeping minors out of porn sites. 

What I found so incredibly astonishing about this whole thing was that the Supreme Court will go to bat for pornographers but were this close to outlawing the VCR… Kind of like one of those things that makes you go hummm… Not to get that annoying song stuck in your head- but rulings like this definitely make me shake my head in bewilderment at the American justice system… Not that I have anything against porn mind you- but that I have everything against further rulings that might sentence future technologies to the fate that the VCR narrowly escaped. 

An even more chilling aspect of the CNN article was the mention of the over 1 million subpoenas of Google’s database… Kind of makes one wish they hadn’t been such a horn ball doesn’t it?  While Google in the end didn’t have to fulfill all 1 million of the subpoena (it cited trade secrets) they did have to comply in part.   

Recent acquisitions like the Google/You tube merger make me wonder how this is all going to play out- surely all those amateur videos will be just as much fair game as were the porn queries on Google…. It will be interesting to see just how much of a legal nightmare this purchase turns into…

I had the pleasure of having the SIM card on my cell phone die this weekend- taking all of my near and dear’s numbers with it…. GRRRR technology.  Upon entering the Cingular store at the mall I had a very similar experience to Jenkins in that it was impossible to find a phone that was just a phone… Given that the technology in my current phone couldn’t be trusted to reliably store just my phone numbers why would I entrust pictures, songs and various other media to it as well- only to lose it all when the next SIM card went.  While I can acknowledge that at 2 years old my phone was quite rightly a dinosaur- at the same time I was overwhelmed by choice and what a difference 730 days makes… As I wondered along the display of steel gray, graphics flashing phones my eyes glazed over and I ended up going with the 30 dollar choice- just to free myself from gadget hell.  It never ceases to amaze me- we still can’t cure cancer- but we can play deer hunter on our cell phones… Hummm… 

Jenkins made a point about the conglomerate media companies that I thought was very interesting, he said “Many of the big media giants look like big dysfunctional families whose members aren’t speaking with each other and pursue their own short term agendas- even at the expense of other divisions of the same companies.”  I wonder what Badgikian would say about this- seems this point of view is right up his alley and would lend more fuel to the anti-monopolistic fie he has been stoking… At the same time though this quote kind of takes away from the whole “convergence of media companies creates uniform content” idea because the infighting Jenkins mentions might spur some of that individualism and foster creativity that can be backed up by the budget of a large company… Food for thought I guess…  

Convergence is a word that is embraced, feared, reviled and for those who try to ignore it- a warning bell that times are changing.  It is also an idea that is readily accepted by both of this week’s authors; however while both Jenkins and Felten do agree that digitization brought about convergence – their articulation of this idea is quite different.  Jenkins’ article “Worship at the Altar of Convergence” builds off of the ideas raised in Felten’s
Princeton lecture but with an important difference.  According to Jenkins “ready or not, we are already living within a convergence culture” (Jenkins 16) so in short, the earthquake that Felten had predicted is already here…

Further, Felten’s idea of the “universal machine” as a means of achieving convergence is refuted by Jenkins who says that “convergence is more than just the technological process of bringing together multiple media functions within the same devices.  Instead, convergence represents a cultural shift as consumers are encouraged to seek out new information and make connections among dispersed media content,” (Jenkins 3).

Basically, Jenkins takes the machine out of the convergence idea and instead places the focus squarely on the consumer- an intriguing concept, but I still think the real answer lays somewhere in between.  The only way for convergence to occur as Jenkins said- that is “within the brains of individual consumers and through social interactions” is by having some type of enabling device that allows the consumer to mix the media in the first place- i.e. the universal machine…

Jenkins also talked about this idea of collective intelligence as a challenge to the traditional power of the media companies- but this power is only as strong as the computers that enable the sharing of media in the first place.  This argument seems like the chicken and the egg dilemma, yes there is a collective intelligence around new media- but it arises because of the new technologies enabling the media… And thus we go round and round.  In an age of digitization the means must be present to share the files- otherwise there is no community.  Why else would the media companies try so hard to shut down every new technology that comes along- they realize the latent power and what these new technologies can enable consumers to achieve…

The real resolution to this is that media companies should do what the stars have done and converge themselves- remember when a movie star was only in movies- or when a rapper only made rap music? Nowadays it isn’t clear which medium (if any) is their real focus – as stars simultaneously launch an album, premier a movie, design a clothing line and a new fragrance- all while also starring in their own reality show… Talk about convergence. 

Media companies should be focusing not on stopping these new technologies, but embracing them.  They should spend less time in court fighting tooth and nail and more time in brainstorming sessions trying to figure out how they can utilize these new mediums to their benefit… This is particularly poignant when one considers that “many of the measures implemented by media companies are unenforceable anyway” (Felten.) 

Jenkins describes the present state of things as “convergence culture, where old and new media collide,” (page 2).  I would say the collision is more like a tidal wave washing over the media monopolies.  Lest we add the current media moguls names’ to the growing list of history’s Cassandras (Jack Valenti and John Philip Sousa to name a few from the Felten article) there has to be a paradigm change in the way the monopolies think about and approach new technologies.  Cut the hysteria and build a business plan- the first who does just might have a shot on a hostile take over of the rest…

If the above title seems like if has dual meaning that is because it’s supposed to… Normally Halloween is my favorite holiday- but this year instead of handing out candy or walking around dressed up like an idiot, I am still at work, depressed, lonely and wanting a three musketeer…  I am also hoping that the neighborhood kids don’t riot because I am not handing out candy. I’ll probably return home to find my windows smashed and greasy little chocolate smeared finger prints everywhere… I guess that is what I get for being the scrooge of Halloween.  Though it really isn’t my fault- I blame the global reach of the international company I work for that had me in the office at 6 am for one call and here till 10 pm tonight for another- ahh time zones- they have such a way of ruining one’s life.  I didn’t even carve one lousy pumpkin this year- let alone have the time to sit around waiting for the great pumpkin to come- a tradition I have upheld every year for as long as I can remember- though as the years have passed great amounts of alcohol are usually involved in this traditional waiting- which usually leads me to believe that I have in fact seen him- until the headache the next morning convinces me otherwise… In honor of this most excellent of holidays- I wish you all a wonderful Halloween- check your candy for razors, avoid the lame neighbor who hands out fruit (its probably poisoned anyway- creepy pedophile..) and have a resses peanut butter cup for me!

Response to Long Tails and Short Queries 

The Christina Wodtke interview with Amanda Spink

Amanda Spink needs to do some reading on human computer interaction and buy an ipod.  During her interview with Christina Wodtke she says, “the best way to encourage richer queries is to train users and expect them to put more effort into their search behavior. Search engines need to put more demands on the users. People don’t understand their own information behaviors, and they don’t really understand much about search or the web, so they will have to learn. It could take generations.”  This statement flies in the face of almost everything else we have learned throughout this semester.  In short, while Spink presents some interesting points I think the crux of her argument is way off base. 

The answer isn’t more training- its better search engines.  People enter one term searches in the first place because they are lazy- and no amount of training is going to change that.  Even Spink’s own research supports this, she found that “few people use advanced search features, and many queries include spelling and other mistakes that adversely affect the search results. People look at only a few result pages—not beyond the first or second results pages.”  This indicates to me that people don’t want to think harder- or receive more training- quite the contrary!  When a user types in the word “camp” they want the summer camp they went to one summer in second grade to appear- and why shouldn’t it!?

The advent of the wearable computer and the ability to record and catalogue one’s life is going to spur the development of more sophisticated searching capabilities.  Key word searches will become customizable, intuitive and personalized, but it won’t be because user’s have gotten smarter or better able to search.  The shift will occur because there will be a market need for it and because technology is now capable.  Much like the only reason we don’t have flying cars now is because the technology isn’t there yet- or because the government won’t let us (conspiracy).  

So the crux of my position- Users don’t need more training- search engines need to be smarter- and do away with all that optimization garbage that allows junk sites to appear legitimate.  Like Wikipedia- search engines should subscribe to the communal model and let the sites with the most number of hits display first- kind of like that site digit which you demonstrated in class.  This way, real sites with helpful information would always show up first and users wouldn’t have to scroll endlessly through all of the hyperlinked selections.

Before this can happen however- search engines need to find what users are looking for much more intuitively.  Many credit card companies and banks use voice recognition to input your data why can’t search engines use thought pattern recognition to connect that when I search for Kimberly Reidy I want the QU student not the apparent medical doctor in Okalahoma… Additionally, search strings, like Amazon, should remember what you last searched for and based off of that information find related topics… I am not talking about how Google will list items in the search box drop down- I’m talking about the kind of searching that says- humm last time she searched for exotic islands in
Tahiti- so perhaps now that she is searching under the word vacation I should pull up sites rife with water side tiki huts as well…

As ipods morph into the next generation of “this is so easy to use that a dead person could jam out” – the onus will fall even more heavily to other technology providers- including search engines- to serve up what users are looking for not just quickly, efficiently and exactly how they want it, but with the least amount of thought possible- and on a silver platter to boot.   

Once the search ability is straightened out- search engine providers should then focus on result display.  I’ll pick on Google since I Google everything and because I find the fact that “to Google” something has seeped its way into our everyday vocabulary impressive (or evil depending on my mood)… There is nothing more frustrating to me then to search for something and have the results come back as a mishmashed ad hoc assemblage of some of the key words I entered.  While Google does go to the trouble of highlighting them – it is quite annoying to have to read the “abstract” Google provides- which often don’t make any sense… Even Spink and I agree on this one- she says in her article that “all they can really do at present is squeeze in a few words, press search, and look at a list of websites-the list giving little indication of what the websites mean or how they are ranked.”

Spink asks in her article “how to train billions of people? Whoever comes up with the best solution for that question may capture huge market share.”  I disagree- the question is not how to train the population of web users that ranges from grandma to little johhny and keeps growing everyday.  Instead, we should be asking – how do we train the search engine providers to realize and understand the dynamic ways the human mind connects ideas and objects.  Quite literally- if people want better search capability then computers need to think more like we do- and the search technology needs to be customizable- so that  over time- it will understand the way I think and in time think just like me- scary thought isn’t it….

Brenda Battleson’s discussion of HCI (human computer interaction) provided a lot of linkages to many of the other articles we have read so far.  It was also a great step by step guide as to how to test the usability of one’s website- both inexpensively and easily.  While Battleson explored HCI as it relates to the design and implementation of the library site at the University of Buffalo and as a frame work for usability testing, I would argue that HCI thinking extends well beyond web site design and that an astute awareness of HCI is one of the main factors responsible for the recent boom in technology enabled communication.   

HCI is measured through usability testing which identifies problems that would have otherwise gone unnoticed; basically it is the balance between form and function.  According to Battleson the goal of usability testing is to determine how effectively a site can be used by people with no experience of the given site.  Important questions to ask are: “how quickly did the user work? Did choices seem obvious? How carefully did students read the information on the screens?  Was there an increasing level of certainty and success as the test progressed?” (Battleson, page 192) 

These questions, while important to web design, extend well beyond just the internet however and can be applied to a myriad of other technologies that have enabled two way communication outside of traditional chat rooms.  In short, HCI enables highly capable technologies to be placed in the hands of even the lowest denominator in our society and still work properly and thus have the ability to communicate with whomever- wherever…   

Immediately, the technology discussed in the Sept. 14^th readings comes to mind as an example of this idea, particularly Rheingold’s article on smart mobs.  The on street gaming played through one’s cell phone or the ability to drive around with a complete computer system in one’s back seat is possible because of designers understanding of HCI.  Furthermore, the overwhelming popularity of text messaging and other related technologies is in part due to how easy it is to send messages in the first place. 

Another aspect of HCI which Battleson also touched on was the idea of instant usability.  Whether it is a web site or any other technology, people want to be able to instantly begin using it.  The Ipod is the perfect example of this and really a demonstration of HCI at its best.  Apple did something very right when it designed this little music mogul… They understood human kind’s impatience with reading directions, they made the tool highly capable but extremely easy to use- so much so that even my grandmother has one now…  

The prevalence of HCI designed products is taken for granted nowadays but according to Battleson, “only recently have “user needs” become part of software and interface development. During the 1990s software companies began to address their customer needs seriously and to design “usability” into their products rather than focusing solely on functionality,” (Battleson, page 188.)

 Had this industry paradigm shift never occurred – the world of blackberries and palm pilots and text messaging would never have existed- let alone saturated societies around the world to the extent that it has.  HCI usability enables accessibility and thus grandmothers around the world can now groove down the supermarket aisle with their ipods – while checking out the sale prices at a competing store on their blackberries….