For those of you reading my blogs and primarily interested in the TIPS category, I'll get the useful / utilitarian part of this post out of the way first:
The Plaxo service is pretty darn cool. Despite some annoying quirks, it's useful, it's fun, and it's free. I definitely recommend giving Plaxo a try.
What is it? Well, in a nutshell, Plaxo is a service (with optional software) that allows you to:
- Keep your addressbook up-to-date pretty effortlessly.
- Send out contact-info changes to your friends easily.
- Access your entire addressbook securely on the Web from anywhere.
Read on for my detailed thoughts about Plaxo.
The Plaxo Controversy
First, the boring 'legalese':
DISCLAIMER:
I'm not affiliated with Plaxo in any way except as a generally happy user of the service and software.
Okay, now with that out of the way... :D
Since Plaxo's inception, there's been a bit of a firestorm on the Internet about privacy, trust, and the evils the service could and might do with your personal info.
After all, they have your e-mail address, full name, and possibly company name, job title, phone numbers, and more. What a treasure trove for telemarketers and other sleazoids, right?
Well, sort of. Plaxo vehemently insists, via their privacy policy, that they're not going to do any of that nasty stuff with your info. And you know what? I believe them. I also like and respect how they prominently feature both a plain English summary of their privacy policy and also a longer, more detailed version for those interested.
Personally, I think lots of people on the Web are far too paranoid for their own good. Of course, everyone is and should be free to make their own judgement calls about what services and people they trust, but what bothers me is the foaming-at-the-mouth invective and often outright nastiness that's been flung at Plaxo and other companies like it. "They could sell all our data!" some scream, and "If they get bought out, they'll betray us!" Many of these people have loudly lumped Plaxo into the category of spammers and virus-makers and worse... IMHO unfairly tarnishing Plaxo's reputation and unfortunately dissuading many from making an informed opinion about the service.
Do those folks who are angrily ranting about the 'threats' of Plaxo realize what data is ALREADY widely (and sometimes freely or cheaply) available about them via their banks, their health insurance company, the department of motor vehicles, the Direct Marketing Association databases, and so on (all of whom are, without a doubt, FAR more palpably evil than companies like Plaxo)? And unlike Plaxo, most of these companies have actively resisted disclosing, much less openly inviting people to check out their privacy policies.
Plus other online entities already have demonstrated the concept of trust. Amazon.com not only has my personal contact info, they also have several of my credit card numbers and my purchase history. What if Amazon.com got bought out, huh, bub? ;-). Strangely, I don't see too many people flinging epithets at Amazon in their blog entries, speculating about how all their data'll be sold to the highest bidder if Amazon gets bought out.
* * *
Personally, I'm much more worried about my credit card companies' policies (especially since they STILL persist on trying to sell me crap over the phone!) than I am about Plaxo. For that matter, I also think there's a zillion-times greater chance of my personal data being stolen and sold by a waiter who has my credit card number in a back room for a few minutes.
Comparative risks, people. Intelligent weighing of risks and benefits. Plaxo offers what I think most would agree is a useful and interesting service. The tradeoff, in my mind, is a no-brainer. Or, in a more direct / less-eloquent way of putting it: get a grip.
* * *
LEGITIMATE PROBLEMS WITH PLAXO
Despite my defense above, I should, in fairness, point out that there are quite a few problems and annoyances with Plaxo.
1) Privacy issues
There actually is one argument I've read from privacy advocates that I can respect. Unlike with services such as Amazon.com, for instance, where each person has the choice of whether or not to submit his or her personal data, with Plaxo, it's not really up to each individual. In other words, because I have Jim Smith in my addressbook and I send a query to him via Plaxo's servers (AND I store his data on Plaxo's site so I can access my addressbook on the Web), Jim has effectively had his data shared without his consent... and possibly even without his knowledge. Of greater concern, if Jim is particularly concerned about Plaxo 'n' Privacy, he really has no recourse for getting his name OFF of Plaxo's servers, short of demanding all of his friends to remove him from their personal addressbooks.
2) UI issues
Plaxo is pretty darn user-friendly, but there are quite a few UI niceties that its engineers have overlooked, and cumulatively, these issues are rather frustrating. For instance, when I'm looking through any large Plaxo list of my contacts, I can't simply jump to a name by hitting the first few letters. I have to first sort, then scroll. With 600 names in my addressbook, that's damn annoying, especially if I want to select more than a couple names.
3) Not very customizable
While I can change and add to some of the language in the "please update your contact queries that get sent to friends, far too much of it is fixed -- and overly formal. The cringe-worthy closing is "Thanks, Adam Lasnik." What friend signs off with a closing like that?! And while one can save the (partially) customized mails sent out for future use, they're neither named nor editable nor deletable. It's issues like this that suggest that Plaxo has been "dumbed down" er, simplified at the expense of customizability, and frankly, I don't believe that having a highly customizable (power-user) and user-friendly UI should be mutually exclusive.
* * *
Okay, with all that out of the way, let me explain why I think Plaxo kicks ass and why I'm pretty excited about it.
WHY PLAXO ROCKS
1) One-button sync with secure Web version of my addressbook
This option, included as part of the free service, is wonderfully handy! Had I been using Plaxo when my Palm Pilot was stolen during a trip throughout Europe a while back, I would have had a much easier time (pop into an Internet cafe, log into Plaxo, access the handy PRINT version of my contact list, print it... voila!). Plus, it's impressive and useful how the Web version offers nearly the identical (and in some cases, actually superior) functionality to the desktop/Outlook/Outlook Express front-end.
2) Support for FoaF (Friend of a Friend) standard
Granted, I'll admit that I don't quite yet grasp how this works, nor know if it will end up being widely adopted over time. But the fact that Plaxo has listened to and worked with pioneers in this realm suggests to me that the Plaxo folks are committed to a reasonable amount of interoperability and openness.
3) Good documentation, admirable interactions with customers
Though in the past Plaxo has been criticized for some slowness with customer service responses, I've actually been pleased with my experience so far, and also impressed that Plaxo representatives have intelligently and actively participated in multiple forums and even posted on blogs. Plus the Plaxo Web site is pretty informative, with a searchable knowledgebase and multiple ways to contact customer service (even an "emergency" form).
4) Plain English promises and reassurances
As mentioned earlier, Plaxo has admirably taken steps to be a responsible and ethical player in the Internet contact-sync space, and has also clearly articulated their stances and promises on their site.
5) Robust feature set and ease of use.
While Plaxo occupies a pretty busy space (with, among others, GoodContacts and AddresSender), it seems to have the edge in features and makes them nicely accessible via a number of different ways -- both via client software and the Web.
and most importantly...
6) Strong usefulness!
When you start having many hundreds of contacts like I do from all over the world, something like Plaxo is a Godsend! I haven't yet used it to do a full scan, but when I used the similar GoodContacts software a couple of years ago, I found myself instantly provided with literally dozens of critical contact info updates from friends, and also some friendly catch-up notes from people who hadn't written me for a long time. I also got quite a few bounces, which saved me from writing long letters to people whose contact info was long since out of date.
* * *
THE RESULTS SO FAR IN MY TESTING...
I have tested out Plaxo on a handful of friends and personal test accounts so far, and the responses and results have been generally positive.
- All said the process of responding was straightforward and easy.
- In every case, the info they input was added flawlessly to my Outlook addressbook.
- In my own tests, Plaxo requests weren't viewed as spam either on my Yahoo or Hotmail accounts. Unfortunately, one friend at Cornell found my Plaxo request in his spam folder. :(
- One friend was reluctant to supply his address, due to privacy concerns; he sent that to me separately via my Web forum, whereupon I mercilessly teased him about being a hypocrite :D.
- And one other friend was angry that I had disclosed his "personal" e-mail address to a third party, but that doesn't say anything about Plaxo in particular.
- I've noticed a couple of minor bugs, such as an improper date stamp in one area of my Plaxo reports, but the engineer I corresponded with has noted that this should be fixed promptly.
After I square away a few things, I plan on doing a much larger test with Plaxo (over several hundred contacts), and -- if there's interest -- I'll report my findings back here in my blog.
In the meantime, I encourage you to post your Plaxo concerns, kudos, and questions below if you'd like, and I'll do my best to address what I can and - within reason -- test specific stuff out for you. Of course, if you're as geeky and curious as I am, you'll want to download and play with Plaxo yourself :-). I say go for it!
Saturday, February 28, 2004
Monday, February 23, 2004
"I know all about you, Adam" -- Context and queasiness
"I know all about you, Adam" she were practically her first words to me, spoken more matter-of-factly than warmly. Indeed, she had a pretty good grasp on my hopes and dreams, my fears and failures... before she had even set eyes on me.
For the rest of this job interview I sat humbled, stunned, uncomfortable... feeling naked, almost violated.
How stupid, I thought afterwards. How could I justify feeling so shy and embarrassed? I proudly and unflinchingly write on the Web for all to see, confident of who I am and what I believe in, so what do I care if someone I meet happens to have Googled me? If they don't like who I am, I don't want to work for them anyway. Right? Right?!
How stupid, I thought afterwards. How could I justify being so open? Do I really want my interviewer -- who may be a conservative introvert -- seeing me as a loudmouth who is unprofessional, overly emotional, and burdened with "too much time" on his hands? Or, worse yet, do I want to be seen as a loose cannon, a risk to the company's public image and privacy?
Do I want my blog to hamper not only my career, but perhaps even my social life as well, with women worrying that our potential dates or even time in the bedroom will end up as blog fodder for voyeuristic geeks on the Internet?
In the end, it doesn't even matter that I honorably stick by a rather strict habit of compartmentalizing the Public and Private, refusing to write on my blog about my employers, my roommate, my girlfriends, and so on. Others don't necessarily know this and -- given the lurid examples of tell-all personal diaries online -- understandably have reason to fear the worst.
So, in exchange for fleeting moments of catharsis, it seems I've created a job-and-dating skunk.
* * *
Ironically, I feel uneasy not only upon realizing the extent of MY cross-exposure, but upon discovering others out of context as well.
I receive a daily mail from Match.com with my potential matches, and today, yet again, one thumbnail photo looked particularly familiar. It happened to be of a woman I recently met in person who is extremely bright, very driven, quite talented, and drop-dead gorgeous. So far so good. But she also happens to be someone I recently interviewed with, indeed, at the same company as the aforementioned "I know all about you, Adam" woman.
Even though this person on match.com had affirmatively placed her profile into the public domain and even though her profile had gotten 'pushed' to me, I felt somehow dirty... like a peeping Tom.
And this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Though I haven't actually written anyone on Match.com for over two years (Lord knows why I still maintain a membership there!), I've been freaked out several times by accidentally stumbling upon the profiles of friends, acquaintances, and co-workers. My tomboy'ish and tough friend Julia, oddly transformed into a "Cuddle with me, take me wine-tasting" kind of person?! Mara has tattoos and multiple piercings and is turned on by guys with long hair? I did so NOT want to know that, to see these people this way.
* * *
I always thought I was more open-minded. Easy-going. Carefree. Happy to sneer at uptight non-blogging people. But clearly I am not immune from societal expectations of Context and the resultant alarm at having contextual separations shattered. Seeing my opthamalogist in a speedo at a water park. Being paired up with an ex-girlfriend in a kickboxing class. Having the supermarket clerk recognize the name on my credit card from an online bereavement group.
Sharing can be comforting in controlled contexts, but understandably becomes jarring, confusing, and sometimes even scary when it transcends mental borders. I have over 600 contacts in my Outlook addressbook, for instance, and I'd freak if some of them from one 'group' met another or saw the same aspects of my personality and background -- and no, I'm not the sort with a strikingly 'hidden' life. Logically, I KNOW that people can (and certainly do) Google me, and I'm aware that it's ridiculously easy to put together a comprehensive-yet-not-truly-complete picture of who I am and what makes me tick in just a few minutes of clicking. But emotionally, I'm unable to feel comfortable with the thought of even my subtlely different facets being on display in a mix-and-match fashion.
Yet I persist in putting myself out there... sharing, trusting, exposing.
Why, then, am I shocked when I learn that others view what I have willingly displayed, when others connect the dots I've painted over so many years?
Of course, in the end, little of this matters from a "what do I do next" perspective. The genie is out of the bottle, as they say. I can only hope that others, perhaps becoming eventually similarly exposed themselves, realize that my flaws and emotions are no stranger or scarier or more dysfunctional than theirs. And hopefully, I, too, will learn to face others' exposure with less trepidation. Nakedness, after all, is only titilating or uncomfortable when everyone is clothed. I anticipate that in the coming years, the Internet will reduce the prominence of everyone's outer layers. I just hope we're all prepared.
For the rest of this job interview I sat humbled, stunned, uncomfortable... feeling naked, almost violated.
How stupid, I thought afterwards. How could I justify feeling so shy and embarrassed? I proudly and unflinchingly write on the Web for all to see, confident of who I am and what I believe in, so what do I care if someone I meet happens to have Googled me? If they don't like who I am, I don't want to work for them anyway. Right? Right?!
How stupid, I thought afterwards. How could I justify being so open? Do I really want my interviewer -- who may be a conservative introvert -- seeing me as a loudmouth who is unprofessional, overly emotional, and burdened with "too much time" on his hands? Or, worse yet, do I want to be seen as a loose cannon, a risk to the company's public image and privacy?
Do I want my blog to hamper not only my career, but perhaps even my social life as well, with women worrying that our potential dates or even time in the bedroom will end up as blog fodder for voyeuristic geeks on the Internet?
In the end, it doesn't even matter that I honorably stick by a rather strict habit of compartmentalizing the Public and Private, refusing to write on my blog about my employers, my roommate, my girlfriends, and so on. Others don't necessarily know this and -- given the lurid examples of tell-all personal diaries online -- understandably have reason to fear the worst.
So, in exchange for fleeting moments of catharsis, it seems I've created a job-and-dating skunk.
* * *
Ironically, I feel uneasy not only upon realizing the extent of MY cross-exposure, but upon discovering others out of context as well.
I receive a daily mail from Match.com with my potential matches, and today, yet again, one thumbnail photo looked particularly familiar. It happened to be of a woman I recently met in person who is extremely bright, very driven, quite talented, and drop-dead gorgeous. So far so good. But she also happens to be someone I recently interviewed with, indeed, at the same company as the aforementioned "I know all about you, Adam" woman.
Even though this person on match.com had affirmatively placed her profile into the public domain and even though her profile had gotten 'pushed' to me, I felt somehow dirty... like a peeping Tom.
And this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Though I haven't actually written anyone on Match.com for over two years (Lord knows why I still maintain a membership there!), I've been freaked out several times by accidentally stumbling upon the profiles of friends, acquaintances, and co-workers. My tomboy'ish and tough friend Julia, oddly transformed into a "Cuddle with me, take me wine-tasting" kind of person?! Mara has tattoos and multiple piercings and is turned on by guys with long hair? I did so NOT want to know that, to see these people this way.
* * *
I always thought I was more open-minded. Easy-going. Carefree. Happy to sneer at uptight non-blogging people. But clearly I am not immune from societal expectations of Context and the resultant alarm at having contextual separations shattered. Seeing my opthamalogist in a speedo at a water park. Being paired up with an ex-girlfriend in a kickboxing class. Having the supermarket clerk recognize the name on my credit card from an online bereavement group.
Sharing can be comforting in controlled contexts, but understandably becomes jarring, confusing, and sometimes even scary when it transcends mental borders. I have over 600 contacts in my Outlook addressbook, for instance, and I'd freak if some of them from one 'group' met another or saw the same aspects of my personality and background -- and no, I'm not the sort with a strikingly 'hidden' life. Logically, I KNOW that people can (and certainly do) Google me, and I'm aware that it's ridiculously easy to put together a comprehensive-yet-not-truly-complete picture of who I am and what makes me tick in just a few minutes of clicking. But emotionally, I'm unable to feel comfortable with the thought of even my subtlely different facets being on display in a mix-and-match fashion.
Yet I persist in putting myself out there... sharing, trusting, exposing.
Why, then, am I shocked when I learn that others view what I have willingly displayed, when others connect the dots I've painted over so many years?
Of course, in the end, little of this matters from a "what do I do next" perspective. The genie is out of the bottle, as they say. I can only hope that others, perhaps becoming eventually similarly exposed themselves, realize that my flaws and emotions are no stranger or scarier or more dysfunctional than theirs. And hopefully, I, too, will learn to face others' exposure with less trepidation. Nakedness, after all, is only titilating or uncomfortable when everyone is clothed. I anticipate that in the coming years, the Internet will reduce the prominence of everyone's outer layers. I just hope we're all prepared.
Celebrating Love
Many folks asked me how my Valentine's Day was. As a single-but-not-angsty guy, I noted that the following made my Valentine's Day a happy one:
- My roommate is dating a really nice guy.
- I'm blessed with great friends and family.
- Hundreds of people in my city of San Francisco -- who happen to love someone of the same sex -- have gotten married.
In particular, these pictures warm my heart.
How anyone can deny the goodness and rightfulness and wonderfulness of all of this is far beyond my comprehension.
Of course, not too many years ago, the majority of Americans were against those damn coloreds mingling with -- and merciful heavens, marrying -- "our kind."
Times have changed. And so, too, will this unchristian, immoral, and simply wrong-headed discrimination against gays and lesbians thankfully go the way of slavery.
In the meantime, I am doing my best to look beyond the sad resistance of those who misguidedly cling to the 'sanctity of marriage' in the face of heterosexual divorce and adultery and instead celebrate the current triumphs in this war on intolerance.
And of course, a big Mazel Tov to all the new married couples! :-) May their union be long and joyful.
- My roommate is dating a really nice guy.
- I'm blessed with great friends and family.
- Hundreds of people in my city of San Francisco -- who happen to love someone of the same sex -- have gotten married.
In particular, these pictures warm my heart.
How anyone can deny the goodness and rightfulness and wonderfulness of all of this is far beyond my comprehension.
Of course, not too many years ago, the majority of Americans were against those damn coloreds mingling with -- and merciful heavens, marrying -- "our kind."
Times have changed. And so, too, will this unchristian, immoral, and simply wrong-headed discrimination against gays and lesbians thankfully go the way of slavery.
In the meantime, I am doing my best to look beyond the sad resistance of those who misguidedly cling to the 'sanctity of marriage' in the face of heterosexual divorce and adultery and instead celebrate the current triumphs in this war on intolerance.
And of course, a big Mazel Tov to all the new married couples! :-) May their union be long and joyful.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Poetry slam falls flat / And that is that.
My friend recently invited me to accompany her to a poetry slam, and gave a compelling set of reasons to attend:
- It's free.
- It's cultural.
- It's something different.
- It's free.
Since she's unemployed and I'm, well, self-employed (which is about as secure), the free part's important.
But in the end, we got barely more than we paid for.
One of the two featured poets was entertaining, engaging, talented, and simply a joy to watch and listen to.
But the others... man, the others... what were they thinking? Or not thinking? Is there much worse than a bad poet? Yes... someone who is bad poem presenter.
These folks failed to grasp one key fundamental in presentations: Contrast.
Louds. Softs. Fast. Slow. Pointed. Fluid.
No, these men and women came from the "Fast, Loud, Abrasive" school of poetry, apparently. After about ten minutes, my friend and I had had quite enough.
Unfortunately, after starting a full hour and a quarter late, the first 'act' lasted about 90 minutes.
We left, exhausted, annoyed, and disappointed.
I think I'll go back to reading Shel Silverstein to myself. At least I won't have to worry about someone else's bad performance skills.
- It's free.
- It's cultural.
- It's something different.
- It's free.
Since she's unemployed and I'm, well, self-employed (which is about as secure), the free part's important.
But in the end, we got barely more than we paid for.
One of the two featured poets was entertaining, engaging, talented, and simply a joy to watch and listen to.
But the others... man, the others... what were they thinking? Or not thinking? Is there much worse than a bad poet? Yes... someone who is bad poem presenter.
These folks failed to grasp one key fundamental in presentations: Contrast.
Louds. Softs. Fast. Slow. Pointed. Fluid.
No, these men and women came from the "Fast, Loud, Abrasive" school of poetry, apparently. After about ten minutes, my friend and I had had quite enough.
Unfortunately, after starting a full hour and a quarter late, the first 'act' lasted about 90 minutes.
We left, exhausted, annoyed, and disappointed.
I think I'll go back to reading Shel Silverstein to myself. At least I won't have to worry about someone else's bad performance skills.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Tragedy of the Social Networking Commons -- and the fixes
I've been doing a lot of thinking about online social networks (like orkut, Friendster, Tribe.net, etc.), and am increasingly wondering not IF they can work, but rather, HOW and in what way.
One of the most complicated and interesting issues, in my mind, is that of how the social networking services (SNs) reposition and provide access to various social strata... layers of ordinary folks, the down-and-out, the meek, the powerful, and poor, and the rich.
Are SNs the great leveler? Or do they -- or will they -- simply replicate the strata and their boundaries that exist in the Real World? How will they evolve to keep people from all ends of the have/have-not spectrum interested and engaged?
Take, for example, a famous company's CEO. He's smart, he's powerful, he's rich... and many, many people want to 'network' with him. Some want advice, others want information, and yet others want something more tangible... a job at his firm, or even an outright handout.
What does this mean, then, for this CEO when he joins a social networking service? With few exceptions, he is laying himself bare and putting a sign over his unprotected self: "Take advantage of me!" After all, pretty much anyone can send him messages, and while he can hit delete delete delete, such indiscriminate filtering sucks away time and energy and potential.
So, too, could he implement a gatekeeper... either an electronic one on the SNs that support it (e.g., accept only messages from 2nd-degree friends-of-friends), or a human one (have his secretary screen all incoming messages).
But in either of the gatekeeper examples above, he has essentially neutralized one of the very advantages of the SNs -- unfettered access to people of different backgrounds.
The challenge, then, becomes one of finding an effective compromise.
* * *
I've found myself on both sides of the fence quite often. Due to my online presence, I get dozens of e-mails monthly asking for Web design advice, marketing help, and so on. In general, I'm happy to offer what I can, but I've increasingly found myself the recipient of barely-disguised spams ("I was wondering if you had any advice for my great Make Money Fast Network...") or people who couldn't bother to take two seconds to read my profile or even get my name right (Hint: It's Adam, not Alan).
On the flip side, I've innundated dozens of folks with questions about their careers and their companies in order to explore various job options and opportunities.
Early on, things seemed to work out decently. I could e-mail CEOs and VPs and various PowerPlayers(tm) without fearing that they'd been bugged 70 times already that week. I made a sincere effort to do my homework ahead of time, tried to offer something of value myself, and always, ALWAYS wrote a highly-personalized introduction letter.
But those early days are just a faded memory now for most SNs, it seems. I get the distinct impression that many of my (IMHO) thoughtful messages today find their only audience in some Recycle Bin... and I've noticed more and more PowerPlayers disabling their incoming message box, removing salient identifying information from their profiles (including company name), and basically, well, making themselves unavailable.
Which then, it worries me, seems to portend a Social Networking Service Tragedy of the Commons. The harder it becomes to reach people one might want to network with, the broader net one is likely to cast. The broader the net, the more messages each person up the 'power ladder' is likely to be flooded with, adding to the spiral towards unhappy saturation.
* * *
A whole lot of different things could help, of course:
1) Technological throttling
SNs should make it difficult, if not impossible, to send messages to more than [x] people at a time, or more than [y] people in a given short time period. Or perhaps, as some thoughtful forum software packages have implemented, restrict people from sending more than [z] messages without first getting a response back; in this way, folks must craft messages worth responding to or risk getting shut out of further messaging.
2) Collaborative filtering
If enough people click on the 'bozo' button after receiving yet another unsolicited message about the joys of Amway, ideally that person would either have their account revoked, or at least messaging privileges suspended.
3) Effective etiquette education
From an early age, we learn that certain behaviors are not to be tolerated and are not part of civil society. MOST folks would not call a list of CEOs at home during dinner hour to ask for a job. Yet these same people seem to have no concerns about similarly annoying large bulks of people via online messaging.
4) A stronger foundation of trust
Some SNs, such as Spoke, allow one to send a message to an unconnected member only via a chain of connected members. In other words, if I want to reach Kevin Bacon, I must submit my message or request via someone I already know, and ask them to forward on the request to someone they know that knows Mr. Bacon. Each person in the chain has the option to forward -- or not forward -- the message on, encouraging the original writer to fine tune and prioritize his or her requests.
* * *
Out of the above ideas, I think the technology fix is the simplest, the collaborative filtering is a bit more complicated but still promising, the etiquette-teaching is a bit pie-in-the-sky (hey, people STILL send stupid chain letters despite being castigated), and the idea of stronger trust foundations being the most valuable overall.
Specifically, I have the most faith in the latter option because it maximizes the incentive to build thoughtful connections and make intelligent networking requests. When combined with a more subtlely gradated connection scheme (social friend, work friend, acquaintance, relative...), I truly believe that SNs will then be able to facilitate and encourage friendly exchanges amongst strata. Job seekers who engagingly contribute in the SNs forums or prove in other ways that they have something to offer will then be granted access to key decisionmakers and powerbrokers.
Of course, I acknowledge that the idea of discrete SNs-related strata is a bit of a fallacy. I may be an expert at one thing but a dunce at something else, and thus a great candidate for networking with someone of the opposite makeup for mutual benefit. Each of us may be, in that example, a 'PowerPlayer' in a different and complementary context. So, too, are there different fields of strata... physical attractiveness, artistic talents, social popularity, and yes, career achievement. The aforementioned CEO, for instance, is likely not averse to hearing from the unemployed, just uninterested in hearing from people who are, well, uninteresting and selfish.
* * *
Therefore, I'm optimistic that a mix of technological solutions built upon a flexible but not-overly-permissive gatekeeping/trusted-networking foundation will help SNs thrive -- with people of all backgrounds on board. I just hope that relevant aspects of such a foundation become a stronger part of many of the current promising SNs in the news today.
* * *
Related entries:
- Fascinating Perceptions of Online Social Networks
- The New (much) Improved Friendster
- A "Friend"ly misunderstanding
- The concept of 'networking' events
One of the most complicated and interesting issues, in my mind, is that of how the social networking services (SNs) reposition and provide access to various social strata... layers of ordinary folks, the down-and-out, the meek, the powerful, and poor, and the rich.
Are SNs the great leveler? Or do they -- or will they -- simply replicate the strata and their boundaries that exist in the Real World? How will they evolve to keep people from all ends of the have/have-not spectrum interested and engaged?
Take, for example, a famous company's CEO. He's smart, he's powerful, he's rich... and many, many people want to 'network' with him. Some want advice, others want information, and yet others want something more tangible... a job at his firm, or even an outright handout.
What does this mean, then, for this CEO when he joins a social networking service? With few exceptions, he is laying himself bare and putting a sign over his unprotected self: "Take advantage of me!" After all, pretty much anyone can send him messages, and while he can hit delete delete delete, such indiscriminate filtering sucks away time and energy and potential.
So, too, could he implement a gatekeeper... either an electronic one on the SNs that support it (e.g., accept only messages from 2nd-degree friends-of-friends), or a human one (have his secretary screen all incoming messages).
But in either of the gatekeeper examples above, he has essentially neutralized one of the very advantages of the SNs -- unfettered access to people of different backgrounds.
The challenge, then, becomes one of finding an effective compromise.
* * *
I've found myself on both sides of the fence quite often. Due to my online presence, I get dozens of e-mails monthly asking for Web design advice, marketing help, and so on. In general, I'm happy to offer what I can, but I've increasingly found myself the recipient of barely-disguised spams ("I was wondering if you had any advice for my great Make Money Fast Network...") or people who couldn't bother to take two seconds to read my profile or even get my name right (Hint: It's Adam, not Alan).
On the flip side, I've innundated dozens of folks with questions about their careers and their companies in order to explore various job options and opportunities.
Early on, things seemed to work out decently. I could e-mail CEOs and VPs and various PowerPlayers(tm) without fearing that they'd been bugged 70 times already that week. I made a sincere effort to do my homework ahead of time, tried to offer something of value myself, and always, ALWAYS wrote a highly-personalized introduction letter.
But those early days are just a faded memory now for most SNs, it seems. I get the distinct impression that many of my (IMHO) thoughtful messages today find their only audience in some Recycle Bin... and I've noticed more and more PowerPlayers disabling their incoming message box, removing salient identifying information from their profiles (including company name), and basically, well, making themselves unavailable.
Which then, it worries me, seems to portend a Social Networking Service Tragedy of the Commons. The harder it becomes to reach people one might want to network with, the broader net one is likely to cast. The broader the net, the more messages each person up the 'power ladder' is likely to be flooded with, adding to the spiral towards unhappy saturation.
* * *
A whole lot of different things could help, of course:
1) Technological throttling
SNs should make it difficult, if not impossible, to send messages to more than [x] people at a time, or more than [y] people in a given short time period. Or perhaps, as some thoughtful forum software packages have implemented, restrict people from sending more than [z] messages without first getting a response back; in this way, folks must craft messages worth responding to or risk getting shut out of further messaging.
2) Collaborative filtering
If enough people click on the 'bozo' button after receiving yet another unsolicited message about the joys of Amway, ideally that person would either have their account revoked, or at least messaging privileges suspended.
3) Effective etiquette education
From an early age, we learn that certain behaviors are not to be tolerated and are not part of civil society. MOST folks would not call a list of CEOs at home during dinner hour to ask for a job. Yet these same people seem to have no concerns about similarly annoying large bulks of people via online messaging.
4) A stronger foundation of trust
Some SNs, such as Spoke, allow one to send a message to an unconnected member only via a chain of connected members. In other words, if I want to reach Kevin Bacon, I must submit my message or request via someone I already know, and ask them to forward on the request to someone they know that knows Mr. Bacon. Each person in the chain has the option to forward -- or not forward -- the message on, encouraging the original writer to fine tune and prioritize his or her requests.
* * *
Out of the above ideas, I think the technology fix is the simplest, the collaborative filtering is a bit more complicated but still promising, the etiquette-teaching is a bit pie-in-the-sky (hey, people STILL send stupid chain letters despite being castigated), and the idea of stronger trust foundations being the most valuable overall.
Specifically, I have the most faith in the latter option because it maximizes the incentive to build thoughtful connections and make intelligent networking requests. When combined with a more subtlely gradated connection scheme (social friend, work friend, acquaintance, relative...), I truly believe that SNs will then be able to facilitate and encourage friendly exchanges amongst strata. Job seekers who engagingly contribute in the SNs forums or prove in other ways that they have something to offer will then be granted access to key decisionmakers and powerbrokers.
Of course, I acknowledge that the idea of discrete SNs-related strata is a bit of a fallacy. I may be an expert at one thing but a dunce at something else, and thus a great candidate for networking with someone of the opposite makeup for mutual benefit. Each of us may be, in that example, a 'PowerPlayer' in a different and complementary context. So, too, are there different fields of strata... physical attractiveness, artistic talents, social popularity, and yes, career achievement. The aforementioned CEO, for instance, is likely not averse to hearing from the unemployed, just uninterested in hearing from people who are, well, uninteresting and selfish.
* * *
Therefore, I'm optimistic that a mix of technological solutions built upon a flexible but not-overly-permissive gatekeeping/trusted-networking foundation will help SNs thrive -- with people of all backgrounds on board. I just hope that relevant aspects of such a foundation become a stronger part of many of the current promising SNs in the news today.
* * *
Related entries:
- Fascinating Perceptions of Online Social Networks
- The New (much) Improved Friendster
- A "Friend"ly misunderstanding
- The concept of 'networking' events
Health Hypocrisy
Two odd tidbits crossed my mind this evening.
1) Aaahnold, the Governator has proposed converting the state Capitol's interior courtyard into a "smoking plaza." Isn't this the same guy that's been the head of various Fitness councils?
2) Once again, the gym I belong to (24 Hour Fitness) is shilling Tanning packages ("Fry 3 times, Fry the 4th time, free!"). This is the same organization that offers actually thoughtful e-mail newsletters about health and fitness, not to mention (obviously) a physical space to get in shape... and it's promoting skin cancer?
What a weird, wacky world we live in.
1) Aaahnold, the Governator has proposed converting the state Capitol's interior courtyard into a "smoking plaza." Isn't this the same guy that's been the head of various Fitness councils?
2) Once again, the gym I belong to (24 Hour Fitness) is shilling Tanning packages ("Fry 3 times, Fry the 4th time, free!"). This is the same organization that offers actually thoughtful e-mail newsletters about health and fitness, not to mention (obviously) a physical space to get in shape... and it's promoting skin cancer?
What a weird, wacky world we live in.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
To neither have nor hold -- a voyeur's lament.
Imagine that you're invited to a private house party every three months or so.
Live music. Free alcohol and snacks. Beautiful and talented women. Handsome and confident men.
Now imagine that nearly everyone at the party is speaking a different language, one that you can appreciate for its beauty and intricacy, but cannot speak.
The lights are dark. No smoke, but the air is thick... and you both move and watch as if in water.
Even the dog is beautiful, and, like most of the others there, tolerant of but uninterested in your presence. You don't matter here.
For you don't belong. You don't fit in. You sit, you watch, you absorb, you admire, you dream of what it'd be like to be a part of it. But it's out of your reach. You are, as someone teasingly comments to you briefly, but "a voyeur."
A voyeur. Confirmation that you shouldn't even try to be part of a crowd that is -- if not above -- at least distinctly apart from you.
Ah, a warm face -- a non-model -- breaks the spell for a moment, speaking to you, but then flittering away to disappear into anothers' arms. Gone.
Still surrounded by the foreign language that flows, that crackles with vibrance around you. Accentuated by playful, sensual, teasing embraces and even kisses that may be transitory but you desire to share in them nonetheless.
But you do not. You cannot.
You stumble out the door, finally overcoming the urge to sink deeper into the couch while watching the world swirl by... walking past the teacher, the smoker, the lover, all models, all perfect in their own way beyond your reach this evening, nay, this morning.
They say goodbye, and you nod, dumbly, walking faster down the stairs. Car keys, the whir of a motor, and then before you know it, back home... not quite ready for bed.
And here you are, typing a stream of consciousness in sadness and even amazement of what you're a part of for several magical, surreal, miserable nights each year.
This, now, will be the last. No more.
Why try to be what you cannot?
Live music. Free alcohol and snacks. Beautiful and talented women. Handsome and confident men.
Now imagine that nearly everyone at the party is speaking a different language, one that you can appreciate for its beauty and intricacy, but cannot speak.
The lights are dark. No smoke, but the air is thick... and you both move and watch as if in water.
Even the dog is beautiful, and, like most of the others there, tolerant of but uninterested in your presence. You don't matter here.
For you don't belong. You don't fit in. You sit, you watch, you absorb, you admire, you dream of what it'd be like to be a part of it. But it's out of your reach. You are, as someone teasingly comments to you briefly, but "a voyeur."
A voyeur. Confirmation that you shouldn't even try to be part of a crowd that is -- if not above -- at least distinctly apart from you.
Ah, a warm face -- a non-model -- breaks the spell for a moment, speaking to you, but then flittering away to disappear into anothers' arms. Gone.
Still surrounded by the foreign language that flows, that crackles with vibrance around you. Accentuated by playful, sensual, teasing embraces and even kisses that may be transitory but you desire to share in them nonetheless.
But you do not. You cannot.
You stumble out the door, finally overcoming the urge to sink deeper into the couch while watching the world swirl by... walking past the teacher, the smoker, the lover, all models, all perfect in their own way beyond your reach this evening, nay, this morning.
They say goodbye, and you nod, dumbly, walking faster down the stairs. Car keys, the whir of a motor, and then before you know it, back home... not quite ready for bed.
And here you are, typing a stream of consciousness in sadness and even amazement of what you're a part of for several magical, surreal, miserable nights each year.
This, now, will be the last. No more.
Why try to be what you cannot?
Friday, February 13, 2004
Forget marketing, just gimme the darn info, please!
After buying a cordless phone for my new apartment a while back, I learned -- after the 30 day free-return period -- that the stupid thing didn't have the capability to turn the ringer off. Given that I receive junk faxes at all hours of the day and night, this is a pretty important feature that's missing, since my phone is in my bedroom and I don't fancy being woken up several times in the middle of the night.
So, after an extended period of cheapness and stubbornness (just disconnecting the phone at night), I decided that it's time for me to get a new cordless phone.
You'd think that this would be a relatively pleasant and painless process. And you'd be wrong.
First stop, Amazon.com, a retailer I've trusted and appreciated for a long time.
Hmm... no info on whether any of their listed phones let one turn off the ringer. Adjustable volume? Check. But actually turning it off? Nope.
So, undaunted, I found a few phones on Amazon.com that were within my price range, noted the item numbers, and then googled for the info:
"GE cordless 25893GE3 manual"
Lots of unrelated crap, and -- for other related searches -- lots of spam, including one link that redirected me to ebay. And not even the phones section of ebay, just the front page. Charming.
Pressing on, I decided to go to GE's Web site.
Which led me to Thomson Electronics site.
Whereupon I had to download a PDF manual.
Which didn't say anything whatsoever about being able to turn the ringer off.
This was now turning into an unstoppable quest. I WAS going to find this information, dangit, because I had nothing more important to do on a Friday afternoon, like my laundry, or job searching, or my taxes, or answering my backlog of a few thousand e-mails, and so on.
---
So I called up GE.
After navigating through a deliriously long menu, I found that -- surprise -- they offered assistance for everything -- TVs, VCRs, Camcorders -- except for their cordless phones. I pressed "4" for audio anyway. Hey, a phone has audio, right?
After waiting on hold for a few moments, I was transferred to someone who insisted I had to register to ask any questions. She needed my name, address, telephone number, and...
"Whoa, whoa... I just have a simple question!" I protested. "I don't own this phone. I don't need to be on file for a warranty. I just need info!"
Clearly reading from her script, the teledroid apologized, but insisted that she had to enter this information in her computer in order to access the information I requested. I had fun coming up with fake info for her, but not enough fun that I forgot I was spending my time and long distance money on this stupid endeavor.
---
She then asked me -- three times -- whether I was a business or a consumer, and also what the serial number was on the item I needed info for. "I... DON'T... HAVE...A... SERIAL... NUMBER!" I said, not quite shouting, but certainly emphatically. I explained, once again, that I didn't own this phone [and, I wanted to add, at this rate, would likely never, ever, ever think of buying it], so I couldn't possibly have a serial number [unless she wanted me to make that up, too].
Finally, the moment I had been waiting for. I was cleared to ask my oh-so-detailed question -- "Does cordless phone model 25893GE3 have an option to turn off the ringer?"
Then she put me on hold. For ten minutes.
"Sir...?" she came back with, tentatively, "I'm sorry, but I'm not able to obtain that information. The phone is either too new or too old, and I don't have access to the manual."
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!
---
The moral of this story, because of course, every good blog entry should have a moral, is DON'T FRIGGIN' BUY GE PHONES!
No, no, wait, that's not quite it. I bet I'd get a similar runaround from other cordless phone manufacturers.
The moral, actually, is one that I wish to pound home to all the consumer electronic companies out there:
Take a fraction of the money you're now spending making shiny happy neato packaging and the cash you're spending on cutesy and gee-whiz advertising, and put it towards making information about your products more accessible.
Oh yeah, and revising your horrid pre-sales service.
Maybe there aren't enough people like me who actually care about what we're gonna be spending $60-$150 on, but I'd like to hope that others might appreciate knowing a bit more about their purchases before they plunk down their hard-earned cash.
So, after an extended period of cheapness and stubbornness (just disconnecting the phone at night), I decided that it's time for me to get a new cordless phone.
You'd think that this would be a relatively pleasant and painless process. And you'd be wrong.
First stop, Amazon.com, a retailer I've trusted and appreciated for a long time.
Hmm... no info on whether any of their listed phones let one turn off the ringer. Adjustable volume? Check. But actually turning it off? Nope.
So, undaunted, I found a few phones on Amazon.com that were within my price range, noted the item numbers, and then googled for the info:
"GE cordless 25893GE3 manual"
Lots of unrelated crap, and -- for other related searches -- lots of spam, including one link that redirected me to ebay. And not even the phones section of ebay, just the front page. Charming.
Pressing on, I decided to go to GE's Web site.
Which led me to Thomson Electronics site.
Whereupon I had to download a PDF manual.
Which didn't say anything whatsoever about being able to turn the ringer off.
This was now turning into an unstoppable quest. I WAS going to find this information, dangit, because I had nothing more important to do on a Friday afternoon, like my laundry, or job searching, or my taxes, or answering my backlog of a few thousand e-mails, and so on.
---
So I called up GE.
After navigating through a deliriously long menu, I found that -- surprise -- they offered assistance for everything -- TVs, VCRs, Camcorders -- except for their cordless phones. I pressed "4" for audio anyway. Hey, a phone has audio, right?
After waiting on hold for a few moments, I was transferred to someone who insisted I had to register to ask any questions. She needed my name, address, telephone number, and...
"Whoa, whoa... I just have a simple question!" I protested. "I don't own this phone. I don't need to be on file for a warranty. I just need info!"
Clearly reading from her script, the teledroid apologized, but insisted that she had to enter this information in her computer in order to access the information I requested. I had fun coming up with fake info for her, but not enough fun that I forgot I was spending my time and long distance money on this stupid endeavor.
---
She then asked me -- three times -- whether I was a business or a consumer, and also what the serial number was on the item I needed info for. "I... DON'T... HAVE...A... SERIAL... NUMBER!" I said, not quite shouting, but certainly emphatically. I explained, once again, that I didn't own this phone [and, I wanted to add, at this rate, would likely never, ever, ever think of buying it], so I couldn't possibly have a serial number [unless she wanted me to make that up, too].
Finally, the moment I had been waiting for. I was cleared to ask my oh-so-detailed question -- "Does cordless phone model 25893GE3 have an option to turn off the ringer?"
Then she put me on hold. For ten minutes.
"Sir...?" she came back with, tentatively, "I'm sorry, but I'm not able to obtain that information. The phone is either too new or too old, and I don't have access to the manual."
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!
---
The moral of this story, because of course, every good blog entry should have a moral, is DON'T FRIGGIN' BUY GE PHONES!
No, no, wait, that's not quite it. I bet I'd get a similar runaround from other cordless phone manufacturers.
The moral, actually, is one that I wish to pound home to all the consumer electronic companies out there:
Take a fraction of the money you're now spending making shiny happy neato packaging and the cash you're spending on cutesy and gee-whiz advertising, and put it towards making information about your products more accessible.
Oh yeah, and revising your horrid pre-sales service.
Maybe there aren't enough people like me who actually care about what we're gonna be spending $60-$150 on, but I'd like to hope that others might appreciate knowing a bit more about their purchases before they plunk down their hard-earned cash.
Wednesday, February 4, 2004
Personally quantifying the spam mess
I let my spam folder fill up over five days and -- stopwatch in tow -- I just forced myself to face the mess and clean it up, checking for miscategorized mail and so on.
Here are the stats:
- 1203 e-mails I had to sift through (241 e-mails a day) from which I had to save 9 non-spam e-mails which'd been incorrectly tagged.
- 21.5 minutes of my time
- That's 26 hours of my time wasted yearly
- At an approximate $75/hr worth of my time, that's $1,613 dollars.
- For a company of 1,000 employees, that's 1.6 million dollars just in lost time (doesn't count bandwidth or storage costs).
But our government finds it more important to chase after naked breasts instead of really applying firepower to the war against spam. Wonderful.
Here are the stats:
- 1203 e-mails I had to sift through (241 e-mails a day) from which I had to save 9 non-spam e-mails which'd been incorrectly tagged.
- 21.5 minutes of my time
- That's 26 hours of my time wasted yearly
- At an approximate $75/hr worth of my time, that's $1,613 dollars.
- For a company of 1,000 employees, that's 1.6 million dollars just in lost time (doesn't count bandwidth or storage costs).
But our government finds it more important to chase after naked breasts instead of really applying firepower to the war against spam. Wonderful.
Here's why Lieberman (thankfully) lost
Lieberman and those close to him have defiantly insisted that it's his support for the Iraq war that sunk his candidacy.
No, Joe, you lost because you're a sanctimonious twit, and little better than the holier-than-thou and hypocritical Christian Conservatives that tut-tut at regular folk.
I still remember my disgust when the first words out of your mouth after Saddam's capture were berating your Democratic opponents instead of simply voicing hope and support for Iraq's people. I remember how you crusaded against 'filthy' entertainment instead of spending your time discussing core issues that lead to poverty and hopelessness. And I remember, too, how you so frequently invoked the concept of Faith and God instead of offering thoughtful and viable solutions to our earthly problems.
Joe, I'm happy to see you go. Good riddance.
No, Joe, you lost because you're a sanctimonious twit, and little better than the holier-than-thou and hypocritical Christian Conservatives that tut-tut at regular folk.
I still remember my disgust when the first words out of your mouth after Saddam's capture were berating your Democratic opponents instead of simply voicing hope and support for Iraq's people. I remember how you crusaded against 'filthy' entertainment instead of spending your time discussing core issues that lead to poverty and hopelessness. And I remember, too, how you so frequently invoked the concept of Faith and God instead of offering thoughtful and viable solutions to our earthly problems.
Joe, I'm happy to see you go. Good riddance.
Monday, February 2, 2004
Fabulous garlic fries
Tonight I had a hankering for garlic fries.
Unfortunately, I wasn't near a ballpark, and I had wisely NOT stocked up on the horrible hydrogenated fat artery-clogging excuse for garlic fries sold at the local supermarket.
Instead, I decided to make my own... and man, did they turn out great! Read on for my (formerly) super-secret AdamRecipe! :-)
I'm not even going to bother with measurements. Just put as much as you like, to taste, depending on hungry you are.
INGREDIENTS:
- Potato cut into wedges (frozen or fresh)
- Cajun spice OR cajun spice substitute (paprika, red pepper, salt, etc. -- be creative :D)
- Garlic (ideally fresh, or worst, garlic powder)
- Healthy oil (olive or canola)
- Healthy margarine (canola or 'smart' type), or substitute extra oil above
1) Prepare potato. If they're frozen and/or otherwise pre-cooked wedges, you're all set. Otherwise, cut potato into wedges, then cook in microwave for 2 minutes.
2) Place wedges in a sealable plastic container. Lightly coat or mist wedges with oil, then add some cajun spice, and shake well.
3) Put wedges on an oven-safe tray and don't have them touch each other. Heat for 20 minutes at 400 degrees.
4) Just before the wedges are finished cooking, make a special 'coating' by heating a margarine, additional cajun spice, garlic and additional oil (in the same tupperware bowl used earlier) for 20 seconds or until butter has melted. It's important that you don't overdo the ingredients in this step; a little goes a long way!
5) Take wedges out of oven, plop into bowl, cover, shake well to fully coat wedges, let cool a little bit, then eat!
If you want even more potent garlic-y fries, do not add garlic to the microwaved coating mixture, since this moderates the garlic potency. Instead, add garlic to the bowl after the mixture is microwaved and after wedges are added (but obviously before shaking).
* * *
Anyway, I hope you enjoy this recipe as much as I did! Let me know how it works out if you try it! :-)
Unfortunately, I wasn't near a ballpark, and I had wisely NOT stocked up on the horrible hydrogenated fat artery-clogging excuse for garlic fries sold at the local supermarket.
Instead, I decided to make my own... and man, did they turn out great! Read on for my (formerly) super-secret AdamRecipe! :-)
I'm not even going to bother with measurements. Just put as much as you like, to taste, depending on hungry you are.
INGREDIENTS:
- Potato cut into wedges (frozen or fresh)
- Cajun spice OR cajun spice substitute (paprika, red pepper, salt, etc. -- be creative :D)
- Garlic (ideally fresh, or worst, garlic powder)
- Healthy oil (olive or canola)
- Healthy margarine (canola or 'smart' type), or substitute extra oil above
1) Prepare potato. If they're frozen and/or otherwise pre-cooked wedges, you're all set. Otherwise, cut potato into wedges, then cook in microwave for 2 minutes.
2) Place wedges in a sealable plastic container. Lightly coat or mist wedges with oil, then add some cajun spice, and shake well.
3) Put wedges on an oven-safe tray and don't have them touch each other. Heat for 20 minutes at 400 degrees.
4) Just before the wedges are finished cooking, make a special 'coating' by heating a margarine, additional cajun spice, garlic and additional oil (in the same tupperware bowl used earlier) for 20 seconds or until butter has melted. It's important that you don't overdo the ingredients in this step; a little goes a long way!
5) Take wedges out of oven, plop into bowl, cover, shake well to fully coat wedges, let cool a little bit, then eat!
If you want even more potent garlic-y fries, do not add garlic to the microwaved coating mixture, since this moderates the garlic potency. Instead, add garlic to the bowl after the mixture is microwaved and after wedges are added (but obviously before shaking).
* * *
Anyway, I hope you enjoy this recipe as much as I did! Let me know how it works out if you try it! :-)
The Surgeon General Has Determined That Eating Chocolate May Lead To Being Really Fat.
Oh my goodness, this new product liability news report from The Onion is just too damn funny not to share! :D
Sunday, February 1, 2004
Find a cool Web site? Just Furl it!
I recently discovered the coolest site and service.
It's called Furl (http://www.furl.net), which stands for File URL. In a nutshell, it is an excellent free resource that will help you save and full-text-find any Web page on the Net.
Basically, you painlessly install a little bookmarklet thingy (icon) on your browser and when you go to a site you want to save, you click on it. Furl then does three things:
- Shares it with others in your group, or with the public (depending on what you set -- you can keep your entry private if you want!)
- Tags it with the category you chose and any comments you add.
- Stores it in your own personal archive (accessible from any browser after you log in).
But here's the kicker: it saves the FULL TEXT of the page, and lets you search your personal archive, sort of like your own personal Google!
This is very cool for research or for play. Save articles, save joke pages, save pretty much anything you want, and Furl will remember it and find it for you as long as you can enter in at least a couple of words from the page.
Amazingly, Furl is free, and if the site ever does come to an end, you can export all your links before it goes dark.
Oh, and the guy who runs it is pretty cool; after I wrote him with some suggestions, my mail didn't just go into a black hole like such feedback mails sadly often do. Instead, I quickly got a friendly note back, thanking me for my input, and asking for clarification on a couple of my requests.
But I've blathered on long enough. Go Furl! (and don't forget to Furl this blog, darnit :D)
It's called Furl (http://www.furl.net), which stands for File URL. In a nutshell, it is an excellent free resource that will help you save and full-text-find any Web page on the Net.
Basically, you painlessly install a little bookmarklet thingy (icon) on your browser and when you go to a site you want to save, you click on it. Furl then does three things:
- Shares it with others in your group, or with the public (depending on what you set -- you can keep your entry private if you want!)
- Tags it with the category you chose and any comments you add.
- Stores it in your own personal archive (accessible from any browser after you log in).
But here's the kicker: it saves the FULL TEXT of the page, and lets you search your personal archive, sort of like your own personal Google!
This is very cool for research or for play. Save articles, save joke pages, save pretty much anything you want, and Furl will remember it and find it for you as long as you can enter in at least a couple of words from the page.
Amazingly, Furl is free, and if the site ever does come to an end, you can export all your links before it goes dark.
Oh, and the guy who runs it is pretty cool; after I wrote him with some suggestions, my mail didn't just go into a black hole like such feedback mails sadly often do. Instead, I quickly got a friendly note back, thanking me for my input, and asking for clarification on a couple of my requests.
But I've blathered on long enough. Go Furl! (and don't forget to Furl this blog, darnit :D)
CBS execs are a bunch of boobs
As you've probably already heard, CBS refused to air a thoughtful ad on the SuperBowl that attempts to get people thinking about our country's debt load on our children and grandchildren. CBS execs didn't offer much in the way of an explanation except for some lame excuse about consistently refusing to run "issue" ads.
Of course, they ran an ad equating drug use to terrorism, but I guess that's not really an issue, right?
Following the SuperBowl this evening, CBS execs loudly and frantically issued an apology.
"CBS deeply regrets the incident," spokeswoman LeslieAnne Wade said.
But she wasn't referring to CBS' odious stiffling of important discourse or penchant for featuring clueless twits like Diane Sawyer.
Nope. It was something far, far scarier and threatening to the fabric of our society.
The network showed a quick glimpse of Janet Jackson's naked breast!
Oh, the horrors! A woman's naked breast for a fleeting second!
Puleeeeaze. Why on earth are Americans so obscenely UPTIGHT? It's a breast, for goodness sake. It was made, some would say, by that very God so many of the same uptight folks love to publicly acknowledge and quote from.
But it gets worse. Check out this guy's foaming at the mouth:
Personally, if I had kids, I'd much rather they be admiring a nice pair of breasts (heck, even one breast) instead of watching a bunch of dumb jocks slamming into each and slapping each others' asses. I mean, really, who are the neanderthals here, Mr. Boteach?
Actually, no, I shouldn't be mocking the athletes here. We prudish, hypocritical Americans are a much bigger and much more deserving target.
Only in America would TV networks gleefully and graphically depict several thousand murders and other violent crimes yearly (via dramas and 'infotainment') but then hurriedly and deeply apologize for a fleeting moment of nudity.
It's like the old saying goes: It's okay to hack off someone's breast in a movie; just, for Godssake, don't show anyone kissing another's breast!
{Sigh} It's times like this when I really miss living in the overall much-more-sane Eureopean continent.
Of course, they ran an ad equating drug use to terrorism, but I guess that's not really an issue, right?
Following the SuperBowl this evening, CBS execs loudly and frantically issued an apology.
"CBS deeply regrets the incident," spokeswoman LeslieAnne Wade said.
But she wasn't referring to CBS' odious stiffling of important discourse or penchant for featuring clueless twits like Diane Sawyer.
Nope. It was something far, far scarier and threatening to the fabric of our society.
The network showed a quick glimpse of Janet Jackson's naked breast!
Oh, the horrors! A woman's naked breast for a fleeting second!
Puleeeeaze. Why on earth are Americans so obscenely UPTIGHT? It's a breast, for goodness sake. It was made, some would say, by that very God so many of the same uptight folks love to publicly acknowledge and quote from.
But it gets worse. Check out this guy's foaming at the mouth:
By allowing such disgusting spectacles, the NFL degrades every athlete who took thousands of body blows though the long football season to reach the Super Bowl. This is their moment. It dare not be stolen away by Neanderthalic music miscreants.
- Rabbi Schmuley Boteach in a WorldNet Daily article.
Personally, if I had kids, I'd much rather they be admiring a nice pair of breasts (heck, even one breast) instead of watching a bunch of dumb jocks slamming into each and slapping each others' asses. I mean, really, who are the neanderthals here, Mr. Boteach?
Actually, no, I shouldn't be mocking the athletes here. We prudish, hypocritical Americans are a much bigger and much more deserving target.
Only in America would TV networks gleefully and graphically depict several thousand murders and other violent crimes yearly (via dramas and 'infotainment') but then hurriedly and deeply apologize for a fleeting moment of nudity.
It's like the old saying goes: It's okay to hack off someone's breast in a movie; just, for Godssake, don't show anyone kissing another's breast!
{Sigh} It's times like this when I really miss living in the overall much-more-sane Eureopean continent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)