Dumb Mobs, or Keep Your Epinions to Yourself

It was only a matter of time. As more and more of us got online and started to join communities, we began to share our opinions. We became a marketer’s dream, allowing them to gather our most detailed demographic data every time we made a purchase or joined a Yahoo! group. Companies like Amazon began to let us write “reviews” of our purchases and recommend things to others. With a user base of several million individuals, these databases have begun to act as our critical voice whenever we consider an online (or offline) purchase. But how good is the information we receive this way? Will this sort of “mob ranking” replace the advice of trusted sources, and if not, how will these trusted sources establish themselves online? Will it become more difficult to find good information in the flood of online ratings? What kind of forces are at work here? These are the questions I propose to explore.

I was prompted to ask some of these questions during a panel on book publishing during this year’s South by Southwest Interactive conference. The moderator had been talking about how the marketing and promotion of books had moved online, mostly due to the web’s reach and the reduced costs involved. I began to think of the way that the critic’s role had also moved online, though not in the way I’d hoped. Sure, people still brought up the New York Times online and some of them even read book reviews there, but more and more sites were adding their own ratings engine and just letting everybody have at it. Something about this made me uncomfortable and I wanted to find out why.

I have participated in this kind of critical activity myself. At the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com), users can rate a film out of 10 and write their own reviews which are then added to the site. A bit of a film geek, I’ve endeavoured to rate every film I see, whether it’s a masterpiece, a flop, or just an entertaining bit of fluff. Upon reflection, I think that might be the only way these sites will work. Just as a professional critic must write reviews that fall across a wide spectrum of opinion, each voter on IMDb or Amazon or Epinions must establish the boundaries of their taste. In the case of product reviews, where taste is not an issue, the critic still must establish their standards. Without informing anyone of what we don’t like, sharing what we do like will be meaningless.

However, my experience with these sites shows a different situation. Some users vote only for things they do like. These people would have an average rating that is quite high. Others only point out things they hate, and so their average ratings are quite low. As individual voices, we might be wise to ignore them, but as part of an anonymous mob, they are invisible. We don’t even know how many of them there are. The larger question is how do we know we can trust the ratings presented by a site that doesn’t limit its membership in any way? Sure, it’s democratic, but when it comes to informed opinions, the mob surely doesn’t rule.

Since the machinery behind these databases is hidden to us, I wanted to ask a few experts how they work. Is one better than another? What kind of research is being carried on into making them more useful? Will it really ever be true for me that I will weigh the opinion of the New York Times’ book critic against the mob of user ratings at Amazon and find them equal?

Let’s take Epinions as an example. When I ask it to list dramatic movies in order of rating, I get a very long list of 5-star choices. But I’m almost certain that the people who gave Schindler’s List the top rating were not the same group that elevated Anne of Green Gables to the same lofty place. I can’t be sure, but I’m trusting my gut on this one. I would hazard a guess that most people who take the time to rate their purchases online are a self-selecting group whose opinions tend toward one end of the spectrum or the other.

The interesting thing is how much more influential these algorithms have become, and how opaque they remain. Google’s search algorithm is the big one, but recent stories about the “black box” that is Yelp are also relevant. I wonder if a discussion of these issues might still be interesting, or has the issue already been settled?

from Consolation Champs

Dumb Mobs, 2003

Ben says it’s just the first of many planned giveaway events, since the Foundation’s goal is to give away 1,000 computers by the end of 2008. Bravo, Ben, and Go Little Geeks! It’s only a little sad that the computers are running Microsoft Windows.

from Consolation Champs

Go Little Geeks!

CBC Radio’s Nora Young hosts a radio program called Spark! and her session was being taped for later broadcast as a show. She spoke with Microsoft researcher Bill Buxton on the subject “Does Location Matter?” which I thought would be about the benefits of telecommuting. It turned out to be mostly about the advances in video conferencing software and how to use it to work and socialize virtually with our colleagues and friends. It was fascinating stuff, but I was hoping the conversation would be broader.

We interact in a variety of ways with others online, but it’s mostly in the course of doing several other things at the same time. I can post a Twitter message, comment on a blog, and carry on an IM conversation all at the same time, possibly interacting with three different people, while at the same time writing in Microsoft Word or working with an image in Photoshop. I call these “micro-interactions” because they usually involve very little time, and are usually quite focussed on a particular subject or question. I’m reacting to a specific thing the other person has posted, for instance. These interactions have a defined purpose and they require little etiquette because online, interruptions can be dealt with later.

I’m finding more and more, though, that when I meet some of these same people offline, I’m finding the interactions more difficult. The idea of giving or getting “full attention” seems a bit overwhelming. I often fear that in offline situations, we won’t have enough conversation to keep things running smoothly. I also dread the awkwardness of introductions and departures, and knowing how long to just “hang around.” These are all non-issues with people I’ve met and known offline, because there is established etiquette. But I find that the more we interact online, the more awkward we get when we can’t interact the same way in the physical world. Among even good friends whom I’ve met online, our face-to-face interactions can sometimes feel awkward. “Just hanging out” can be difficult without some issue or topic to focus our energies toward.

Paul Collins tells a funny but illuminating story in his book Not Even Wrong: Adventures in Autism. He describes a speaking engagement at Microsoft in which the heads of more than half the audience are down over their laptops, a scene familiar to many conference speakers nowadays. When he asks what’s going on, his host tells him the audience members are watching the streaming video broadcast of the very talk they’re attending. It’s joked that many web geeks are probably mildly autistic, and that their legendary social awkwardness may actually be symptomatic of Asperger’s Syndrome, but it’s not really a joke.

The incidence of autism in general is rising rapidly; some statistics say it now affects one in 100 births. It’s interesting to me that the number is rising just as more and more of our social interactions are moving online. If I’m finding my own feelings and confidence around social interactions changing, I wonder how it will be for the generation of children who are growing up with the sort of “micro-interactions” I’ve described earlier?

Now all of this could just be unique to me. Maybe I’m just having a bad day socially. But I’m glad that it forced me to think about some of these issues. I’m very curious to see what others think about this. Feel free to comment below, or should you see me wandering around at Mesh tomorrow, by all means stop me. At least we’ll have a defined topic to discuss.

from Consolation Champs

Is Asperger’s Contagious?

Wii Wii Time!
Originally uploaded by jmcnally

I bought two Wiis on Friday. One is for me and one for a friend. There were only five in the whole store!

My Wii number is 7657 1175 3719 5076.

from Consolation Champs

Wii Wii Time!

I’d always loved the Garmin Forerunner series of GPS-enabled watches, but they were enormous and ugly, and often didn’t work in the city, where tall buildings interfered with their ability to pick up a signal. I kept telling myself that when they got smaller and more capable, I’d pick one up. I believe that day is now at hand. Behold the Forerunner 405:

This thing will do everything: track distance, time, map routes, even heart-rate (on one model). Best of all, it can upload its data to the web, where you can analyze it or compare yourself with others on Garmin’s new Connect community.

This is exactly the sort of tech geekery that gets me excited and motivated to exercise more. There are only two notes of caution here. One is that there won’t be any Mac support for the 405 until November 2008. The other is that Apple has long been rumoured to be working on a much fuller implementation of the Nike + iPod kit. While it’s doubtful that Apple could build something as sophisticated as the Forerunner (though it would play music!), I might still try to wait a while. Although I’m sure I could use Windows under Parallels for a few months to sync my data with my iMac, there could be some potential hiccups.

Don’t be surprised if I go out and buy one this weekend, though!

from Consolation Champs

Technolust: Garmin Forerunner 405

from Consolation Champs

CaseCamp Toronto 7

During the excavations that took place this past week while Brooke and I moved, I found this ancient relic from the past. My “cyberspace companion” featured some helpful articles. My favourite was “Six Myths: Unmasking Cyber Lore”:

• Myth 1: The Internet is a single network controlled by one organization.
  • Fact: The Internet is actually a patchwork of commercial, educational, government and public and private networks, all cooperating to achieve an open, interconnected communications system.
• Myth 2: The Internet is free
  • Fact: Don’t believe it for a moment. All of the Internet’s conduits, computers, and information resources are paid for by someone. Often an organization provides free Internet access to its members as part of an affiliation. But, for people lacking Internet access through an organization, getting on the Internet carries a price tag.
• Myth 3: The Internet will usher in a new age of democracy, a socio-political nirvana.
  • Fact: People created the Internet, people run the Internet, people drive what happens on the Internet — and people are human. No inherent technological properties of the Internet will bring democracy or a new age of global community.
• Myth 4: Internet users are cyberpunks and content they create is cyberporn.
  • Fact: While some consider portions of the material on the Internet to be immoral, obscene, or useless, much of it is no more controversial than what’s found at a public library or in a bookstore.
• Myth 5: The Internet is chaotic. There’s simply no way to find anything.
  • Fact: While no Internet information-collection or resource-searching tool is flawless, there are landmark collections and tools on the Internet that you can use to find what you want.
• Myth 6: The Internet is hostile to newcomers — the hapless newbies.
  • Fact: While a newbie can get mercilessly flamed for ignoring or flouting the Internet’s social customs, there are plenty of ways a new user can get up to speed in a hurry.

In this pre-Google world, Myth 5 was especially amusing to read. Yahoo still resided at its Stanford URL (http://akebono.stanford.edu/yahoo). And I love how many times they use the prefix “cyber”! Can you remember your first experiences with the “Internet”?

from Consolation Champs

Unearthed

Suddenly, of course, I need one. I recently enrolled in a magazine writing class, and I need something to record interviews. But I’m also attending SXSW again, and staying a few days in the hope of seeing some bands, and of course it would be great to record some music, too. As well as the panels.

So, in my usual way, I do an obsessive amount of research. The one I really really want is probably too much for me. The Edirol R-09, which is around US$400, seems to do it all and in a small package, too. It’s really well-reviewed, and works flawlessly with both PCs and Macs. If you’re mostly recording music, this is probably the one you want.

Closer to my budget is the Olympus WS-320M (around US$130), which is primarily a voice recorder. Olympus also offers the DS-30 (around US$150), which appears to offer higher-quality sound. But I doubt the Olympus units can really do music well at all.

My philosophy has always been that if you’re going to spend $150 to get something that doesn’t do everything you want, you may as well spend $400 to get something that does. As well, since my wife is a full-time journalist who also does freelance work, maybe I could convince her that she needs this thing? It would certainly qualify as a deductible expense, right? Right?

from Consolation Champs

Digital Recorders

• Harper’s
• The Atlantic
• National Geographic
• Omni
• Life
• Macworld
• Popular Science

Have you got any favourites I’ve missed?

from Consolation Champs

Magazine Archives on DVD

Hans Rosling is public health expert and the founder of Gapminder, a non-profit initiative to bring global health and economic statistics alive. His presentation is incredible and really brings some positive news from a huge pile of seemingly boring numbers. On the Gapminder site, you can download a number of animated presentations of global reports. Rosling’s work seems to embody the perfect synthesis of technology, education and design. Check out an online version of some of Gapminder’s work.

You’ll need the Flash plugin installed to watch online, but you can also download video or audio. Other speakers in the series include Al Gore and David Pogue.

from Consolation Champs

TED Talks

But before I post my depressing screed, I will say that I managed to have a pretty good time nonetheless. It’s just too bad that I only get to see some of these amazing people just once a year. For evidence of my merrymaking, check out my photos on Flickr. I’ve posted my photos from 2001 and 2002 on there as well. Ah, nostalgia!

Read on if you dare…

SXSW 2006: Blog Bubble Bursts

I’m not quite sure how to preface my remarks about SXSW this year. I certainly didn’t start out writing something so negative. As always, I had a great time, but there was a vague sense of disappointment in the air this year among my friends. Although blogging has been growing for a few years now, this was the year I felt it fully entered the mainstream. Just as Toyota Prius owners no longer honk at each other, or iPod owners no longer nod at strangers with the same white earbuds, bloggers no longer seem connected just by virtue of being bloggers, and this saddens me.

SXSW 2000 has been described as the bloggers’ “coming out party” and since I started attending in 2001, it’s always felt like a blogger’s conference more than anything else. I loved that at Break Bread with Brad, everyone wore badges with their URL on them. Not what they did, or how much money they made, or even where they lived. I loved the egalitarian spirit of that. Even though a mythical “A-List” soon appeared, along with a backlash, that seemed more like a junior-high expression of cliquishness and jealousy than a serious social disruption. But of course, money changes everything, and SXSW is no different.

It’s strange. Some of the internet nerds I met five years ago are now running technology companies, some are millionaires. And I’m pretty much the same person I was then. It seems like it’s become necessary again to ask someone what they do, or where they work, as if that were more important than who they were.

We’ve stratified to the point where the web designers and the bloggers and the user experience designers and the technologists and the journalists and the venture capitalists don’t even know who each other are. The designers come to discuss design with other designers, the technologists come to present panels and then party with the other technologists. A few years ago, people primarily identified themselves as bloggers, and their jobs came next. I’m not sure if anyone else felt strange that one of the keynotes this year featured two famous bloggers, who were trying to make it their occupation.

All the talk this year was about the new Internet bubble. There was lots of free beer and a closing night party that featured music so loud that no one could talk to each other. There were lots of panels that featured titles like “Does Your Blog Have A Business?” and “How to Blog for Money by Learning from Comics” and “Sink or Swim: The Five Most Important Startup Decisions”. In fact, I haven’t heard the term “monetizing” for many years, but it poppped up again and again this year.

Before the conference, I decided to upload my photos from my first year to Flickr. After I came home, I compared them to my 2006 photos and there is a definite difference. I’m now in the process of uploading photos from other years and I find it amazing that just a few years ago, in the lobby bar of the Omni Hotel, you could find a group of about 30 people who were behind some of the most interesting web sites around. Now many of them are too busy working at their internet companies to attend, or if they do come, are busy with other “business” people or preparing for their panels on monetizing the blogosphere with Ajax or some other Web 2.0 twaddle.

I’m not opposed to advances in technology in themselves. It’s just that I think we’ve lost quite a bit of the spirit that made the original emergence of weblogs so exhilarating. In many ways it was unavoidable, and I’m sure that I sound like a typical crank, longing for the old days. But it hurts me on a personal level when some of the people in my photos from 2001 or 2002 don’t even acknowledge me anymore.

I was joking before the conference that I found many of the web designers in attendance intimidating. They weren’t much of a presence in 2001, and I definitely began attending the conference as what I described as a “scruffy blogger” rather than as an internet professional. The people I still hang around with most would probably fit that description as well, although many are brilliant writers, journalists, web designers or technologists. Back then, though, self-applying the label “blogger” to oneself was enough to gather a similar crowd of early adopters around. I used to proudly claim that I’d found my “tribe,” but this year, for the first time, I felt in danger of losing it.

No doubt, I’ll be back in 2007, but a few of us have begun discussing some of these disturbing changes and what we can do about them. If anything, there will be even more people there next year, and by most measures, this would be considered success: for SXSW, for the internet businesses, even for blogging. And many of the effects I’m describing are the natural outcomes of that success, and are probably unavoidable. But I’m not ready to give up something I love this much, and I’m curious to see if anyone else felt the same way as I did about this year’s conference. David Pescovitz of BoingBoing quoted Timothy Leary at the Bloggies this year, concerning feeling like an outsider: “Find the others.” Others, are you out there?

from Consolation Champs

SXSW 2006: Blog Bubble Bursts

Omni, Vol. 1, No. 2 (November 1978)

Brooke and I are buying ourselves The Complete New Yorker for Christmas, and I’m incredibly excited. I know there is a complex labyrinth of legal rights involved, but I’m still happy that I’ll have access to some of the 20th century’s finest magazine writing at my fingertips. And it got me thinking.

There are so many other magazines that would be great to own in this format. Popular Science would be absolutely fascinating, as would Time, Life, and especially, Wired. Of course, Harpers and The Atlantic would have to be included. But the one I keep thinking of is extinct.

Omni was probably my favourite magazine as a teenager, and I owned every issue from #2 (November 1978, above, with a freaky cover by H.R. Giger) until about 1984. They’re actually still stored in a friend’s parents’ basement somewhere, but of course, I have no room for them anymore. Surely, a complete set exists somewhere, and there would certainly be some money to be made. Bob Guccione’s publishing empire will probably produce The Complete Penthouse first, though.

What would be your favourite candidates for the Complete treatment?

Update: Visiting Time’s site above, I was greeted with the news that Time’s magazine subscribers now have access to the entire archive online, back to 1923. I’m not sure what this means, though. Is it similar to the New Yorker’s scanned pages format? Though online access is good, it’s only available as long as you subscribe. I fear that this might be the preferred format for most publishers. They won’t let us own anything.

Life’s site lets you access all the covers from 1936 to 1972, when it was published as a weekly magazine. That’s pretty cool.

The Atlantic has online access to some of their archives (“Articles from January, 1964 – September, 1992, are not available due to copyright restrictions”), but you have to pay on a per-article basis. That sucks.

Update 2: More Omni reminiscing by Michael and Andrew.

from Consolation Champs

The Complete “Insert Favourite Magazine Name Here”

The story also states that numerous corporations are considering banning the devices from the workplace due to “security concerns.” Am I the only one who thinks this is completely wrong-headed? What’s next? Removing the photocopiers and scanners? Banning cellphones with built-in cameras?

Security is not about technology. It’s about having a system of trust with your employees. Banning their music players will only erode that trust further, in my opinion.

from Consolation Champs

iPod: “Security Risk”

This game was an obsession of mine when I owned an Atari 800XL many many years ago. There have even been some efforts to recreate the game for modern PCs, detailed on this comprehensive fan site.

What was your favourite “classic” computer game?

from Consolation Champs

M.U.L.E. R.U.L.E.D.

from Consolation Champs

CGI Woes

from Consolation Champs

I Hate Cell Phones

from Consolation Champs

Lindows???

Why, oh, why isn’t Tivo available up here? We’d make a great test market for all the new features! And our dollar is weak, so it’d be cheap for them to start up here. We also have several regional cable monopolies so they’d only have to woo a few major players. Are you listening, Tivo? Are you listening?

from Consolation Champs

Tivo Lust

from Consolation Champs

Here’s a Great App

• eXPensive
• eXPletive-inducing
• eXPect lots of Microsoft spam

Know any more?

from Consolation Champs

XPletive

from Consolation Champs

New Blogger Server

from Consolation Champs

I WANT TIVO

from Consolation Champs

New Camera