How Not To Blog ?

Information overload will gradually kill off web search. The top 10 results will no longer be what most people are looking for.

You want to tell me that my neighbor's search for "weather models" is the same as mine? I don't think so...

In its place, your mama predicts, will be information aggregators. RSS aggregation is headed in the right direction. But really useful aggregators will serve me information in many different ways. They will be a substitute for my decision-making processes - this can be something as simple as providing me with an extensive and customizable set of user options.

Gone will be the days of ma and pa going to Google to search for what they're looking for (prescription drugs, for example). Their Pain Relief community members will feed links to them on their personalized Yahoo 360 (v2, I hope) interface. Most will consume (such as internet users do), some will feed, Google will turn into Froogle, and everyone will be happy.

Social Software for Set-Top boxes, from PlasticBag.

-A buddy-list for television
-Presence alerts
-Watch with your friends (BAD idea - how lame)
-Chatting and planning (what's the input device?)
-Choosing channels and playing games
-Sharing a social library

Great idea, though.

de.lirio.us is a del.icio.us clone, announced by Steve Mallet.

What's really sweet about this is that you can include a long
detailed note with each post in addition to a one line description. That becomes your blog post.. if you want or just leave it for folks to read.

Can't anyone think of anything new?

Consumerpedia is a Wikipedia clone.

It seems to be built to display Google adwords. (Making money for whom?)

Do they really expect companies, entrepreneurs, spammers to behave with a website that anyone can edit?

[Update 3/29: Here's what they had to say in response to the above:]

But, you never really know if you are any good or not until someone starts badmouthing your efforts, so thank you to How Not To Blog blog for giving us our first extra boost with your post of "Consumerpedia is a Wikipedia clone. It seems to be built to display Google adwords. (Making money for whom?). Do they really expect companies, entrepreneurs, spammers to behave with a website that anyone can edit?" (How Not To Blog - Bring in the clones.. the slimy Wikipedia clones)

Thanks also for giving us the opportunity to make some additional points:

As discussed above, Consumerpedia is not and is not meant to be a Wikipedia clone.

Consumerpedia is not a wiki, but rather a different type of tool designed to handle a different type of content.

As to the name, the roots of the word "encyclopedia" are "medieval Latin: encyclopaedia, general education course, from alteration of Greek enkuklios paideia, general education" - thus "Consumerpedia" = "Consumer Education" (Dictionary.com/encyclopedia)

As to "Do they really expect companies, entrepreneurs, spammers to behave with a website that anyone can edit?" - while everyone and anyone can indeed add a comment or navigation suggestion (and rate those of others), note that no one can "edit" someone else's comment - you can only rate how helpful or not it is. This is one of the reasons why Consumerpedia is not based on a wiki platform.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of a wiki" - meaning that with a system like Wikipedia, since anyone can edit anything at any time, you need people who are willing and able to watch and correct "bad" edits at any time. The stabilizing factor with Wikipedia is the ever vigilant users.

"Cumulative vigilance is the benefit of Consumerpedia" - meaning that with a system like Consumerpedia, as users rate the helpfulness of comments and suggestions (and thus indirectly also rate the users who made those comments and suggestions - and also indirectly rate themselves as to how well their ratings correlate with those provided by others), the collective wisdom of what and who is good and bad (helpful and not helpful) grows over time. The stabilizing factor of Consumerpedia is the nature of the Consumerpedia system itself.

Short version: while spammers may indeed be in issue an the short run, the Consumerpedia system is designed to increasingly damp out their effect over time. The stored collected and correlated contributions of the non-spammers should (hopefully!) swamp any spam attempts over time (and no, this is not a challenge - please give us a chance to at least start building the pool before pissing in it!)

As to why we are using Adsense, it was in large measure due to watching Wikipedia's experience with supporting their site through contributions alone. We tried to think of an easier, more natural and more direct way. Indeed, Wikipedia itself hit upon the exact same method by using Adsense in their latest venture, Wikicities.

My response:

Forgive me for jumping the gun.. I don't spend too much time checking out websites with next to no content. I think the idea is interesting, though I think you could innovate more. First thing I'd do is get rid of the Adwords.. you're not going to make shit off of it anyway, and I think you'd be perceived by others the same way I did.

It is easy to innovate in this field, because most of you guys do it all the same. You could expand on your "consumer education" idea up the wazoo. Read Cluetrain for some ideas. Allowing your visitors to communicate directly to companies would be one idea. If you're site becomes popular enough, then you could set up a help desk system in each sub-category. You would lease access to these subs to other companies. In turn, they would answer any questions a consumer has about a kind of technology, product, or kind of product. There are many more ideas to explore in this field. But, unfortunately, you're not contributing to the HNTB kitty so that's for you to figure out if you want to go there.

I appreciate your response, though. It's nice to see that you're not quite the assholes I thought you were.

The April '05 issue of Wired magazine wonders, "What If Every Kid Had a Computer?"

The article goes on about how a $100 laptop would be so good for the world's kids. The is a project being worked on by MIT Media Lab, AMD, Google, and NewsCorp. The $100 Laptop site at MIT and the article itself talks a lot about specs, and not enough about fundamentals like, who really wants this crap? These people are so enamoured of their own technology and spreading their genius across the world that they haven't bothered much to think their dream through.

They say:

Why is it important for each child to have a computer? What's wrong with community-access centers?
One does not think of community pencils?kids have their own. They are tools to think with, sufficiently inexpensive to be used for work and play, drawing, writing, and mathematics. A computer can be the same, but far more powerful. Furthermore, there are many reasons it is important for a child to "own" something?like a football, doll, or book?not the least of which being that these belongings will be well-maintained through love and care.

How can so many supposedly smart people think of such stupid shit? I knew Google had to be involved somewhere.

Littering the world with cheap laptops will create a hell of a lot more problems than it solves. Nevermind the toxic waste from discarded computers (there would be a countless number of old and broken computers - have you ever given poor children a high tech device?), the support logistics would be near-impossible on such a bound-to-break-soon device. And who would translate the OS and other apps into their language? Or does every child in this dream speak English?

Their assumption is that kids who would benefit most from these computers "have their own pencils", have a reliable supply of electricity (and the money to pay for the extra usage), and are actually interested in such devices. Many of the "1.8 billion children" don't even know how to read and write, much less have the mental architecture, a lot worse than uncle George, to use a computer. And many kids do not have access to writing instruments, much less books. I suppose they'd just automatically know how to use a laptop if it fell into their lap. Have they actually spent time in poor communities and done their market research?

Or do their superior asses assume that every child would want a laptop and use it for whatever it's intended for (or have they figured that out yet?)

Cultures such as ours that are based on technology assume, without thinking, that everyone else could use what they benefit from.

Here's the secret... Poor people in developing countries don't want laptops. They don't really give a shit about high tech wizardry. Outside of those who might use technology for business, they actually don't want high tech. They want to be like the rich, white people they see on television. It's sad, but it's mostly true. The mindset is so bad, black-colored gadgets don't even sell well compared to their lighter counterparts.

If you're talking about black and latino kids in the US and their poor white cousins, that's a different story. But much of what I'm saying holds true in their case, too. (What do I know? I've worked and lived with them.)

Have you ever been in an internet cafe in a third-world country? I have observed hundreds of mostly unsupervised kids on computers. They don't 'surf the net' or 'discover knowledge' or 'send email'. They play games. They all play lots of games. All day if you'd let them. And these are kids that can actually afford the $1 or so per hour for computer usage. The poorer kids don't even go to school (usually, their parents can't afford the direct or indirect costs). So, they basically work the greater portion of the day. Did these guys fit that into their equation?

"Poor" and "Knowledge seeking" does not compute. Some great learning is happening in many poorer communities, some revolutionary, but they're the exception.

Most poor kids wouldn't know what to do with a laptop. In under a month, it's almost guaranteed that half the shit would be lost, stolen, or broken. Laptops are extremely sensitive devices that need constant repair. Nevermind the lifecycle of a battery, where would a poor child keep a laptop safely?

Bill Gates seems to be the only one with some original sense. His foundation actually wants to help developing countries where its needed most. What good is a child on a laptop (with no electricity, perhaps) if they're not going to live past 20? What good is a "$100 laptop" if it's $95 too much, or the child doesn't even know how to read?

Why don't these companies just admit that what they really want to do is ready the next generation of consumers (from developing countries, now that the rich world is saturated) with their products?

If you're that concerned with spreading the God-given right to technology to the unblessed, then build some cellular networks where there's little phone or transportation service. People will rent, share, or purchase their own cheap phones, provided the market is liberalized. The users' economic status will grow over time. Then, they can decide for themselves what kind of technology would most benefit their kids. I'm guessing it would be the kind of education that isn't done via computers.

Kottke's blog, ad whore-to-be, points us to a post on GlassDog that discusses the fucked up state Boing Boing has gotten itself into with too much on-site advertising.

And if Boing Boing were a corporation ? oh, wait, it is; that?s what the little ?LLC? down in the corner means ? they?d be the first in line to point a finger at that big, sticky wad of hype and say, ?Um. Really?? These champions of the purity of the Web, these advocates of transparency would be poking holes in that balloon before the clown got it out of his mouth. It?s just that pointed fingers get awkward when you?re in front of a mirror.

So many sites that love to beg for money complain about their high hosting bill. True, you can get 1.2 terrabytes of bandwidth for only $100/month. Sounds like a bum with a sob story about how he needs money for busfare.

This is typical for ass-kissing blogs like Kottke's. He doesn't mention it until someone else does. Now, BoingBoing must respond because they've been outed by 'respected peers', even though everyone's been thinking it all along.

Dumbasses, all of them.

What.. does Wired feel obligated to have a "blog", since it is at the forefront of offline online reporting?

Is it just me, or is the server that their blog subdomain rests on always slow? If it's not slow, it surely is pathetic. Have only their writers (or, ghostwriters?) Leander Kahney and Bruce Sterling not forgotten about this place?

Besides that, the wiredblog.com domain was dropped a few days ago. It was picked up by someone through the Pool.com backordering service for $60+. Wired could have had a happening tech blog & community there, but I guess they'll have to settle for their weekly porn updates.

They say:

...As a new site feature, these blogs will grow and develop into living, breathing areas for the exchange of links, thoughts, and information.

As time goes on, we'll be adding new features, blogs, and authors, so come back often to find out what our writers are up to!

Bullshit.

That would be like this blog promising to enable comments and become a 'real' blog. (What am I, crazy?)

Blog Herald writes:

Slashdot recently commissioned a survey of readers of its RSS feed to determine just how Slashdot readers are using RSS technology now and detect future plans and platforms for accessing content via RSS.

Survey highlights include:

-73% will increase their use of RSS feeds in the next year.
-Most users received their feeds through a Web-based RSS syndication service but many users do not use traditional methods to read their feeds, instead relying on mobile and other devices to obtain their feeds.
-Receiving feeds through mobile units such as cell phones, SMS messaging, voice mail, WAP or portable audio players will increase.
-Technology will improve as RSS use increases, making RSS feeds easier for users to read and for publishers to deliver.

Jeff Bates, co-founder of Slashdot noted, ?This is the first RSS survey to reveal new possibilities as RSS technology gains more footing. Our user community looks to us to provide information and guidance on the most cutting-edge technology for their work. As we rely on RSS to streamline our content more efficiently for our users, we are also examining new ways to enable marketers to tap into RSS as a vehicle for audience outreach and acquisition.?