The following text is an outtake of an essay written in Introduction and theoretical foundations of new media.
Introduction
This essay will focus on different ideas all benefiting to the discussion of what will be the pillars of Web 3.0. To better understand the term, one is extracted from Wictionary, which states the following: “The predicted third generation of the World Wide Web - usually conjectured to include semantic tagging of content” . Definitions vary from source to source, but this peer-to-peer portal has managed to sentence the core value of the new phenomenon.
The development of web-based services and content has been rapid over the years. Ever since the Great Internet Explosion (Jargon File 2009), all of the factors (speed, content, users) defining the internet have increased tremendously.
In this essay, the focus will be on the tendencies which are taking place already today and by many expert users are thought to be what will constitute web 3.0 tomorrow.
To better comprehend where one will evolve to, it is important to see his or hers origins. While there are many opinions about what is web 3.0, experts have agreed that web 1.0 was the readable web (Cormode & Krishnamurthy 2008) and 2.0 was the writable web (O´Reilly Media 2005). Readable web in this context means that all of the content in the internet was one-way communicated: author published his or hers work on the internet and the readers could only consume. Web 2.0 brought the ability to alter that content, either by republishing it interactively (sharing), giving instant feedback to the author and or making the author’s role universal – everybody is a content consumer and provider today.
This tendency has brought internet users to a problem. Since everybody is now a content provider, the amount of information is too much to browse through using the old ways. It is believed by this author that web develops hand in hand with the flow of information. When more information is made available, then the more need there will be for it to be sorted out for the consumer. The need for the web to be not only a platform for information, but also as some sort of assistant to the browser, is the main idea, which goes hand in hand with definitions about Web 3.0. This study will go on citing factors that arise from the need for a “smart browser companion” and list them as follows.
Access from anywhere
The tendency to access one’s content from anywhere and from anything is cemented each day onward. Different technical gadgets available today play a vital role as the user will be linked to the web from different peripherals – laptop, mobile phone, home computer, game pod etc (New Digital Decade 2009). Also the widespread of such technical gadgets will force the liberation of content. Content has to be free – storage capabilities will be more and more web-based, eliminating the need for a personal HDD. This, among with mobile internet access solutions will cement the situation, where access to your personal info from any part of the world will be common.
Google CEO Eric Schimdt refers to the web 3.0 as the peak of cloud-computing. This will mean the inhalation of computers (stationary home computers), paid software etc (Daleisphere 2009). Everything would become web-based.
Expected is that sharing will be even more common. To picture the future in that field, one could take parallels from today’s http addresses: if today you expect to see content only by entering the http address, then tomorrow the majority would expect the same action to also enable sharing. This means that when a person browses the internet, everything will be shared in his or hers social networks, applications etc.
Widgets and the importance of them will also rise, as APIs turn out to be a standard in websites, therefore allowing its consumers to create gadgets to better the surfing experience (ReadWriteWeb 2007).
Semantics is the next big thing
Berners-Lee, the creator of WWW, sees the web 3.0 as a semantic web, being based on software agents, ontologies and metadata (DCL 2009). Tagging is not mentioned by him, but it can be concluded as a more archaic view of ontologies (user-created vs. computer-originated). The need for a semantic web is imminent, as we face now every day the need for information. But this need for information has its limits – today we search for it with the help of search engines. These engines however are too automated and lack the ability to take account factors affecting one’s browsing. For example – when John and Tom search for news about Limp Bizkit, John might want to see only news about their concerts while Tom wants to read, why their lead singer is a bad person and that the band should be banned. Today these search results can be achieved, but the price to achieve it is too high for us. We are expecting that the browser, or the search engine or something else would know our background, therefore not encumbering us with ongoing search words or irrelevant results. Semantic web is the answer to that problem, as it would address factors common to the current browser, offering therefore only comprehensive information to him or her (Siegel 2007).
However there is a small threat what might manifest in that tendency. To be exact – this sort of development of internet would further the concept of minorities over the internet, hardening the task to keep a society together. If one dislikes rap-music, Russia and classical music, then he or she would never ever see any content consisting of these factors. It is a censorship, but it’s purported by the user. However, over the reach of time, it has been always understood that censorship eventually destroys the society.
AI to be common
As the author stated in the begging of the essay, Web 3.0 will mainly lay on the need for assistance when browsing. This sort of assistance cannot be found in today’s systems as many experts distress. The creation or widespread of today’s options of Artificial Intellect use will be parallel to the spread of web 3.0. Internet users are getting tired of “dumb systems” (today’s search engines e.g.), which lack the ability of creative thinking. The creation or rope in of AI in one’s web-browsing experience will be inevitable when discussing the possibilities of developments in the internet.
Wired magazine creator Kelly goes on describing web 3.0 as not merely a semantic web (that knows its user base and serves them), but as a perfect machine, who sees (webcams), hears (podcasts) and knows (our entries) everything. He goes one saying that web 3.0 will be reached, when everything is on the internet (Wired 2008). May it be the bread from the grocery store, my cat or tires from the garage (RFID technology plays an essential role in benefiting that future outcome) (Eesti Ekspress 2009). In ideal, the computer will then be a partner to a internet user - a partner who speaks and thinks alike.
Privacy as a term forgotten
As stated partly before, the definite two common factors defining web 3.0 are semantics and privacy. Web 3.0 has to consist of elaborate semiotic capabilities, as humans don’t have the ability to filter the internet anymore (we need something to get the goods for us). The other essential factor is privacy. Nothing will be private anymore, as web 2.0 has proven, that protecting one’s privacy is an impossible task (Eesti Ekspress 2009). Therefore it is thought that the solution is transparency – everything about everybody will be public, therefore the need to misuse that information will be low or even absent (Eesti Ekspress 2009).
From the tendencies described earlier (constant sharing) it isn’t hard to imaging the ever-increasing difficulty to protect a person’s privacy in the internet . The recent wide-spread of location-based social networks will only raise the level of concern in privacy related issues. Seeing the option as web-wide democratization of private information is an interesting view. It is agreeable that privacy protection is a hard task and change of paradigm is necessary in that field, but to free all of the personal info is a troubling question – what would be the info then left private? Humans cannot simply abandon the private sphere of their personality; therefore we cannot expect that to happen in the internet too.
Also worth mentioning is that web 3.0 will be a lot more browser-based. As we can see the tendency to envision web 3.0 as a web-experience with personal assistant, then it is clear that the assistant needs some platform to work on (gather info). It could be a website, but browsers Chrome or IE seems to be more realistic. This monopoly made available to the browsers will of course further the threats to our privacy.
Beyond Web 3.0
If tendencies mentioned before will at some degree or wholly be apart of the future web 3.0 experience, some experts have argued that there are many more interesting things happening in the near future of web experience development. The author of this work nevertheless takes a more conservative stance and states the following tendencies to be futuristic and therefore fiction, that has the ability to come to life. As it is somewhat fictional, academic research on these fields has been poor if not absent at all.
Semantic web will definitely at some point make us rethink the HTML. As current system of hypertext mark-up is tremendously old, when compared to the overall “new-ity” of the internet (Nielsen 1995). We might need a new code for web, as today the web is meant for humans to use – but AI personal assistants are computer based, therefore HTML with its humane interface is obsolete, as it cannot be used by them effectively (HowStuffWorks 2009). This change of paradigm is further supported, if programming would be automated too (today there is not as much as automated programming, as one would expect).
Another interesting and actually historical forecast is that Web 3.0 will destroy traditional media, as they will truly become part of internet, therefore eliminating the need to separate them (radio, paper, TV) as independent media. The tendency is supported by different researches stating the decrease of consumption of traditional media (Digital Journal 2009). Traditional media has always suffered under forecasts like these when a new medium is invented and later on widely used. Although we live in a Net-era, mediums like radio or television (paper-based media is affected, but still surviving) still exist and even prosper. Nevertheless it is believable that web 3.0 will at some point truly eliminate the old mediums. The reasons behind that lie in the tendency, that everything will be connected to the web – person’s car, TV-set, home-appliances etc. Today, radio has a monopoly in car stereo-systems, television in the living room and paper-based media in the mobility (read in anywhere). If everything would be connected to the web, it isn’t hard to imagine, how these monopolies will be lost. Nevertheless it is interesting to point out, that this opinion will always have strong adversaries (Tänavsuu 2009).
The last interesting tendency described of possible outcomes of web 3.0 is the virtual reality turned into real. Some experts see the web 3.0 as a “real” virtual reality – since everything will be connected to the web, everything would be on the web (DestinationCRM 2007). This can be imagined when looking at web-cites like Second Life. Web 3.0 in that environment would mean, that websites, content and web users will be real (virtually), making the browsing experience almost the same as “walking towards a mall, to buy jeans”. Recent developments in the PC hardware industry further support this possible outcome, as hardware like scent-producers (Invenia 2009) (think of a web-based bakery, which sells its goods over the internet, having consumers enchanted by the realistic smells from their PCs) or physics engines (objects etc. act on the PC as in real life) . This possible future outcome of web-experience was colourfully envisioned in a Hollywood movie “Chain Reaction” , where the main character browsed through the internet as a person would walk through a super-mall.
The main critique of this kind of web is the high entry-cost – since virtual reality demands a great amount of graphical work to be done, in the future only rich companies can create websites as small companies cannot afford to create elaborate a virtulistic (virtual realistic) “webpage” for themselves. Of course this critique can only be taken account today – it is unknown how graphic production would change over the years (maybe it will turn out to be entirely automated, so it would demand as much as coding as writing a HTML script).
Conclusion
All in all one could say that the main factors constituting the web 3.0 in the coming years are semantics, AI and mobility. Web browsers (or PCs themselves, or technological mobile accessories) will turn out to be more and more the browsers who offer assistant-like work outcomes for users to consume. This will be done by using elaborate schemes of semantics and also some degree of AI by the “automated browser”. Also it is clear, that information (content) will forsake all kinds of limits to its spread, meaning that it will be accessible from any type of machine or from any place on earth. And to add – threats to our privacy will arise, taking us at some time to a point, where a revolution of understanding towards that issue will happen. Nevertheless one has to notice, that the evolution of mediums is constant, as our dissatisfaction with the current systems thrives it (Pajusalu 2009).
Showing posts with label intronm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intronm. Show all posts
Saturday, October 31
Thursday, October 1
Wikinomics
Wikinomics to me was an interesting book to read, because I had not heard of the term before, although I had thought of such a business model. Before I get started with the book review and thoughts on it, I'd like to stress out, that I am not a great fan of WikiPedia (in this review also referred to as WP) and using it as a great example for collaboration. It is true, that I (and I guess the majority of internet users) use WikiPedia on a daily basis, but taking WikiPedia's operating system to be a business model (or role-model for everything) raises many negative outcomes to my mind. The majority of those negative outcomes consists of (in my mind "facts") situations, where peers are not equal in terms of knowledge, there is no common goal between them and there is a lack of motivation (therefore outcome quality) because of no monetary or social (e.g. fame) for efforts made with a project using WP model. Getting ahead of myself, I revalued my convictions on the subject as Wicinomics made it clear(er) to me, that the old business models cannot be viable soon any more.
The Perfect Storm to me was not a surprising chapter as I and I guess all of the students in IT-studies see the web as the number one (and maybe the only) social ground today and tomorrow. Therefore I wouldn't call the concept of web as a new realm (internet as the sole ground for communication and business etc.) but rather an inevitability that has happened. The most important notion however is (and I agree) that the people (the youth) who have grown up collaborating over the web, wont simply dump that habit when entering the work-force, but rather insists on taking the elements of on-line collaboration to the workplace (and ways of working).
The Peer Pioneers as expected placed a strong favouritism on WikiPedia and Linux. The fact the IBM adopted Linux as their main operating system years ago, was not new to me, but it was interesting to read, what the company thought and experienced on the subject while the switch was made and lived through. I have to agree with the authors, that in the case of WikiPedia, it is simply astonishing how fast knowledge on a fresh topic can be created, argued over and therefore optimized to be more truthful. I myself used WikiPedia to follow through Georgia-Russia war, which in Estonia's media sphere was too pro-Georgia and anti-Russia (as always). The statement at the end of the chapter (Peer production is here to stay) is a bold, but true one, as we can see how in the last ten years or so there has been a shift from enjoying the salary to enjoying the work. And when you enjoy your work, you do not deal with it from 9 to 5, but rather constantly (in this case, it is even somewhat wrong to call it work, rather field of interest).
Ideagoras introduced for the first time when reading Wicinomics strong examples of peer production that I had not heard before. Examples of scientist working in InnoCentive, the widespread use of freelance researchers by P&G and so forth were the ones, I had not or event thought of before. The idea of sharing copyright (more precisely patentable) information over web-based platforms is fascinating. And I think the authors made quite clear the benefits waiting for all the firms that adapt this kind of peer-to-peer sharing (decrease of R&D costs, increase of innovation).
The Prosumers was the chapter, were the authors truly revealed their Nostradamus-like capabilities. On page 134 (and before) there is a discussion what should (the year under discussion is 2006 I presume) do with user-iniatied supplements to it's hardware product iPod. At that time (and even today) a lot of techie-users upgraded their iPods firmware, only to widen the capabilities of the musicplayer. Apple on the other hand saw it as an infringement of the copyright guarding it's products. It was noted by the authors, that although Apple did not legally react to the techies dealing with things like that, they should have lauded this kind of user activity and implement it on their R&D. It is now clear that in some way Apple has done it, with the introduction of iPhone and it's App Store, which offers easy steps for anybody to create software, thus raising the products capabilities, while gaining revenue (as Apple too). It is one of the examples were former consumers are now producers and consumers altogether, and the producer part can only increase from now one, further implementing the role of a company as a provider of infrastructure, leaving the content to it's user base (Second Life, Ning.com).
The New Alexandrians focused a great deal on the Humane Genome Project, taking parallels from one of the worlds scientifically fruitful era (the era of Alexander the Great). It was repeatedly stressed that companies have only to gain from sharing information, even it the information is patentable and therefore easily to be profiteered from. The key factor fighting the latter is the inevitable situation - the more participants working on a common goal the more positive outcome is there for everybody. One could say that "too many cooks spoil the broth" but if the making of the product (broth) is structuralised, equal amongst the makers and common-goaled, then the difficulties relating to peer-productions are overcome by the fastness and overall acceptability of the outcome.
Platforms for Participation introduced a wide set of different user-managed platforms that are available to us today. To take an example - I use different social platforms (social networks) to communicate with my friends, I use different collaboration platforms (web-based office utilities) to co-work with my co-students and I use different publication platforms to distribute my thoughts on things and to lead communities I am a leader to. The authors focused on this subject to the rhetorical battle between conventional wisdom vs. innovative economy, when it comes to being opened in terms of IP (e.g. free software). I think they hit the nails head with that comparison, as it is a widespread fear, that when you distribute your IP using open-source (nonmarket) principles, you only loose and gain nothing. But as described on Wicinomics, you do gain, by expanding the workforce (world wide peer production) without monetary increases, re-accelerate your company's R&D outcome and gain information from your customers (prosumers) to better evolve your product.
The Global Plant Floor focused a great deal on possibilities of peer production, now talking industrially. The example of Lifan was quite troubling to be, as Lifan is a company, who gain success by copying Japanese motor-cycles Yamaha, Suzuki etc.So is it ethical to praise a company, who's success is based on stealing? Of course we know Lifan is successful. But it isn't very hard to be a "revenue-star" in an economy like China, where labor is cheap and governmental control over companies (pollution, labor-politics) is low. Boeing situation isn't a better example - building air-planes like LEGOs is innovative at start, but we do not comprehend yet, what it will do to the companies success in the long terms. I do fear, that Boeing's Japanese suppliers will soon start to develop their own airplanes, again copying main schemes from Boeing, who is being innovative open. I as a customer would be please - more competition is better. But as a investor? I simply wouldn't invest in Boeing.
The Wiki Workplace had a terrific example with Geek Squad. When reading the text, I simply imagined the great company and how great would I feel working there. Geek Squad leader Stephens revelation about "forcing the use of wikis vs. bottom-to-management communication (Battlefield 2 online multiplayer game as a communication channel - GREAT :))" was inspiring to read. I myself have lived through repeatedly new "innovative communication channels" which have been forced on me, in different companies. I do believe that managers cannot decide, how their employees communicate in work-terms. Managers can only offer platforms, of which employees choose the best or most suitable for them.
Collaborative Minds introduced to the biggest problem facing internet today: old media conglomerates trying to control the content of the web, by offering many authoritative control mechanisms against home user. I do admit piracy is a big problem, but I personally don't consume music at all. I listen to it in concerts or over radio, but that's it. In terms of movies, I go to cinemas (when younger, I did download over torrents, but not anymore, mainly because of the lack of time) and software - I really don't have much software on my PC, because I use company's or school's laptops. So forcing some sort of revenue model over the internet users is not only against innovation, as Tapscott says, but against my human rights.
Enterprise 2.0 to me is all of the above. But the main idea is that managers should embrace the ongoing new. Enterprise as a form is itself a "new-ity" - tendencies to stabilize one's environment, control it's consumers, employees are against the spirit of free market.
Review based on "Wikinomics" by Don Tapscott & Anthony D. Williams 2008.
The Perfect Storm to me was not a surprising chapter as I and I guess all of the students in IT-studies see the web as the number one (and maybe the only) social ground today and tomorrow. Therefore I wouldn't call the concept of web as a new realm (internet as the sole ground for communication and business etc.) but rather an inevitability that has happened. The most important notion however is (and I agree) that the people (the youth) who have grown up collaborating over the web, wont simply dump that habit when entering the work-force, but rather insists on taking the elements of on-line collaboration to the workplace (and ways of working).
The Peer Pioneers as expected placed a strong favouritism on WikiPedia and Linux. The fact the IBM adopted Linux as their main operating system years ago, was not new to me, but it was interesting to read, what the company thought and experienced on the subject while the switch was made and lived through. I have to agree with the authors, that in the case of WikiPedia, it is simply astonishing how fast knowledge on a fresh topic can be created, argued over and therefore optimized to be more truthful. I myself used WikiPedia to follow through Georgia-Russia war, which in Estonia's media sphere was too pro-Georgia and anti-Russia (as always). The statement at the end of the chapter (Peer production is here to stay) is a bold, but true one, as we can see how in the last ten years or so there has been a shift from enjoying the salary to enjoying the work. And when you enjoy your work, you do not deal with it from 9 to 5, but rather constantly (in this case, it is even somewhat wrong to call it work, rather field of interest).
Ideagoras introduced for the first time when reading Wicinomics strong examples of peer production that I had not heard before. Examples of scientist working in InnoCentive, the widespread use of freelance researchers by P&G and so forth were the ones, I had not or event thought of before. The idea of sharing copyright (more precisely patentable) information over web-based platforms is fascinating. And I think the authors made quite clear the benefits waiting for all the firms that adapt this kind of peer-to-peer sharing (decrease of R&D costs, increase of innovation).
The Prosumers was the chapter, were the authors truly revealed their Nostradamus-like capabilities. On page 134 (and before) there is a discussion what should (the year under discussion is 2006 I presume) do with user-iniatied supplements to it's hardware product iPod. At that time (and even today) a lot of techie-users upgraded their iPods firmware, only to widen the capabilities of the musicplayer. Apple on the other hand saw it as an infringement of the copyright guarding it's products. It was noted by the authors, that although Apple did not legally react to the techies dealing with things like that, they should have lauded this kind of user activity and implement it on their R&D. It is now clear that in some way Apple has done it, with the introduction of iPhone and it's App Store, which offers easy steps for anybody to create software, thus raising the products capabilities, while gaining revenue (as Apple too). It is one of the examples were former consumers are now producers and consumers altogether, and the producer part can only increase from now one, further implementing the role of a company as a provider of infrastructure, leaving the content to it's user base (Second Life, Ning.com).
The New Alexandrians focused a great deal on the Humane Genome Project, taking parallels from one of the worlds scientifically fruitful era (the era of Alexander the Great). It was repeatedly stressed that companies have only to gain from sharing information, even it the information is patentable and therefore easily to be profiteered from. The key factor fighting the latter is the inevitable situation - the more participants working on a common goal the more positive outcome is there for everybody. One could say that "too many cooks spoil the broth" but if the making of the product (broth) is structuralised, equal amongst the makers and common-goaled, then the difficulties relating to peer-productions are overcome by the fastness and overall acceptability of the outcome.
Platforms for Participation introduced a wide set of different user-managed platforms that are available to us today. To take an example - I use different social platforms (social networks) to communicate with my friends, I use different collaboration platforms (web-based office utilities) to co-work with my co-students and I use different publication platforms to distribute my thoughts on things and to lead communities I am a leader to. The authors focused on this subject to the rhetorical battle between conventional wisdom vs. innovative economy, when it comes to being opened in terms of IP (e.g. free software). I think they hit the nails head with that comparison, as it is a widespread fear, that when you distribute your IP using open-source (nonmarket) principles, you only loose and gain nothing. But as described on Wicinomics, you do gain, by expanding the workforce (world wide peer production) without monetary increases, re-accelerate your company's R&D outcome and gain information from your customers (prosumers) to better evolve your product.
The Global Plant Floor focused a great deal on possibilities of peer production, now talking industrially. The example of Lifan was quite troubling to be, as Lifan is a company, who gain success by copying Japanese motor-cycles Yamaha, Suzuki etc.So is it ethical to praise a company, who's success is based on stealing? Of course we know Lifan is successful. But it isn't very hard to be a "revenue-star" in an economy like China, where labor is cheap and governmental control over companies (pollution, labor-politics) is low. Boeing situation isn't a better example - building air-planes like LEGOs is innovative at start, but we do not comprehend yet, what it will do to the companies success in the long terms. I do fear, that Boeing's Japanese suppliers will soon start to develop their own airplanes, again copying main schemes from Boeing, who is being innovative open. I as a customer would be please - more competition is better. But as a investor? I simply wouldn't invest in Boeing.
The Wiki Workplace had a terrific example with Geek Squad. When reading the text, I simply imagined the great company and how great would I feel working there. Geek Squad leader Stephens revelation about "forcing the use of wikis vs. bottom-to-management communication (Battlefield 2 online multiplayer game as a communication channel - GREAT :))" was inspiring to read. I myself have lived through repeatedly new "innovative communication channels" which have been forced on me, in different companies. I do believe that managers cannot decide, how their employees communicate in work-terms. Managers can only offer platforms, of which employees choose the best or most suitable for them.
Collaborative Minds introduced to the biggest problem facing internet today: old media conglomerates trying to control the content of the web, by offering many authoritative control mechanisms against home user. I do admit piracy is a big problem, but I personally don't consume music at all. I listen to it in concerts or over radio, but that's it. In terms of movies, I go to cinemas (when younger, I did download over torrents, but not anymore, mainly because of the lack of time) and software - I really don't have much software on my PC, because I use company's or school's laptops. So forcing some sort of revenue model over the internet users is not only against innovation, as Tapscott says, but against my human rights.
Enterprise 2.0 to me is all of the above. But the main idea is that managers should embrace the ongoing new. Enterprise as a form is itself a "new-ity" - tendencies to stabilize one's environment, control it's consumers, employees are against the spirit of free market.
Review based on "Wikinomics" by Don Tapscott & Anthony D. Williams 2008.
Wednesday, September 30
Why We Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities
The study I read about understanding why people use microblogging, is peculiarly interesting, because Twitter and it's phenomenon is not a very old thing on the web, and the fact, that some researchers have already attended to the subject, is rewarding.
I myself have used Twitter for couple of months now and I must say that the results from this study greatly coincide with my intentions (using Twitter).
--
Researchers found out, that that people use microblogging firstly to talk about their daily activities and to seek or share information. Compared to regular blogging, microblogging fulfills according to the research a need for an even faster mode of communication.
The second important difference between the two ways of personal-publishing is the frequency of update. "On average, a prolific blogger may update her blog once every few days; on the other hand a microblogger may post several updates in a single day." In a survey of bloggers, Nardi et al. [26] described different motivations for “why we blog”. Their findings indicated that blogs are used as a tool to share daily experiences, opinions and commentary.
"From our analysis, we find that the main types of user intentions are: daily chatter, conversations, sharing information and reporting news."
Another interesting variable the researchers focused on, was the relationship between having a lot of friends in the system (Twitter) and having a lot of followers (people, who read one's posts regularly). "A high degree correlation signifies that users who are followed by many people also have large number of friends."
Researchers outlined that user intention in Twitter can be roughly
categorized into 3 types: information sharing, information seeking, and friendship-wise relationships.
The authors of the study also offered a couple of interesting overviews of the subjects what certain Twitter-users focused on: "Figure 8 illustrates a representative community with 58 users closely communicating with each other through Twitter service. The key terms they talk about include work, Xbox, game, and play. It looks like some users with gaming interests getting together to discuss the information about certain new products on
this topic or sharing gaming experience."
The study also revealed (based on the communities in Twitter dataset), that "people in one community have certain common interests and they also share with each other about their personal feeling and daily experience".
There also appeared to be regularities of the subjects which users talked on. For example "Figure 11 shows the trends for the terms “friends” and “school” in the entire corpus. While school is of interest during weekdays, friends take over on the weekends."
In conclusion, it can be stated (based on this analysis), that the researchers found following main user intentions on Twitter:
-Daily Chatter
-Conversations
-Sharing information/URLs
-Reporting news
Main categories of users on Twitter:
-Information Source
-Friends
-Information Seeker
Researchers also concluded that this study revealed different motivations and utilities of microblogging platforms. "A single user may have multiple intentions or may even serve different roles in different communities."
Researchers also suggester, that Twitter should offer the ability to categorize friends into groups (e.g. family, co-workers). This would greatly benefit the adoption of microblogging platforms, based on the studies analysis of user intentions.
"Why We Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities" by Akshay Java et al (2008)
I myself have used Twitter for couple of months now and I must say that the results from this study greatly coincide with my intentions (using Twitter).
--
Researchers found out, that that people use microblogging firstly to talk about their daily activities and to seek or share information. Compared to regular blogging, microblogging fulfills according to the research a need for an even faster mode of communication.
The second important difference between the two ways of personal-publishing is the frequency of update. "On average, a prolific blogger may update her blog once every few days; on the other hand a microblogger may post several updates in a single day." In a survey of bloggers, Nardi et al. [26] described different motivations for “why we blog”. Their findings indicated that blogs are used as a tool to share daily experiences, opinions and commentary.
"From our analysis, we find that the main types of user intentions are: daily chatter, conversations, sharing information and reporting news."
Another interesting variable the researchers focused on, was the relationship between having a lot of friends in the system (Twitter) and having a lot of followers (people, who read one's posts regularly). "A high degree correlation signifies that users who are followed by many people also have large number of friends."
Researchers outlined that user intention in Twitter can be roughly
categorized into 3 types: information sharing, information seeking, and friendship-wise relationships.
The authors of the study also offered a couple of interesting overviews of the subjects what certain Twitter-users focused on: "Figure 8 illustrates a representative community with 58 users closely communicating with each other through Twitter service. The key terms they talk about include work, Xbox, game, and play. It looks like some users with gaming interests getting together to discuss the information about certain new products on
this topic or sharing gaming experience."
The study also revealed (based on the communities in Twitter dataset), that "people in one community have certain common interests and they also share with each other about their personal feeling and daily experience".
There also appeared to be regularities of the subjects which users talked on. For example "Figure 11 shows the trends for the terms “friends” and “school” in the entire corpus. While school is of interest during weekdays, friends take over on the weekends."
In conclusion, it can be stated (based on this analysis), that the researchers found following main user intentions on Twitter:
-Daily Chatter
-Conversations
-Sharing information/URLs
-Reporting news
Main categories of users on Twitter:
-Information Source
-Friends
-Information Seeker
Researchers also concluded that this study revealed different motivations and utilities of microblogging platforms. "A single user may have multiple intentions or may even serve different roles in different communities."
Researchers also suggester, that Twitter should offer the ability to categorize friends into groups (e.g. family, co-workers). This would greatly benefit the adoption of microblogging platforms, based on the studies analysis of user intentions.
"Why We Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities" by Akshay Java et al (2008)
Tradition to Youth
Idea-description of a web-based business:
Care about our nation? Want to see our flag be remembered by your grand-grandchildren?
www.kultuurijuur.ee
Pay 25 krones a month to help us organize culture camps for children of Tallinn. Let us do "mall-hits" to smoking teens, arrange sports camps for troubled youngsters etc.
Skip buying 3 pieces of bread and instead help the greater cause - Kultuurijuur.
You'll receive a monthly update on what has being done and our yearly donors will receive a thank-you letter and a sculpture by Tauno Kangro. Also you'll be the "godfather" to one specific child who would have been otherwise lost to Estonian culture.
Start today, you patriot you!
Care about our nation? Want to see our flag be remembered by your grand-grandchildren?
www.kultuurijuur.ee
Pay 25 krones a month to help us organize culture camps for children of Tallinn. Let us do "mall-hits" to smoking teens, arrange sports camps for troubled youngsters etc.
Skip buying 3 pieces of bread and instead help the greater cause - Kultuurijuur.
You'll receive a monthly update on what has being done and our yearly donors will receive a thank-you letter and a sculpture by Tauno Kangro. Also you'll be the "godfather" to one specific child who would have been otherwise lost to Estonian culture.
Start today, you patriot you!
New Era of Patent/Copyright
Started to think - maybe pr/marketing/etc. is the new version of patents, copyright. Or at least should be.
Because if we (or they) make the auditorium believe, that Kalev Raalid is the ORGINAL or BEST producer of iMac's, then why should it be different.
It wouldn't still be a solution, because the truth-searching/right-protecting would go from courts to media. Lawyers would be replaced by pr-managers or marketing-specialists.
But the same thing went on in the ages before patents - bullys?! were replaced by lawyers.
Don't stop the progress.
Because if we (or they) make the auditorium believe, that Kalev Raalid is the ORGINAL or BEST producer of iMac's, then why should it be different.
It wouldn't still be a solution, because the truth-searching/right-protecting would go from courts to media. Lawyers would be replaced by pr-managers or marketing-specialists.
But the same thing went on in the ages before patents - bullys?! were replaced by lawyers.
Don't stop the progress.
Functions of online communities
Ivo Kiviorg's "Functions of online communities" is an interesting thesis, because as the author said himself, there are now almost hundreds of studies on the subject "why we use internet, more precisely why online communities". It would be wise, if there would be or if there would develop a common understanding of the reasons.
For me, the functions of online communities have also been certain - I use different platforms to reach my friends or colleagues so I could save my time and/or money spent on telecommunication services.
--
The author of the thesis formulated different areas of reasons for online community uses:
- insider and outsider looks at online groups using various online tools
- parallel stream of studies set out to examine the ways in which existing local communities employed the new medium in discussing pressing issues and building stronger bonds among citizens and neighbors
- third area of active research served business organizations that wanted to use the online community to stimulate team work and productivity
- fourth area of discussion of the online community has developed to consider the use of the Internet in social support and also the social-psychological impact of online interaction on the individual’s psychological well-being
- subsequently e-businesses took this same point of departure and evolved it into a marketing strategy
"The online community arose from the margins of the medium, intruding on its original information-centered design from various sources such as bulletin boards, newsgroups and early computer conferencing systems. With the addition of this unanticipated communication layer, the technology addresses a wider range of human needs and potentials."
One of the interesting subjects covered by the research was the dispute whether or not the online communities are "real". There has always been a great dispute between "real relationships" vs "pseudo-communities". As said before, the definitions of a community varies in hundreds. The author successfully cites to a source, saying
Therefore we cannot say, that online communities are "fake" and un-realistic.
"In the end, communities are not solely about aggregating information or resources, but about bringing people together to meet some of their social and commercial needs (Rothaermel & Sugiyama 2001)."
The author of the thesis also introduced the “BIGSIX”: Belonging, Intimacy, Generativity, Support, Influence, and eXploration (Forsyth et al). These nouns explain, why would a person want to be in a group.
Another theory of group-participation, Social Identity Theory (SIT), in brief cited, that identification with a social group is mainly motivated by the need for positive self-esteem (Aharpour & Brown 2002).
Refining and conceptualising different ratifications for group-belonging, the author created 13 concepts of functions for groups:
The author distressed, that "despite the clear-cut structure emerged from analyses, the reliability coefficients of the factors extracted never reach extremely high values". Research among Rada7.ee members showed, that in conclusive, these were the factors motivating (influencing it's users to use/exist in the community:
- First factor represents a function of social identity and unity
- Second factor clearly represents a function of self and social learning
- The author names factor 3 as categorization and ingroup comparison
- The content of items in fourth factor refers to support and altruism
- Fifth factor clearly shows the need of expression
In the end author stated the following: "Aharpour & Brown (2002) studied different groups and found that identity functions are not all equally endorsed in different groups. This means that the functions above does not have to harmonise with all online communities. To achieve more general results, the future studies should consider sampling data from different online communities."
This thesis integrated different concepts for studying functions of groups into a single measure for online communities. Initial concepts were designed and tested. The author also provided descriptions for factors that derived from data analysis, describing answers to initial research questions.
In conclusion, the author states, that "findings clearly show that this approach is appropriate to study online communities."
Link to text:
http://www.cs.tlu.ee/instituut/opilaste_tood/magistri_tood/2009_kevad/ivo_kiviorg_magistritoo.pdf
For me, the functions of online communities have also been certain - I use different platforms to reach my friends or colleagues so I could save my time and/or money spent on telecommunication services.
--
The author of the thesis formulated different areas of reasons for online community uses:
- insider and outsider looks at online groups using various online tools
- parallel stream of studies set out to examine the ways in which existing local communities employed the new medium in discussing pressing issues and building stronger bonds among citizens and neighbors
- third area of active research served business organizations that wanted to use the online community to stimulate team work and productivity
- fourth area of discussion of the online community has developed to consider the use of the Internet in social support and also the social-psychological impact of online interaction on the individual’s psychological well-being
- subsequently e-businesses took this same point of departure and evolved it into a marketing strategy
"The online community arose from the margins of the medium, intruding on its original information-centered design from various sources such as bulletin boards, newsgroups and early computer conferencing systems. With the addition of this unanticipated communication layer, the technology addresses a wider range of human needs and potentials."
One of the interesting subjects covered by the research was the dispute whether or not the online communities are "real". There has always been a great dispute between "real relationships" vs "pseudo-communities". As said before, the definitions of a community varies in hundreds. The author successfully cites to a source, saying
“All communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face contact (and perhaps even these) are imagined” (1983). Thus, some sort of virtuality is a normal aspect of community life, regardless of the nature of the medium on which it relies (Feenberg & Bakardjieva 2004)
Therefore we cannot say, that online communities are "fake" and un-realistic.
"In the end, communities are not solely about aggregating information or resources, but about bringing people together to meet some of their social and commercial needs (Rothaermel & Sugiyama 2001)."
The author of the thesis also introduced the “BIGSIX”: Belonging, Intimacy, Generativity, Support, Influence, and eXploration (Forsyth et al). These nouns explain, why would a person want to be in a group.
Another theory of group-participation, Social Identity Theory (SIT), in brief cited, that identification with a social group is mainly motivated by the need for positive self-esteem (Aharpour & Brown 2002).
Refining and conceptualising different ratifications for group-belonging, the author created 13 concepts of functions for groups:
social identity, self and social learning, intergroup comparison, ingroup comparison, categorization, independence, hedonism, relations, unity, support and altruism, material benefits, expression, self-esteem
The author distressed, that "despite the clear-cut structure emerged from analyses, the reliability coefficients of the factors extracted never reach extremely high values". Research among Rada7.ee members showed, that in conclusive, these were the factors motivating (influencing it's users to use/exist in the community:
- First factor represents a function of social identity and unity
- Second factor clearly represents a function of self and social learning
- The author names factor 3 as categorization and ingroup comparison
- The content of items in fourth factor refers to support and altruism
- Fifth factor clearly shows the need of expression
In the end author stated the following: "Aharpour & Brown (2002) studied different groups and found that identity functions are not all equally endorsed in different groups. This means that the functions above does not have to harmonise with all online communities. To achieve more general results, the future studies should consider sampling data from different online communities."
This thesis integrated different concepts for studying functions of groups into a single measure for online communities. Initial concepts were designed and tested. The author also provided descriptions for factors that derived from data analysis, describing answers to initial research questions.
In conclusion, the author states, that "findings clearly show that this approach is appropriate to study online communities."
Link to text:
http://www.cs.tlu.ee/instituut/opilaste_tood/magistri_tood/2009_kevad/ivo_kiviorg_magistritoo.pdf
Internet Activism
For me, the latest and greatest internet activism is the MJ's birthday celebration, which took place in the Freedom Square, where hundreds of fans danced through his choreography and music.
First - the idea started spreading by YouTube ([OFFICIAL] Michael Jackson Dance Tribute - STOCKHOLM; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVJVRywgmYM), then by orkut (Michael Jackson Dance Tribute; http://www.orkut.com/Main#Community?cmm=92195264), then by email and then it all was published in youtube (Michael Jackson Dance Tribute - Tallinn; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQwnrfd30Is) and then in traditional media (Reporter: Noored avaldasid Michael Jacksonile tantsides austust; http://www.reporter.ee/2009/08/30/noored-tegid-michael-jacksonile-tantsulise-austusavalduse/.
First - the idea started spreading by YouTube ([OFFICIAL] Michael Jackson Dance Tribute - STOCKHOLM; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVJVRywgmYM), then by orkut (Michael Jackson Dance Tribute; http://www.orkut.com/Main#Community?cmm=92195264), then by email and then it all was published in youtube (Michael Jackson Dance Tribute - Tallinn; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQwnrfd30Is) and then in traditional media (Reporter: Noored avaldasid Michael Jacksonile tantsides austust; http://www.reporter.ee/2009/08/30/noored-tegid-michael-jacksonile-tantsulise-austusavalduse/.
Tuesday, September 29
War and Music
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/sep/28/heavy-metal-music-us-army-iraq
Interesting article (actually interesting is the research what the article speaks of) about the effects iPod listening has on US soldiers in Iraq. More precisely - what kind of music do they listen and why.
If you have time, listen to the interviews the researchers took.
Interesting article (actually interesting is the research what the article speaks of) about the effects iPod listening has on US soldiers in Iraq. More precisely - what kind of music do they listen and why.
If you have time, listen to the interviews the researchers took.
Saturday, September 26
The Advent of E-health: How Interactive Media Are Transforming Health Communication
The following article was a very interesting one. At first I was hoping to see a study, which would relate to events happening in Estonia right now, as e-Health system activation deadlines are become surpassed every day now, thus doubling the pressure to activate web-based health-care systems.
It is important to state, that in this study (and appears, that even wider in the western world) e-Health as a concept means web-based health-aware websites mainly. In Estonia, we think of E-health as digital prescriptions, online registration for the GP etc - all in all, I would think that the concept of E-health is more innovative in Estonia than eg in this research.
But contrary, the article focused on a even more interesting study - how would and will interactive media affect people's health-related actions and what is the success rate over the traditional media. As expected, interactivity and personification of the message is more successful in instituting a healthy behavior from the person and I believe, that this is not the only field, where interactivity in a medium would benefit good intentions towards mankind.
--
According to the authors of the study, half of industrialized countries population suffers from diseases because of actions they take upon themselves. New media and it´s communication channels have proven to be successful in acknowledgements of health risks and reducing these kinds of self-destructive actions by different studies.
The need to take action against this kind of behavior lies on the The World Health Organization stated fact, that 10 behavioral factors (damage that we choose upon us) make 50% of causes for diseases. WHO reports and the national health frameworks propose that health communication should be the primary strategy to influence people’s behavior.
Past research done it that field provides a large body of evidence that new communication technologies and an enhanced understanding of the communication needs of targeted audiences can significantly alter health behaviors associated with for example cancer risk reduction.
In the research, it was stated that both theory and empirical studies highlight the need to customize communication so that it more closely fits people’s personal characteristics and social settings. "Currently, much communication is delivered to the general public with “one size fits all” messages.," the researchers stated. Rice (2001) asserts that interactivity may be the attribute of communication with the greatest implication for health promotion, because it provides the user with control and a way to participate. This idea is supported by recent research that identifies “self-efficacy” and “perceptions of control” to be the most powerful mediators of behavioral change (Bull, Holt, Kreuter, Clark, & Scharff, 2001).
The e-health revolution has produced an ever-increasing number of new communication channels and strategies, such as: health information on the Internet, computer assisted learning, Internet radio and television, interactive voice recognition, online support groups, online collaborative communities, information tailored by computer technologies, computer-controlled in-home telephone counseling, CD-Rom's and DVD-Rom's, bio-metric assessment and transmission, and patient-provider e-mail contact.
All of these have become to life based on the statement, that interactivity and participation are hypothesized to increase self-efficacy and sense of control, the strongest known mediators of behavioral change.
One of the examples the researchers used for descriptive purposes, was CHESS (web-based interactive health system in US) and it's user-base satisfaction level among users. Women subjects reported high usage of CHESS and that it improved their feelings of empowerment and motivation and reduced negative emotions such as fear, stress and anger. The CHESS group showed reduced health care visits and hospitalizations as compared with the control group outcomes.
It was also stated by the researchers, that (at least in US) health awareness is the main factor, which thrives people to use Internet. "Health information is a priority for Internet users. In the US in February 2003, 78% of 109 million online users (52% of all US adults) searched for health information online. (Harris Interactive, 2003). Users primarily searched for information about immediate health problems (91%); only 13% looked for ways to prevent health problems."
In conclusion it was stated that E-health communication, mediated by computers and other digital technologies, has the potential to extend and amplify the impact of traditional health promotion media by "linking, personalizing, and expanding the coverage of health promotion messages".
Link to text:
http://classweb.gmu.edu/gkreps/820/026.pdf
It is important to state, that in this study (and appears, that even wider in the western world) e-Health as a concept means web-based health-aware websites mainly. In Estonia, we think of E-health as digital prescriptions, online registration for the GP etc - all in all, I would think that the concept of E-health is more innovative in Estonia than eg in this research.
But contrary, the article focused on a even more interesting study - how would and will interactive media affect people's health-related actions and what is the success rate over the traditional media. As expected, interactivity and personification of the message is more successful in instituting a healthy behavior from the person and I believe, that this is not the only field, where interactivity in a medium would benefit good intentions towards mankind.
--
According to the authors of the study, half of industrialized countries population suffers from diseases because of actions they take upon themselves. New media and it´s communication channels have proven to be successful in acknowledgements of health risks and reducing these kinds of self-destructive actions by different studies.
The need to take action against this kind of behavior lies on the The World Health Organization stated fact, that 10 behavioral factors (damage that we choose upon us) make 50% of causes for diseases. WHO reports and the national health frameworks propose that health communication should be the primary strategy to influence people’s behavior.
Past research done it that field provides a large body of evidence that new communication technologies and an enhanced understanding of the communication needs of targeted audiences can significantly alter health behaviors associated with for example cancer risk reduction.
"It is our view that traditional health communication is frequently insufficient to engage people to change behavior within the complex contexts of their lives. “E-health communication,” health promotion efforts that are mediated by computers and other digital technologies may have great potential to promote desired behavior changes through unique features such as mass customization, interactivity, and convenience."
In the research, it was stated that both theory and empirical studies highlight the need to customize communication so that it more closely fits people’s personal characteristics and social settings. "Currently, much communication is delivered to the general public with “one size fits all” messages.," the researchers stated. Rice (2001) asserts that interactivity may be the attribute of communication with the greatest implication for health promotion, because it provides the user with control and a way to participate. This idea is supported by recent research that identifies “self-efficacy” and “perceptions of control” to be the most powerful mediators of behavioral change (Bull, Holt, Kreuter, Clark, & Scharff, 2001).
The e-health revolution has produced an ever-increasing number of new communication channels and strategies, such as: health information on the Internet, computer assisted learning, Internet radio and television, interactive voice recognition, online support groups, online collaborative communities, information tailored by computer technologies, computer-controlled in-home telephone counseling, CD-Rom's and DVD-Rom's, bio-metric assessment and transmission, and patient-provider e-mail contact.
All of these have become to life based on the statement, that interactivity and participation are hypothesized to increase self-efficacy and sense of control, the strongest known mediators of behavioral change.
"One outcome (of using new media) is that mass and interpersonal features can
now be combined – as a “hybrid medium” – in communication initiatives. For example, a health care organization can send highly personalized information to patients en masse. Likewise, patients can query their health providers at their convenience and in their own words. People with rare diseases can create online communities and even set up collaborative research programs. People can be developers as well as receivers of information. The Internet is the first “many to many” medium in history."
One of the examples the researchers used for descriptive purposes, was CHESS (web-based interactive health system in US) and it's user-base satisfaction level among users. Women subjects reported high usage of CHESS and that it improved their feelings of empowerment and motivation and reduced negative emotions such as fear, stress and anger. The CHESS group showed reduced health care visits and hospitalizations as compared with the control group outcomes.
It was also stated by the researchers, that (at least in US) health awareness is the main factor, which thrives people to use Internet. "Health information is a priority for Internet users. In the US in February 2003, 78% of 109 million online users (52% of all US adults) searched for health information online. (Harris Interactive, 2003). Users primarily searched for information about immediate health problems (91%); only 13% looked for ways to prevent health problems."
Even if nations understand the value of extensive, interactive health media, the applications still need to be developed. However, according to Eng (2001), there are few sustainable e-health revenue models outside of those for clinical care. Fisher (1995) concludes that because “free market forces” are not sufficient to develop e-health applications in the near term, government support is essential to promote highly effective communication.
In conclusion it was stated that E-health communication, mediated by computers and other digital technologies, has the potential to extend and amplify the impact of traditional health promotion media by "linking, personalizing, and expanding the coverage of health promotion messages".
Link to text:
http://classweb.gmu.edu/gkreps/820/026.pdf
Friday, September 25
Essay on today's subject
Location-based communities in the web
summmer 2009
Location based communities in the web (LBWC) have started to appear over the last years, being repeatedly voted by the consumers to be innovative and exiting for the end user. LBWC utilises its user’s mobile device through mobile network, allowing him or her to share information, which is important to the person. Most commonly it includes user’s location or mapped locations of places that are somewhat important to the user. LBWC also allows other people, who are somehow related to the user, to find out where he or she is or what kind of places does the person like to visit.
New generation mobile phones with GPS support have brought LBWC to a new level, allowing more and more people to use its benefits. Users can publish information to the web straight from their location, with the GPS support allowing also the sharing of geolocation, aside content. This is a noticeable step forward in the development of the Internet, as was the use of multimedia in the web (at first, the Internet consisted only of text).
Acknowledging the importance of the LBWC, one of the oldest professional web communities, CNET, made a new category in the valued WebWare 100 awards. This year, aside the common categories for websites to compete in, there was also a category called Location based services. 30 websites or –utilities competed to be nominated. In the end, ten of them were nominated to be the most innovative products of web-applications in the field of location based services.
To reveal, what is the most common content of these applications, five categories were made:
Restaurants – websites like OpenTable or Yelp provide people the ability to search for restaurants nearby, rate them, make reservations and share opinions regarding the service they offer.
Maps – services like Google Maps or Live Search Maps offer users the ability to search location important to them, create collections of location information and share it with their friends and family.
Travel – websites like TripIt or FlightStats allows people to collect information regarding their travel plans, with options like route-marking, flight search (and information about durance, delays etc).
News – sites like Topix allow users to search news that are related somehow to the user’s current location.
Information – services like PolicyMap and Google Search let the user gain information important to him or her straight from the user’s location.
With the increasing user base, location based services have became also a threat to the persons privacy. people have just now started to realize, that the content they share over the Internet, will be their presumably longer than they expect, thus making the content sharer vulnerable for identity theft, blackmail or public embarrassment. With the conjoining of social networks and location based media the risk of that kind of harm is doubling, as the persons is also sharing it real-time location to the potential perpetrator.
References:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location-based_service
- http://www.cnet.com/html/ww/100/2009/about/location.html?tag=mncol
- http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/location-based_mobile_apps_favorites.php
- http://www.google.ee/search?hl=et&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aet%3Aofficial&hs=3ac&q=location+based+communities+the+web&btnG=Otsi&lr=
summmer 2009
Location based communities in the web (LBWC) have started to appear over the last years, being repeatedly voted by the consumers to be innovative and exiting for the end user. LBWC utilises its user’s mobile device through mobile network, allowing him or her to share information, which is important to the person. Most commonly it includes user’s location or mapped locations of places that are somewhat important to the user. LBWC also allows other people, who are somehow related to the user, to find out where he or she is or what kind of places does the person like to visit.
New generation mobile phones with GPS support have brought LBWC to a new level, allowing more and more people to use its benefits. Users can publish information to the web straight from their location, with the GPS support allowing also the sharing of geolocation, aside content. This is a noticeable step forward in the development of the Internet, as was the use of multimedia in the web (at first, the Internet consisted only of text).
Acknowledging the importance of the LBWC, one of the oldest professional web communities, CNET, made a new category in the valued WebWare 100 awards. This year, aside the common categories for websites to compete in, there was also a category called Location based services. 30 websites or –utilities competed to be nominated. In the end, ten of them were nominated to be the most innovative products of web-applications in the field of location based services.
To reveal, what is the most common content of these applications, five categories were made:
Restaurants – websites like OpenTable or Yelp provide people the ability to search for restaurants nearby, rate them, make reservations and share opinions regarding the service they offer.
Maps – services like Google Maps or Live Search Maps offer users the ability to search location important to them, create collections of location information and share it with their friends and family.
Travel – websites like TripIt or FlightStats allows people to collect information regarding their travel plans, with options like route-marking, flight search (and information about durance, delays etc).
News – sites like Topix allow users to search news that are related somehow to the user’s current location.
Information – services like PolicyMap and Google Search let the user gain information important to him or her straight from the user’s location.
With the increasing user base, location based services have became also a threat to the persons privacy. people have just now started to realize, that the content they share over the Internet, will be their presumably longer than they expect, thus making the content sharer vulnerable for identity theft, blackmail or public embarrassment. With the conjoining of social networks and location based media the risk of that kind of harm is doubling, as the persons is also sharing it real-time location to the potential perpetrator.
References:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location-based_service
- http://www.cnet.com/html/ww/100/2009/about/location.html?tag=mncol
- http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/location-based_mobile_apps_favorites.php
- http://www.google.ee/search?hl=et&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aet%3Aofficial&hs=3ac&q=location+based+communities+the+web&btnG=Otsi&lr=
The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan
During my studies at the University of Tartu in the field of journalism I read a lot of text by respectful researchers in the field of media and elsewhere. Although I’m familiar with McLuhan’s thoughts and ideas (phrases) regarding the media, there still were some now angles which I found from this article.
For example – I guess I never gave second thought to what the media exactly is. For me it was simple – television, radio etc. by book, right? To think of our clothes, or haircuts or pets as a media also is fascinating and even true. If the aim of the media is to communicate then clothes fit perfectly.
I am a little bit disappointed by the negativistic look on life what McLuhan has. “Slaves to the media, manipulative audience etc.” – I hope that he was so convinced of these possibilities because of the era of the time when the interview was taken. Because what exactly there is to be manipulated for? The individualism of man has become so elaborate that if we are indeed slaves to something, it’s the materialism. But this is a whole different line of thought…
McLuhan proposed an interesting view on our perception of the world - humans see the world from the rear-view mirror. When changes occur, we see them only when we are passing them. Funny is that Jüri Käo (respectful businessman) just used the same parallel - http://www.e24.ee/?id=167655. Check it out!
---
McLuhan is definitely one of the most quoted researchers when talking about media studies. French language itself has a term “mucluhanisme” which is a synonym for the world of pop culture.
McLuhan contends that „all media - in and of themselves and regardless of the messages they communicate - exert a compelling influence on man and society“. The effects of media on men have had a long history. The start point of it can be as follows: “Three basic technological innovations: the invention of the phonetic alphabet, which jolted tribal man out of his sensory balance and gave dominance to the eye; the introduction of movable type in the 16th Century, which accelerated this process; and the invention of the telegraph in 1844.” These were the turning points – times when media really started to change the world (or how we “feel” it at least).
McLuhan’s ideas have not been widely accepted always (maybe even today, who knows). He himself sees the reasons behind that as a battle of generalists and specialists. Him being the generalist and wishing, that social science would step out of the specialist field of studies and “see the big picture”. “Any approach to environmental problems must be sufficiently flexible and adaptable to encompass the entire environmental matrix, which is in constant flux.” McLuhan believes that the effect of media (printed books e.g.) has been greatly overlooked by social researchers, thus never giving them the right or ability to study societies (they are not grasping the media’s role in the formulation of society).
McLuhan isn’t troubled (not so much at least) by the fact, that humans don’t realize the media-affected environment where they live. “Human remains as unaware of the psychic and social effects of his new technology as a fish of the water it swims in.”
It is important to distress the main idea, what McLuhan is famous for (in my opinion): “It is the medium itself that is the message, not the content, what affects us.” So Van Damme beating up everything is not affecting child-audiences, rather the television, with its existence is (so don’t ban van Damme, ban the television). McLuhan interestingly points out that "The content or message of any particular medium has about as much importance as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb" – the bomb being the medium of course.
So what should a man do in this constant unawareness of media effects and how it controls or at least changes our lives? "If we understand the revolutionary transformations caused by new media, we can anticipate and control them; but if we continue in our self-induced subliminal trance, we will be their slaves" is McLuhan’s answer.
From here one, the article focused more on detail thoughts about certain fields, so I try to cover them more narrowly but still cover them.
It is important to distress that media, in the viewpoint of McLuhan, is not our everyday radio and internet. It is more than that. Media is all what we use to communicate (even clothes) with our surroundings.
One of the beliefs McLuhan also distresses is that we – the mankind has ever from the begging of print (see the 3 major steps towards enslavement to media) shifted from acoustic to pictorial space of man. That meaning that at first, the caveman listening and communicated (discussions, one-on-one communication), but now, with the use of non-semantical figures – letters, we are solely dependent on our eyes to understand everything. "Literacy, contrary to the popular view of the "civilizing" process you've (the interviewer*) just echoed, creates people who are much less complex and diverse than those who develop in the intricate web of oral-tribal societies," McLuhan states.
He believes also that print benefitted the rise of nationalism (because of the creation or widespread of mother tongue) which itself is like a mass media.
One would think that with the monopoly of television nowadays the people are concreted to be in the pictorial space, but McLuhan sees television not as a visual medium but rather sensible by touch. "It is television that is primarily responsible for ending the visual supremacy that characterized all mechanical technology,” McLuhan states, "… television is primarily an extension of the sense of touch rather than of sight." By my understanding it meant, that we have to look inside us when consuming television, because we fill in the blanks when doing that. We have to “touch” ourselves.
McLuhan also introduced the theory of hot and cool mediums. Hot medium excludes and a cool medium includes the potential consumer according to McLuhan. A perfect example of the two is lecture (hot) vs. seminar (cool).
McLuhan distresses that it is important to grasp the possibilities offered to us by the media. "... like Mussolini, Hitler and F.D.R. in the days of radio, and Jack Kennedy in the television era. All these men were tribal emperors on a scale theretofore unknown in the world, because they all mastered their media."
McLuhan also focused on the effects the television era had and has on our children. In the 60s the youth (hippies) rebelled (or still rebel maybe), because the old literate (visual) system agents - parents, schools - clashed with the changed youth (more tribalized now). "Today's child is growing up absurd because he is suspended between two worlds and two value systems," McLuhan states. When in school, the child is “suddenly and without preparation, he is snatched from the cool, inclusive womb of television and exposed - within a vast bureaucratic structure of courses and credits - to the hot medium of print,” McLuhan noticed. It is impressive that more than a half a century ago McLuhan distressed the problems that still effect the educational system nowadays.
Stopped reading at "Do you think the surviving hippie subculture is a reflection of youth's rejection of the values of our mechanical society?"
Link to the text:
http://folk.uio.no/gisle/links/mcluhan/pb.html
For example – I guess I never gave second thought to what the media exactly is. For me it was simple – television, radio etc. by book, right? To think of our clothes, or haircuts or pets as a media also is fascinating and even true. If the aim of the media is to communicate then clothes fit perfectly.
I am a little bit disappointed by the negativistic look on life what McLuhan has. “Slaves to the media, manipulative audience etc.” – I hope that he was so convinced of these possibilities because of the era of the time when the interview was taken. Because what exactly there is to be manipulated for? The individualism of man has become so elaborate that if we are indeed slaves to something, it’s the materialism. But this is a whole different line of thought…
McLuhan proposed an interesting view on our perception of the world - humans see the world from the rear-view mirror. When changes occur, we see them only when we are passing them. Funny is that Jüri Käo (respectful businessman) just used the same parallel - http://www.e24.ee/?id=167655. Check it out!
---
McLuhan is definitely one of the most quoted researchers when talking about media studies. French language itself has a term “mucluhanisme” which is a synonym for the world of pop culture.
McLuhan contends that „all media - in and of themselves and regardless of the messages they communicate - exert a compelling influence on man and society“. The effects of media on men have had a long history. The start point of it can be as follows: “Three basic technological innovations: the invention of the phonetic alphabet, which jolted tribal man out of his sensory balance and gave dominance to the eye; the introduction of movable type in the 16th Century, which accelerated this process; and the invention of the telegraph in 1844.” These were the turning points – times when media really started to change the world (or how we “feel” it at least).
McLuhan’s ideas have not been widely accepted always (maybe even today, who knows). He himself sees the reasons behind that as a battle of generalists and specialists. Him being the generalist and wishing, that social science would step out of the specialist field of studies and “see the big picture”. “Any approach to environmental problems must be sufficiently flexible and adaptable to encompass the entire environmental matrix, which is in constant flux.” McLuhan believes that the effect of media (printed books e.g.) has been greatly overlooked by social researchers, thus never giving them the right or ability to study societies (they are not grasping the media’s role in the formulation of society).
McLuhan isn’t troubled (not so much at least) by the fact, that humans don’t realize the media-affected environment where they live. “Human remains as unaware of the psychic and social effects of his new technology as a fish of the water it swims in.”
It is important to distress the main idea, what McLuhan is famous for (in my opinion): “It is the medium itself that is the message, not the content, what affects us.” So Van Damme beating up everything is not affecting child-audiences, rather the television, with its existence is (so don’t ban van Damme, ban the television). McLuhan interestingly points out that "The content or message of any particular medium has about as much importance as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb" – the bomb being the medium of course.
So what should a man do in this constant unawareness of media effects and how it controls or at least changes our lives? "If we understand the revolutionary transformations caused by new media, we can anticipate and control them; but if we continue in our self-induced subliminal trance, we will be their slaves" is McLuhan’s answer.
From here one, the article focused more on detail thoughts about certain fields, so I try to cover them more narrowly but still cover them.
It is important to distress that media, in the viewpoint of McLuhan, is not our everyday radio and internet. It is more than that. Media is all what we use to communicate (even clothes) with our surroundings.
One of the beliefs McLuhan also distresses is that we – the mankind has ever from the begging of print (see the 3 major steps towards enslavement to media) shifted from acoustic to pictorial space of man. That meaning that at first, the caveman listening and communicated (discussions, one-on-one communication), but now, with the use of non-semantical figures – letters, we are solely dependent on our eyes to understand everything. "Literacy, contrary to the popular view of the "civilizing" process you've (the interviewer*) just echoed, creates people who are much less complex and diverse than those who develop in the intricate web of oral-tribal societies," McLuhan states.
He believes also that print benefitted the rise of nationalism (because of the creation or widespread of mother tongue) which itself is like a mass media.
One would think that with the monopoly of television nowadays the people are concreted to be in the pictorial space, but McLuhan sees television not as a visual medium but rather sensible by touch. "It is television that is primarily responsible for ending the visual supremacy that characterized all mechanical technology,” McLuhan states, "… television is primarily an extension of the sense of touch rather than of sight." By my understanding it meant, that we have to look inside us when consuming television, because we fill in the blanks when doing that. We have to “touch” ourselves.
McLuhan also introduced the theory of hot and cool mediums. Hot medium excludes and a cool medium includes the potential consumer according to McLuhan. A perfect example of the two is lecture (hot) vs. seminar (cool).
McLuhan distresses that it is important to grasp the possibilities offered to us by the media. "... like Mussolini, Hitler and F.D.R. in the days of radio, and Jack Kennedy in the television era. All these men were tribal emperors on a scale theretofore unknown in the world, because they all mastered their media."
McLuhan also focused on the effects the television era had and has on our children. In the 60s the youth (hippies) rebelled (or still rebel maybe), because the old literate (visual) system agents - parents, schools - clashed with the changed youth (more tribalized now). "Today's child is growing up absurd because he is suspended between two worlds and two value systems," McLuhan states. When in school, the child is “suddenly and without preparation, he is snatched from the cool, inclusive womb of television and exposed - within a vast bureaucratic structure of courses and credits - to the hot medium of print,” McLuhan noticed. It is impressive that more than a half a century ago McLuhan distressed the problems that still effect the educational system nowadays.
Stopped reading at "Do you think the surviving hippie subculture is a reflection of youth's rejection of the values of our mechanical society?"
Link to the text:
http://folk.uio.no/gisle/links/mcluhan/pb.html
Thursday, September 24
My draft design for an online community
I created a novice style community for people who are crazy about Tallinn University :D
Check it out:
http://greattlu.ning.com
Persona:
http://greattlu.ning.com/profile/madis
Background:
I used the campaign-like style to represent the main idea of the community - ideological, exclusive etc. Although the flag of USA doesn't communicate directly TLÜ or the site's idea, I still used it, because there were no other great out-of-the-box styles available.
The functions and layout of the community in my opinion offer a great deal of satisfaction for the potential user's needs.
Check it out:
http://greattlu.ning.com
Persona:
http://greattlu.ning.com/profile/madis
Background:
I used the campaign-like style to represent the main idea of the community - ideological, exclusive etc. Although the flag of USA doesn't communicate directly TLÜ or the site's idea, I still used it, because there were no other great out-of-the-box styles available.
The functions and layout of the community in my opinion offer a great deal of satisfaction for the potential user's needs.
Wednesday, September 23
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
The thoughts what Benjamin had about the reproduction of art were as expected by any educated man. Especially the expressed focus on the loss of aura when producing and consuming mass media.
This is the moment where I will wind up myself. I am tired of people bashing photography or and Hollywood for their production. Things were not different in renaissance or in other times. The mob had the exact same entertainment as nowadays. People getting hanged, witched stoned to death, prostitution, bar brawls etc. I think that the mass reproduction of arts has raised the human kind to another, less barbaric level, and also cultivated common understanding between us (everybody loughs at Tom Hanks). Now comes the critique - oh we are all robots, losing our individuality. After centuries of wars over the right religion, flag or language or king i think a century, or even maybe two of common sense is in order.
The authenticate art, or aura hasn't gone nowhere. You still haven't seen nothing if you haven't been to Louvre etc. But the rise of reproduced art has given the common man the ability to live while pursuing the dream to get to Louvre.
Maybe the mass media is our false necessity created by capitalist system to enduringly enslave the mankind. But I feel oh so good when listening to the beat of house music or watching pretty Hollywood actresses act the decades old plot of boymeetsgirl-fallinlove-troublesahead-but everhappyattheend.
And if its wrong, i don't want to know right.
---
Benjamin in his essay stated, that mechanical reproduction is different than man-made replicas of art pieces. He was convinced that photography was the greatest step away from man-made reproductivity. Reproduction, at its worst, harms historical authenticity, and therefore jeopardizes authorial authenticity. "Reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition", meaning that the artwork loses its aura, what it gained by time and place.
What valuates an authentic work? According to Benjamin "the unique value of the “authentic” work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value".
Today’s ways of reproductive art also kill the idealistic function of art (or its main servitude "… “pure” art, which not only denied any social function of art but also any categorizing by subject matter". This is now impossible, because art is a slave to the masses and like everything else; it needs to be labeled for better consumption.
The result of mass reproduction of art also creates the situation where art is freed from its historical dependence on rituals (cave-paintings to serve gods or to bring luck, not to decorate or entertain), forcing art to be dependent on reproductivity. "Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice – politics."
Benjamin also expressed belief that arts today have to choose between two sides: cult versus exposability. The latter being the more popular one.
When talking about film, some of the pioneer-authors according to Benjamin stated that art form to be the highest form of all. Benjamin disagrees, and refers to films like “The Gold Rush” (one of the first “Hollywood” movies).
When criticizing film, the audience can only criticize the camera, because everything else does not reach the audience. Although the actor uses its whole body, he or she still loses the aura – because camera can’t capture that.
Benjamin describes the film (in an actor’s point of view) as an image on the actor’s mirror which now is transportable.
Since there is no aura on the film, there has to be a cultism of the actor (superstars) – what Benjamin calls the "spell of the personality".
The other great impact what modern times and the new form of art production has on us, is that before there was only a small group of writers and a large group of readers. Now everybody is a writer (who hasn’t been in the news?). "Distinction between author and public is about to lose its basic character" (this can be greatly seen on blogs, social websites etc.).
One of the interesting parallels Benjamin made was that cameraman is to art what surgeon is to body, but the artist (painter) is like a magician.
"Our taverns and our metropolitan streets, our offices and furnished rooms, our railroad stations and our factories appeared to have us locked up hopelessly. Then came the film and burst this prison-world asunder by the dynamite of the tenth of a second, so that now, in the midst of its far-flung ruins and debris, we calmly and adventurously go traveling. With the close-up, space expands; with slow motion, movement is extended." No comments needed.
The death of art and aura didn’t come overnight. Benjamin sees Dadaists as the first wave of artist who introduced the effects of mass reproduction of art to society and art itself - they intentionally destroyed aura in their works.
In the end Benjamin states the current situation of man being as follows: "… can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images.” The spectator’s process of association in view of these images is indeed interrupted by their constant, sudden change". Thus there can’t be any true satisfaction of being exposed modern art.
Link to the text:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
This is the moment where I will wind up myself. I am tired of people bashing photography or and Hollywood for their production. Things were not different in renaissance or in other times. The mob had the exact same entertainment as nowadays. People getting hanged, witched stoned to death, prostitution, bar brawls etc. I think that the mass reproduction of arts has raised the human kind to another, less barbaric level, and also cultivated common understanding between us (everybody loughs at Tom Hanks). Now comes the critique - oh we are all robots, losing our individuality. After centuries of wars over the right religion, flag or language or king i think a century, or even maybe two of common sense is in order.
The authenticate art, or aura hasn't gone nowhere. You still haven't seen nothing if you haven't been to Louvre etc. But the rise of reproduced art has given the common man the ability to live while pursuing the dream to get to Louvre.
Maybe the mass media is our false necessity created by capitalist system to enduringly enslave the mankind. But I feel oh so good when listening to the beat of house music or watching pretty Hollywood actresses act the decades old plot of boymeetsgirl-fallinlove-troublesahead-but everhappyattheend.
And if its wrong, i don't want to know right.
---
Benjamin in his essay stated, that mechanical reproduction is different than man-made replicas of art pieces. He was convinced that photography was the greatest step away from man-made reproductivity. Reproduction, at its worst, harms historical authenticity, and therefore jeopardizes authorial authenticity. "Reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition", meaning that the artwork loses its aura, what it gained by time and place.
What valuates an authentic work? According to Benjamin "the unique value of the “authentic” work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value".
Today’s ways of reproductive art also kill the idealistic function of art (or its main servitude "… “pure” art, which not only denied any social function of art but also any categorizing by subject matter". This is now impossible, because art is a slave to the masses and like everything else; it needs to be labeled for better consumption.
The result of mass reproduction of art also creates the situation where art is freed from its historical dependence on rituals (cave-paintings to serve gods or to bring luck, not to decorate or entertain), forcing art to be dependent on reproductivity. "Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice – politics."
Benjamin also expressed belief that arts today have to choose between two sides: cult versus exposability. The latter being the more popular one.
When talking about film, some of the pioneer-authors according to Benjamin stated that art form to be the highest form of all. Benjamin disagrees, and refers to films like “The Gold Rush” (one of the first “Hollywood” movies).
When criticizing film, the audience can only criticize the camera, because everything else does not reach the audience. Although the actor uses its whole body, he or she still loses the aura – because camera can’t capture that.
Benjamin describes the film (in an actor’s point of view) as an image on the actor’s mirror which now is transportable.
Since there is no aura on the film, there has to be a cultism of the actor (superstars) – what Benjamin calls the "spell of the personality".
The other great impact what modern times and the new form of art production has on us, is that before there was only a small group of writers and a large group of readers. Now everybody is a writer (who hasn’t been in the news?). "Distinction between author and public is about to lose its basic character" (this can be greatly seen on blogs, social websites etc.).
One of the interesting parallels Benjamin made was that cameraman is to art what surgeon is to body, but the artist (painter) is like a magician.
"Our taverns and our metropolitan streets, our offices and furnished rooms, our railroad stations and our factories appeared to have us locked up hopelessly. Then came the film and burst this prison-world asunder by the dynamite of the tenth of a second, so that now, in the midst of its far-flung ruins and debris, we calmly and adventurously go traveling. With the close-up, space expands; with slow motion, movement is extended." No comments needed.
The death of art and aura didn’t come overnight. Benjamin sees Dadaists as the first wave of artist who introduced the effects of mass reproduction of art to society and art itself - they intentionally destroyed aura in their works.
In the end Benjamin states the current situation of man being as follows: "… can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images.” The spectator’s process of association in view of these images is indeed interrupted by their constant, sudden change". Thus there can’t be any true satisfaction of being exposed modern art.
Link to the text:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
Who Pays for Content? Funding in Interactive Media
Thoughts:
The main reason for choosing this article was the interest to find out what an interactive media is and how it’s funding effects its content now and in the future.
The discussion of interactive media’s expenditures and incomes is more and more growing in Estonia where the internet user base has grown rapidly and more is consuming though internet (especially media – postimees.ee etc).
You get what you pay for. So according to the owners of for example newspapers people nowadays will soon not get anything relevant because they don’t pay for nothing. This is somewhat true.
But as stated by the research, non-profit (volunteer) based websites can and will exist. The reasons behind that for me are in the case of Estonia following – there is no point of paying for interactive media, because even the traditional media lacks quality. Also for the younger generation (majority of the consumers of interactive media) there are always free alternatives.
I would never ever pay a dime for a news site, because there is practically no difference linguistically what I am reading. Therefore I can consume free alternatives from the rest of the world (BBC, non-profit projects etc). Then it leaves the location factor. I think – at the moment at least – that the quantity of information I receive about Tallinn or Estonia today greatly exceeds reasonable amounts. That is because I am a victim of information-overdose, and that is mainly because of the so many free content providers that operate in .ee environment. In that kind of condition the question „Am I willing to pay for information“ is absurd. If anything, I’m willing to pay for some close-downs of certain content providers.
So in the end I think content (interactive media) will remain free where needed. The technical necessities to do that will only decrease (the fee for a server space has greatly declined in Estonia e.g. for as the technical spefications have improved). What about the quality of content? Now there’s the weak spot.
---
The authors of the research clarified, that there are 4 types of interactive websites - Sales and Promotion, Sponsored Content, Public Information and Sponsored Content offering sites. Researchers feared that the latter 2 may die out because of the high maintenance costs. That itself comes from the situation, where consumers won't pay for content, if there are free alternatives available.
The aim of the research was to create a model of funding for a specific website, taking to account 3 categories: the site’s "interactivity, ideologies related to intellectual property, and audience size".
Authors referenced to a ongoing fight about copyright in web-based environments as a faceoff between the belief of "information wants to be free." vs. "information wants to be worth something."
The more common idea of "the primary business of content creators is not the creation of content but the creation of audiences" (seen in USA, where television creates ultra-entertaining but content-lacking (or quality lacking) broadcasts would be the main thrive for web-based sites as well. But the results of that kind of thinking would be “a system where content has little or no meaning except as a tool for attracting an audience which can be bought by advertisers".
The authors proposed three hypothesizes of which the first one took account the sites interactivity - sites are more interactive, when its user base is volunteer, non-profit or governmental. Also it was stated that sites value copyright beliefs more, when they receive funding from firms, government or they simply have mixed-funding. And finally – sites, that receive funding from advertising or government, will have larger audiences.
When measuring websites interactivity, the researchers used content-analysis. Autohers defined interactivity, using Heeter's definition: "She identifies six characteristics of interactivity: complexity of choice available, effort users must exert, responsiveness to the user, monitoring information use, ease of adding information, and facilitation of interpersonal communication". The justification for using Heeter’s definition was, that the “definition is one of the few analyses of interactivity that offers specific, measurable dimensions".
Specifically when grading sites interactivity, the things followed were: number of links on the first page, the presence of a search engine. Also there was a view on the tools what the website offered to its users: menu bar on the first page for example. NB! "While navigational tools might make the novice user more comfortable in using the site, they actually reduce the number of choices the user makes.” Thus it was believed that a elaborate navigational system would decline the sites interactivity.
Also there was a notion on the field that does the website have bulletin-boards or forums (which enable the user to quickly have interpersonal communication) which would increase the sites interactivity.
Conclusively researchers stated that despite the current situation (funding of non-profit websites, i.e. volunteer) being good, "for the future, public intervention may be needed to insure that costs of creating content remain low enough that multiple voices can be heard in arenas such as Community Content".
One of the interesting guides publicized in the article were the implications for communication educators, differenced for the 4 models: “Students need to have a broad range of skills if they plan to create computer-mediated communication content. Those creating Sponsored Content sites will need many of the same skills employed by traditional journalists. Those creating Sales and Promotions content will need the skills of advertising and public relations practitioners as well as selling skills. Those creating Public Information will need to learn to create databases and information environments. Those creating Community Content will need to blend interpersonal and mass communication skills.” It was also stated, that anybody, who wants to create content for the site types under research, the understanding of the interactive nature of the medium - regardless of how much interactivity is included in the site, is necessary.
The model created as a result of the research
Link to text:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue1/mcmillan.html
The main reason for choosing this article was the interest to find out what an interactive media is and how it’s funding effects its content now and in the future.
The discussion of interactive media’s expenditures and incomes is more and more growing in Estonia where the internet user base has grown rapidly and more is consuming though internet (especially media – postimees.ee etc).
You get what you pay for. So according to the owners of for example newspapers people nowadays will soon not get anything relevant because they don’t pay for nothing. This is somewhat true.
But as stated by the research, non-profit (volunteer) based websites can and will exist. The reasons behind that for me are in the case of Estonia following – there is no point of paying for interactive media, because even the traditional media lacks quality. Also for the younger generation (majority of the consumers of interactive media) there are always free alternatives.
I would never ever pay a dime for a news site, because there is practically no difference linguistically what I am reading. Therefore I can consume free alternatives from the rest of the world (BBC, non-profit projects etc). Then it leaves the location factor. I think – at the moment at least – that the quantity of information I receive about Tallinn or Estonia today greatly exceeds reasonable amounts. That is because I am a victim of information-overdose, and that is mainly because of the so many free content providers that operate in .ee environment. In that kind of condition the question „Am I willing to pay for information“ is absurd. If anything, I’m willing to pay for some close-downs of certain content providers.
So in the end I think content (interactive media) will remain free where needed. The technical necessities to do that will only decrease (the fee for a server space has greatly declined in Estonia e.g. for as the technical spefications have improved). What about the quality of content? Now there’s the weak spot.
---
The authors of the research clarified, that there are 4 types of interactive websites - Sales and Promotion, Sponsored Content, Public Information and Sponsored Content offering sites. Researchers feared that the latter 2 may die out because of the high maintenance costs. That itself comes from the situation, where consumers won't pay for content, if there are free alternatives available.
The aim of the research was to create a model of funding for a specific website, taking to account 3 categories: the site’s "interactivity, ideologies related to intellectual property, and audience size".
Authors referenced to a ongoing fight about copyright in web-based environments as a faceoff between the belief of "information wants to be free." vs. "information wants to be worth something."
The more common idea of "the primary business of content creators is not the creation of content but the creation of audiences" (seen in USA, where television creates ultra-entertaining but content-lacking (or quality lacking) broadcasts would be the main thrive for web-based sites as well. But the results of that kind of thinking would be “a system where content has little or no meaning except as a tool for attracting an audience which can be bought by advertisers".
The authors proposed three hypothesizes of which the first one took account the sites interactivity - sites are more interactive, when its user base is volunteer, non-profit or governmental. Also it was stated that sites value copyright beliefs more, when they receive funding from firms, government or they simply have mixed-funding. And finally – sites, that receive funding from advertising or government, will have larger audiences.
When measuring websites interactivity, the researchers used content-analysis. Autohers defined interactivity, using Heeter's definition: "She identifies six characteristics of interactivity: complexity of choice available, effort users must exert, responsiveness to the user, monitoring information use, ease of adding information, and facilitation of interpersonal communication". The justification for using Heeter’s definition was, that the “definition is one of the few analyses of interactivity that offers specific, measurable dimensions".
Specifically when grading sites interactivity, the things followed were: number of links on the first page, the presence of a search engine. Also there was a view on the tools what the website offered to its users: menu bar on the first page for example. NB! "While navigational tools might make the novice user more comfortable in using the site, they actually reduce the number of choices the user makes.” Thus it was believed that a elaborate navigational system would decline the sites interactivity.
Also there was a notion on the field that does the website have bulletin-boards or forums (which enable the user to quickly have interpersonal communication) which would increase the sites interactivity.
Conclusively researchers stated that despite the current situation (funding of non-profit websites, i.e. volunteer) being good, "for the future, public intervention may be needed to insure that costs of creating content remain low enough that multiple voices can be heard in arenas such as Community Content".
One of the interesting guides publicized in the article were the implications for communication educators, differenced for the 4 models: “Students need to have a broad range of skills if they plan to create computer-mediated communication content. Those creating Sponsored Content sites will need many of the same skills employed by traditional journalists. Those creating Sales and Promotions content will need the skills of advertising and public relations practitioners as well as selling skills. Those creating Public Information will need to learn to create databases and information environments. Those creating Community Content will need to blend interpersonal and mass communication skills.” It was also stated, that anybody, who wants to create content for the site types under research, the understanding of the interactive nature of the medium - regardless of how much interactivity is included in the site, is necessary.
The model created as a result of the research
Sales and Promotions Funding: Cost of doing business primarily of for-profit companies. Purpose: Direct sales and/or promotion of organization's products/services. Communication: One-to-one | Public Information Funding: Cost of doing business primarily of government and education organizations. Purpose: Provide detailed, complex information in a searchable format. Communication: One-to-one | |||
|
|
| |||
| Low | High | |||
| Level of Interactivity | ||||
Link to text:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue1/mcmillan.html
New media interactive advertising vs. traditional advertising
Thoughts:
The overall conclusion that interactive advertising is not superior to traditional advertising is for me as clear as water. For example – when the television started to spread and became a mass-medium, many of the people stated that radio will soon be dead. As we can see today, the radio hasn’t gone anywhere and has maybe even monopolized some places in our everyday lives (cars, public places etc). The invention of new mediums, and with them the evolution of advertising is the outcome of needs of a certain interest group. It is not a step forward, but rather a step sideways.
There are no superior mediums as there are no superior ways to advertise, because people (in the spread of individualism) have taken so many steps sideways, that we can’t universally have a greatest way to advertise.
But still – why interactive media (and advertising) isn’t a superior (as it should be, with its audiovisual content and diversified info) way to get our attention and the decision to buy something. Well I think the internet is a info bank. The TV today isn’t an info bank, it’s a entertainment center. When visiting banks, I’m always conservative. When visiting entertainment centers, I’m not so conservative. And non-conservative people are regularly better spenders aka. better ad-targets.
---
The text mainly focused on the study - is interactive advertising more efficient than traditional one-sided advertising. By the authors definition "interactivity is fundamentally the ability to control information". The researchers also divided potential consumers into two groups: consumer who thinks in pictures or in words. In the research, authors believed that interactive media would be bad for visual consumers, because of their lack of interest in textual material which dominates usually the interactive advertising.
Ads themselves can be visual or verbal. Authors stated, that visual advertising is better done through traditional methods, because of the reason stated earlier. In the comparison of the two, the focus was more on linear vs. interactive ways of advertising.
What was concluded was that verbal consumers ignore graphics and rather search for text, and because of that interactive ads seemed to be more suitable for them. Visual consumers liked linear ads more (thought of them as successful) than interactive. Verbal consumers also stated that they liked somewhat interactive ads better.
The reason behind the lack of interest for interactive ads in the case of visual consumers is the fact (according to the authors of the study) that interactive ads tend to be less persuasive for the visual consumers. “Highly visual people like highly visual products through linear advertising”.
In interactive ads, people spend less time and are unlikely to buy the product. In other case, when consuming linear advertisements, more time was spent viewing the ads and greater was the decision to buy the product.
Authors also wanted to state that visual processing is inhibited by interactive system. Therefore, under certain condition, interactivity interrupts the process of persuasion.
In overall, persons will to buy the product was bigger in linear ads than in interactive ads – that means, that the medium itself affected decision? Sic! "When customer uses interactive system, the link between retrieval and yielding to the persuasion may be broken."
The decreased time spent on viewing ads perhaps comes from increased control given to consumers over content, the authors believed. Nevertheless the authors wanted to state, that situation with longtime interactive media consumers may be different.
They also wished to focus more on the roll of sex when consuming interactive vs. linear ads: women are more verbal consumers, etc maybe more interactive ad consumers; men are more visual, maybe more linear ad consumers.
NB! In the study, interactive ads were Apple (computer)-based, where participants were able to control (clicked on ads, to see info). Linear was also computer-based, but more like a TV-show.
Link to the text:
http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/ideas/pdf/Iacobucci/Internet/jar1998-alexa.pdf
The overall conclusion that interactive advertising is not superior to traditional advertising is for me as clear as water. For example – when the television started to spread and became a mass-medium, many of the people stated that radio will soon be dead. As we can see today, the radio hasn’t gone anywhere and has maybe even monopolized some places in our everyday lives (cars, public places etc). The invention of new mediums, and with them the evolution of advertising is the outcome of needs of a certain interest group. It is not a step forward, but rather a step sideways.
There are no superior mediums as there are no superior ways to advertise, because people (in the spread of individualism) have taken so many steps sideways, that we can’t universally have a greatest way to advertise.
But still – why interactive media (and advertising) isn’t a superior (as it should be, with its audiovisual content and diversified info) way to get our attention and the decision to buy something. Well I think the internet is a info bank. The TV today isn’t an info bank, it’s a entertainment center. When visiting banks, I’m always conservative. When visiting entertainment centers, I’m not so conservative. And non-conservative people are regularly better spenders aka. better ad-targets.
---
The text mainly focused on the study - is interactive advertising more efficient than traditional one-sided advertising. By the authors definition "interactivity is fundamentally the ability to control information". The researchers also divided potential consumers into two groups: consumer who thinks in pictures or in words. In the research, authors believed that interactive media would be bad for visual consumers, because of their lack of interest in textual material which dominates usually the interactive advertising.
Ads themselves can be visual or verbal. Authors stated, that visual advertising is better done through traditional methods, because of the reason stated earlier. In the comparison of the two, the focus was more on linear vs. interactive ways of advertising.
What was concluded was that verbal consumers ignore graphics and rather search for text, and because of that interactive ads seemed to be more suitable for them. Visual consumers liked linear ads more (thought of them as successful) than interactive. Verbal consumers also stated that they liked somewhat interactive ads better.
The reason behind the lack of interest for interactive ads in the case of visual consumers is the fact (according to the authors of the study) that interactive ads tend to be less persuasive for the visual consumers. “Highly visual people like highly visual products through linear advertising”.
In interactive ads, people spend less time and are unlikely to buy the product. In other case, when consuming linear advertisements, more time was spent viewing the ads and greater was the decision to buy the product.
Authors also wanted to state that visual processing is inhibited by interactive system. Therefore, under certain condition, interactivity interrupts the process of persuasion.
In overall, persons will to buy the product was bigger in linear ads than in interactive ads – that means, that the medium itself affected decision? Sic! "When customer uses interactive system, the link between retrieval and yielding to the persuasion may be broken."
The decreased time spent on viewing ads perhaps comes from increased control given to consumers over content, the authors believed. Nevertheless the authors wanted to state, that situation with longtime interactive media consumers may be different.
They also wished to focus more on the roll of sex when consuming interactive vs. linear ads: women are more verbal consumers, etc maybe more interactive ad consumers; men are more visual, maybe more linear ad consumers.
NB! In the study, interactive ads were Apple (computer)-based, where participants were able to control (clicked on ads, to see info). Linear was also computer-based, but more like a TV-show.
Link to the text:
http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/ideas/pdf/Iacobucci/Internet/jar1998-alexa.pdf
Thoughts on blogs
Collecting opinions about blogging for me is as the same as collecting opinions about breathing air. The point being it's irrelevant.
BUT - when defining blogosphere, i will not be inventive, but just refer to Google, which says the following...
My personal thoughts about blogosphere is that there's is nothing new under the sun. Blogosphere to me is just a local community being digitalized. The thoughts, opinions and their face-offs on the blogs are the digital representations of the on-goings twenty years ago, when our fathers re(rather pre-)lived the same things, only the necessity was to meet in a tree-house, bar-room or some other constructive settlement.
Is it a good thing? That this get-togethering of families, friends or course-mates (!!!) is being converted from material/real-life to digital platforms? I think it is. Because for me personally - the people I meet in here (intronm09) through our common blogs (to avoid the repetitive use of blogosphere) I would never ever meet in other circumstances. And of course the growing role of information-sharing of there kinds of social web applications only raises the satisfaction about the possibilities available to me. "I can get to know you (name, age, sex) and GET to know you (thoughts, opinions, notions about our confluences)."
But I will never ever exclude the need to do some traditional tree-house/bar-room meetings as well. Even with you, the people whom I know only as "web-based". Because a human being is a slave to habit. And I am only human.
BUT - when defining blogosphere, i will not be inventive, but just refer to Google, which says the following...
My personal thoughts about blogosphere is that there's is nothing new under the sun. Blogosphere to me is just a local community being digitalized. The thoughts, opinions and their face-offs on the blogs are the digital representations of the on-goings twenty years ago, when our fathers re(rather pre-)lived the same things, only the necessity was to meet in a tree-house, bar-room or some other constructive settlement.
Is it a good thing? That this get-togethering of families, friends or course-mates (!!!) is being converted from material/real-life to digital platforms? I think it is. Because for me personally - the people I meet in here (intronm09) through our common blogs (to avoid the repetitive use of blogosphere) I would never ever meet in other circumstances. And of course the growing role of information-sharing of there kinds of social web applications only raises the satisfaction about the possibilities available to me. "I can get to know you (name, age, sex) and GET to know you (thoughts, opinions, notions about our confluences)."
But I will never ever exclude the need to do some traditional tree-house/bar-room meetings as well. Even with you, the people whom I know only as "web-based". Because a human being is a slave to habit. And I am only human.
Tuesday, September 22
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)