Ildhavet - Latest Comments

Re: To fail informatively

Morten Blaabjerg — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:08:13 -0000

What's not so impressive is the way post #3 ought to appear as the first comment to the article, and the first two comments appear only after that comment. I am currently making an inquiry into whether the post-time of comments can be edited in Disqus, so it is possible to patch things up.

Re: Everybody is an Aggregator

Morten Blaabjerg — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 07:35:10 -0000

Barney, what do you mean?

Re: Everybody is an Aggregator

Barney Moran — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:21:58 -0000

Hey Morten,

You currently have the best Pro Lijit response to date and its duly noted.

Have you considered doing PR for Lijit? They could certainly use you!

Barney,

P.U.B.

Re: To fail informatively

Morten Blaabjerg — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:10:27 -0000

It's really impressive what the power of RSS metadata means to a blog post such as this one : (both with the ability to comment via Disqus).

Original post :

http://www.kaplak.com/blog/2008/09/16/to-fail-i...

Post fed via RSS :

http://pulse.plaxo.com/pulse/events/show/89977656

Re: To fail informatively

Morten Blaabjerg — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:44:09 -0000

Or at least it's a bit buggy - see the comments to this thread : http://pulse.plaxo.com/pulse/events/show/89977656 for the above to make any sense.

Re: To fail informatively

Morten Blaabjerg — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:23:03 -0000

Apparently feeding comments back to the blog doesn't work, even though the test above the comment box claims to deliver it.

Re: Google Torrent Search

nickel22 — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:53:22 -0000

hi, if u want try zeta torrent (search in 250+ sites)

http://zeta.torrent.googlepages.com/

bye bye

Re: Everybody is an Aggregator

Morten Blaabjerg — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:30:52 -0000

Now check out DJ kaplak : http://blip.fm/DJkaplak :-)

Re: Everybody is an Aggregator

Morten Blaabjerg — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:00:02 -0000

Terrific stuff, that DJ site :-) I love it !! Excellent choice of music, too. Good to see you here, Terris !

Several times this summer I've been concerned with putting our data on proprietary services with architectures beyond our own control, such as Twitter. It has been a long winded concern, but was further provoked by Twitter prohibiting me access to my own data (everything beyond 200 tweets in my back catalogue - which is about 80% of my/our Twitter activity). Now, Twitter has opened up again, but it remains a deep concern of mine the way we enthrust web services with "our" data.

Now, as I explore deeper what public feeds entail, I'm less worried. As long as the service offers ways to feed/export data, users remain in control. What we need to work at, then, is improve the feeds and make it easier to extract the information we need from them.

Facebook and other such architectures which offer no feeds/export still present a lot of problems, however.

Re: blip.fm and revenue models : Wouldn't they get a cut of all the songs "sold" from their site? Say 95% of listeners don't pay, but 5% buy a song, from which blip.fm earns a dime?

Re: Everybody is an Aggregator

Terris Linenbach — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:06:15 -0000

I stopped blogging on my own site (terris.com) which I was getting ad revenue from (believe it or not), and I now mostly microblog. Which means I'm not making a dime.

And now I'm a DJ! http://blip.fm/terris

So, the video you posted is dead on, and we're in year 3 of his predicted 50 years of chaos.

identi.ca, twitter, and blip.fm have NO REVENUE MODEL.

So google had better f-ing figure this out.

Re: Everybody is an Aggregator

Morten Blaabjerg — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:16:42 -0000

Barney, thank you for that note. I'm not so sure there really is a lot revenue there yet to share, as Lijit has yet to find a suitable business model, IMHO. Offering premium services aimed at businesses seems to me a far more promising road to go than putting Google Ads in search results, but only Lijit knows for sure.

Re: Everybody is an Aggregator

Morten Blaabjerg — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:16:42 -0000

Re: Everybody is an Aggregator

Barney Moran — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:16:02 -0000

Publisher's Union of Bloggers currently recommends Publishers hold off on use of the Lijit Widget on their site pending review of Lijit's promised forthcoming disclosure on its revenue sharing plan for unique Publishers.

Once P.U.B. has reviewed Lijit's plan when released, we will update our recommendation for Publishers accordingly.

Thanks for this post,

Barney Moran,

Founder, P.U.B.

Re: Everybody is an Aggregator

Barney Moran — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:16:02 -0000

Once P.U.B. has reviewed Lijit's plan when released, we will update our recommendation for Publishers accordingly.

Thanks for this post,

Barney Moran,

Founder, P.U.B.

Re: Buy a full-size T. Rex replica

San Antonio Lawyer — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:50:10 -0000

That is awesome! I wish I could have one of those :)

Re: YouTorrent Relaunches with 67,170 Legal Torrents

San Antonio Lawyer — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:44:30 -0000

This is good news for a lot of people. I will definitely share this with my friends. Thanks!

Re: Death By Lawyer: 10 Cool Sites We Miss

San Antonio Lawyer — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:41:57 -0000

Thank you for the update! Well done!

Re: Contextualized Search

Morten Blaabjerg — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:59:11 -0000

If you didn't know, Twitter has now acquired Summize : http://blog.twitter.com/2008/07/finding-perfect...

EDIT : Apparently, this has also broken the link to the search on Summize for my exchanges with Micah. Will try and fix the link.

I somewhat wish the Twitter guys would just concentrate on getting their own service right, instead of buying a perfectly well-functioning service and begin to ruin that too. If the Summize team is now to be working on Twitter, there'll be less time to focus on the search side of Twitter (i.e. Summize), which is too bad, because it was so promising.

Re: Contextualized Search

Morten Blaabjerg — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:59:11 -0000

If you didn't know, Twitter has now acquired Summize : http://blog.twitter.com/200...

EDIT : Apparently, this has also broken the link to the search on Summize for my exchanges with Micah. Will try and fix the link.

I somewhat wish the Twitter guys would just concentrate on getting their own service right, instead of buying a perfectly well-functioning service and begin to ruin that too. If the Summize team is now to be working on Twitter, there'll be less time to focus on the search side of Twitter (i.e. Summize), which is too bad, because it was so promising.

Re: Why We Don’t Really Like Social Networks

Morten Blaabjerg — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:32:48 -0000

"starting with a known, fixed set of categories would help people self-select into or out of a given culture. Fluid tagging allows for increased specialization in forming bonds among people."

Thanks for this inout, Bob :-) I hear what you say, and it's a very interesting point. I believe you are right. What's so incredibly difficult IMO, is to _not_ use fixed categories to describe what we do, because it will lock us into a position we may not want to have. We try very hard to avoid this.

Say we describe what we do as "affiliate marketing", then we lock ourselves into a particular set of ideas, where some people feel comfortable and others definitely not. We may also lock ourselves into a blind spot, where we won't pick up on other ideas which are meaningful, and therefore prevent us from understanding the real problems we aim to understand. Same thing when we say this is for "filmmakers" or if we say we make a new way to "search" or "find information"...

So, our strategy from the beginning has been to throw this blog out here and try to make it sufficiently diverse and interesting in it's themes and capablitiies to attract readers from very different input bases, who share or somehow have an interest in our problem - and further build upon this in our wiki. We're trying to build community from the bottom up, and do that without having a product yet, to build it around. What we have is a problem and a vision, and both will take form as we unfold our online activities. The tough part is connecting and energizing our local networks, at the same time as we create a global network.

We don't know yet precisely where all this will lead, although we do have good ideas about what we want to build. We just can't build this without a broader input base. The old "build, launch and they will come" doesn't work for us.

Re: Why We Don’t Really Like Social Networks

electricbob — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:14:50 -0000

I agree with almost everything, and I have one thing I'd ask you to consider.

Fixed categories provide a way to enter a community or culture. Groups share a common culture by holding some set of ideas in common. Therefore, starting with a known, fixed set of categories would help people self-select into or out of a given culture. Fluid tagging allows for increased specialization in forming bonds among people.

Thanks and have fun! - Bob

Re: Why We Don’t Really Like Social Networks

electricbob — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:14:50 -0000

I agree with almost everything, and I have one thing I'd ask you to consider.

Fixed categories provide a way to enter a community or culture. Groups share a common culture by holding some set of ideas in common. Therefore, starting with a known, fixed set of categories would help people self-select into or out of a given culture. Fluid tagging allows for increased specialization in forming bonds among people.

Thanks and have fun! - Bob

Re: Why We Don’t Really Like Social Networks

Morten Blaabjerg — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:35:53 -0000

Re : Categories

Btw, Clay Shirky has a great talk on ontology and the clashes between fixed categories and worldviews, and the emerging world of tagging and fluid filtering methods : http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detai...

Re: Why We Don’t Really Like Social Networks

Morten Blaabjerg — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:49:52 -0000

Yeah, it is so incredibly easy to do - but leverages so great power. We need more tools like this - and we need to bridge the gaps between the forerunners of these tools, and people like Palle and others, who could easily utilize these tools to their great advantage.

I meet a lot of scepticism, ignorance and thickheadedness generally aimed at (digital) technology, and specifically at open architectures such as wikis.

Somehow though, during the last year or so, Facebook seems to have broken down some of these reservations (at least over here), so that people, who otherwise wouldn't use internet services, have now begun to do so. I hope they will also begin to ask questions and think about what the architectures they use entail. In this sense, popular services such as Facebook can be forerunners for involving users in more dedicated environments, such as wikis. And that's also why it's essential, that we are on Facebook and other such services.

Re: Why We Don’t Really Like Social Networks

LauraHale — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:46:44 -0000

"This is why I love wikis, why I love decentralized structures and p2p-based architectures,"

Ditto. Going back to your science fiction writer, if there was an article about him on a wiki and he wanted to offer better category options, it becomes really easy to do. He can simply add say [[Category:Retired science fiction writers]] to the article. Then he can look at the category structure, see where that would fit in to that and add say [[Category:Science fiction writers]] or [[Category:People who have retired]] or [[Category:Professional authors]] to link it back into the categorization tree. If it doesn't look obvious, he can always use a number of talk pages or contact an admin to see how to do to better integrate that category in to the wiki.

Wikis can be amazingly flexible in that regard and there is very little overhead from a development stance for making changes such as those. The cost is at the community level and having people who have the job of interacting with people be the ones who can make that change helps to foster relationships. There aren't as many complex levels which can make communication across levels more arduous.