Archive for the 'Comment' Category

Whenever I talk to businesses about blogging, this issue invariably comes up: “We don’t want a blog because, well, what about negative comments?”

The thing is, people are talking and commenting about your business online - as well as off-line, I might add - whether you like it or not and whether you have a blog or not. It’s difficult to track what people are saying offline because speech leaves no vapour trail. But chatter online does. The very least any business needs to do these days is to accept that blogging and social media are here to stay, whether they like the idea of these things or not - and to monitor what people are saying about their business or brand online. They may not be saying it on your business’s blog because you don’t have one - but they may be talking about you on their own blogs, in forums, on Twitter, on Facebook etc.

And now there is a new player in town that could transform the whole web into a social network of chatter and comment - Google’s Sidewiki, launched within the last few weeks. The unnerving thing about it is that it enables people with the Sidewiki app installed in their browser to comment on your website or blog or webpage right there next to it - the comments can be seen by others who also have Sidewiki installed BUT you won’t know about it unless you also have Sidewiki. As the webpage owner, you cannot control those comments in any way - not delete, not hold for moderation, nothing. You could add your own comment within Sidewiki if you install it on your own browser and as the site owner, you have the right to insert a sticky comment that always stays at the top of the comments once you’ve verified with Google that you are the site owner - but that’s about it.

So the old strategies of making your visitors register in order to leave comments or holding comments for moderation are all out the window. Anyone with Sidewiki installed in their Internet Explorer or Firefox browser can comment on your webpage anytime anywhere and those comments will be viewable by anyone else who has Sidewiki.

Here are a couple of comments I found on the Sidewiki alongside The Times Online front page:

• Anthony Anders - 28 Sep 2009
  We can now comment without limitation - Not one comment I have ever entered on any of your articles has been approved by your team of censors. Now, thanks to SideWiki, we can comment on your articles freely. As you gradually see the comments on your website move to Sidewiki rather than appear on the site directly, perhaps you will engage in some deep and thoughtful reflection about why this is happening. Perhaps you will even begin to recognise your own failings.

  Richard Hamerton-Stove - 1 Oct 2009
  Digital Healthcare, PH7
  Indeed - I’ve only been using the sidewiki for a few days and already I find that its pervasive nature suits my browsing habits much more than the somewhat awkward and clunky comment features. The moderation issue is one that we’ll have to watch closely.

Andrew Keen in The Telegraph and Charles Arthur in The Guardian take an “anti” stance and worry about Google dominating the web and collecting the data from Sidewiki to monetize users comments in some way. They predict that take-up will be slow or minimal and that Sidewiki will die its own death.

The level of entry is relatively easy for most people - click to add Sidewiki to your browser, sign up for a free Google account and away you go. So take-up could be huge. But I think that the problem will be spammers, flamers and trolls - if they take over and cannot be controlled in any way, then regular people will desert Sidewiki or not find it worth signing up. Personally, I’m finding the app interesting to play with at the moment - it’s fun checking out the “hidden” comments that only us Sidewikians can see (a little icon of a comment bubble appears on the left side of the screen to indicate that someone has left a comment on the page you’re looking at) and I’m having a go leaving my own side comments. There is integration with Twitter and Facebook, and you can also share your comment by email. My comments are all aggregated on my Google profile.

Web strategist Jeremiah Olwang has a much more interesting anaylsis of Sidewiki and its implications for businesses than the knee-jerk “hate it, hope it goes down in flames” angle of the two broadsheets I mentioned. My own view is that whether Sidewiki in its current form stays or goes, the trend is towards an open-source approach to commenting and discussions and we will be seeing more public, free-for-all (in all sense of that phrase) spaces for everyone and anyone to throw in their tuppence worth.

So, for any business reading this, whether you hope Sidewiki will live or die, you need to add it to your tracking tools for now…

Illustration: screenshot of sidewiki column alongside Guardian page

Everyone is talking about the power of citizen journalism these days. Social media tools that allow instant publication, such as blogging and Twitter, enable anyone with access to the Internet to report on what is happening around them. In many cases citizen journalists have scooped the news ahead of traditional news media — e.g. the ordinary guy who happened to be at the right place at the right time with his mobile phone to take a photo of the plane that crashed into the Hudson River in New York earlier this year.

There has been a lot of hand wringing by media commentators and the traditional newsgathering organisations. If anyone can be a journalist nowadays — and be happy to report on events for free — then what is the future for professional journalists with years of training who need to earn a living while reporting the news?

Last night, watching the rising tidal wave of news and speculation on the Internet about Michael Jackson’s death was an object lesson in why we still need serious journalists and why we need to find a way to continue properly remunerating them for fact-checked investigative reporting of the news.

I checked out my Twitter stream late last night after dinner and noticed a lot of Twitterers mourning the passing of Michael Jackson, posting “RIP Michael Jackson” and honouring his memory with reminiscences of his wonderful music and talent. Naturally, I checked out the news websites immediately — the BBC, CNN in particular, as well as newspaper sites such as The Guardian. None of the news websites were actually making the statement that Michael Jackson was dead — instead, they were reporting that he had been rushed to hospital and was not breathing. A couple of them said that he was in a coma.

I set up a live blogging event using Scribble Live to record my “in the moment” responses to the unfolding news and speculation: Michael Jackson – Dead or Alive? (The complete live blog post also updated in real time here on my blog). At the same time, I had the BBC live video stream open on another tab in my browser and was listening to their continuing commentary and updates. I tweeted my own comments on what was happening — that the news sources were not saying that he was dead although the Twitterverse were already mourning him.

The BBC news report was very careful to use phrases such as “it is reported that Michael Jackson is dead ” or “reports say”. They kept emphasising that they did not themselves yet have “independent confirmation”. What was particularly interesting to me was that it was another traditional news website that was reporting the death, the LA times, as well as an online entertainment site, TMZ. The BBC WAS at pains to say that these news sources were very well respected and were reputable sites. However, they were unwilling to make the definitive statement that Michael Jackson was dead until they had obtained their own independent confirmation.

While I was live blogging all this, a number of other people on the Internet had obviously found my site as Scribble Live was telling me that up to 38 people were “watching” my life blogging. Some of them added their own comments to say that Jackson was in a coma and others were wanting to know whether he was dead or not, and whether it was 100% confirmed that he was dead.

This was a fascinating experience. If I had been at work or in a party space and we had heard this kind of news, we’d have turned on the TV or radio and while the reports would be coming in, we’d all be wondering and chatting and talking about Michael Jackson and what was the latest moment by moment news. As I live blogged my views and what I was hearing from the BBC, it felt exactly as if I was in that sort of environment, albeit with people I didn’t personally know. It is such a human instinct to gather at times of crisis to find out what’s going on. And tools like Twitter and Scribble Live make it so easy to gather in a way that makes geography irrelevant.

In terms of the news sourcing, what was interesting to me was this. The LA Times, a respected and reputable news source, said that Michael Jackson was dead. Did I — and many others around the world — believe them? Instinctively, I was waiting for the BBC’s confirmation so at some level, I evidently did not trust the LA Times as much as I trust the BBC. From the reaction of other people online, this seems to have been their response as well. I believe that the LA Times reported the death at around 10:30 PM London time but the BBC only confirmed this fact through their independent verification at approximately 11:46 PM. So in terms of news reporting, the LA Times scooped the BBC on this story — but it was only when I heard the BBC’s, authoritative voice say “It has now been confirmed that Michael Jackson is in fact dead” that I was ready to face the reality of the pop star’s passing.

It was also interesting to note that the BBC’s live report remarked that there was a lot of rumour and speculation on the Internet and via Twitter during the few hours following Jackson’s admission to hospital. It seemed a very 21st century moment — while we were watching the news, the news was also watching us.

For me, the significance of this is event that, while many of us “ordinary folk” can publish our views and opinions online instantaneously, this kind of interaction is rife with the potential for rumour and speculation. At best, we are generally at one remove from the news. There are of course ordinary people who are caught up in extraordinary events and have the opportunity to blog or twitter about their experience in the moment — such as what has been happening in Iran — and I do not mean at all to disrespect what they’re communicating to the world about their personal experiences. I just want to emphasise that trained journalists adhere to a rigourous code of ethics, including vigourous fact checking before making their reports and this is an important and valuable function — it is sometimes better to be late with the correct facts than early with a sensational scoop.

Photo: thanks to groupieblog

We all learnt about the South Sea Bubble at school and not long ago, we’ve had the tech stocks bubble. This is video is a cynical take on all the excitement about social media.

What I find fun is that I’ve blogged about a number of the people and applications on Fusion View and ZenGuide. I’ve also visited my cousin when they were in Palo Alto for a time, the heart of Silicon Valley and seen the kinds of houses mentioned in the video.

Blogging about Facebook etiquette last week got me thinking about what I do on that social network and how much of a role it plays in my online social life - and to be frank, I don’t spend that much time there. You would think that I’d be a great fan, seeing as I’m such a social media aficionado. So why does it not ring my bells, as they say?

After mulling over this for awhile, a number of things struck me:

• For many people, especially those new to social media, Facebook feels like a safe, contained space for them to play in - the nice, white gated community of the internet. For me, I like the great open spaces of prairies beyond that offers a vast range of blogs, images, podcasts and video. 

• In particular, I really enjoy reading great blogs, which can be stimulating, intriguing, engaging, amusing - and I like joining the discussions by adding comments and sharing my thoughts around a thought-provoking topic. The interactions on Facebook are geared for chit-chat rather than longer, in-depth discussions.

• The activities most people engage in on Facebook seem to be fairly trivial - sending Hatching Eggs and the like. Which is fun and a way of saying to someone, “I’m thinking of you” that is different from sending them an email, where you feel obliged to say something more than those few words. I enjoy that from time to time but it’s becoming wearing when you are constantly inundated with variations such silliness - and especially when you have to download the application first in order to receive their greeting AND you know that the person sending you the interaction has just downloaded the application and hit “send to all your friends”. Having fun with your friends has never been so easy - or so automated.

• The Facebook mini-feed keeps you up to date about what your friends have been up to - but it mostly shows you what they’ve been doing on Facebook. It’s all about what Facebook applicaitons they’ve added, what Facebook groups they’ve joined, whose Facebook wall they’ve written on etc and not what they are really doing in their real lives. I prefer dipping in and out of my Twitter stream where my Twitter friends are sending out little messages about what they are doing and about blog posts or real world news stories they’ve been reading - and increasingly, videos of what they are up to. All this can be done from their mobile phones, including live video streaming via Qik.

• Facebook inundates you with ads in the sidebar and also with ad-items that pretend to be part of the min-feed. Its Beacon application which added users shopping activities to the mini-feed as if those users endorsed those products caused an outcry recently. So far, Twitter seems to be ad-free.

• Facebooks seems to be private but it is less private than you think. If you want to be sure about privacy, make sure you check that all your privacy settingsare enabled. This apparent privacy and the naivety of users inexperienced in web-safety has led to the recent hoo-ha over employers finding out about staff’s private indiscretions.  If in doubt, treat Facebook - and any other social network - as a public space.

• Inexperienced users have also left indiscrete messages on each other’s Walls, which can be seen by all the friends of the Wall-owner. It is also very easy to mistakenly send a message to “all ” your friends. When replying to a message sent to “all” from one friend, I don’t think there is an option to reply to that one friend - your reply goes to “all”. This is all potential for tension and drama between friends if someone sees a message they should not have etc….!

So, my final verdict is: Facebook is as good a place as any to start your social media exploration but it’s not as private as you think it is. As with any public space  - or semi-public space like your office, school, college or community space - take a moment to think abuot how what you say and do might be taken. And don’t leave private information lying around, in the same way you wouldn’t leave your wallet, driving licence, passport etc lying around the office or in a lecture room.

If you like to see what your friends are up to in terms of real world interactions rather than just their interactions with Facebook applications, check out Twitter - my Twitter feed  at www.twitter.com/fusionview may be a good place to start, and in particular you can see the mix of people I follow for the news items they share via Twitter and also the more personal daily activities that others I follow tweet about. br />
Photo: of gated community thanks to Dean Terry on flickr.com (CCL)

A survey by BurstMedia in June this year on women and the internet reveals that over half of the women (54.5%) in the US say the Internet is their primary source of information when researching products they might purchase. The survey sampled over 1,800 women aged 25 and upwards. Their next port of call is to ask family and friends - but only 10.9% of the sample do that. Newspapers and magazines come in at 9.9% and brochures and pamphlets at 5.1%, with radio as the last port of call with a rather sorry 1.3%.

While this survey is specific to the US, I expect that you might infer a similar tech-savvy approach to shopping in most of the industrialised nations where women are empowered and have the oppportunities for self-actualisation and financial independence.

For businesses, this represents a huge opportunity to tap into these eager consumers online. The key factor here is that these women are using the Internet to find out about products before or as they purchase. If your business has products and services that are of interest to women, you could really capitalise on this with creating informative and user-friendly pages that will help these potential customers in making their shopping decisions. While they are on your site, reading up on all your useful data and advice, they are engaging with your brand and your online presence - all great for marketing and customer-retention as well as conversion of these potential customers into actual ones.

One thing to remember - you don’t have to target your customers in a gender-biased way eg this opportunity is about more than handbags and pink accessories. Women have to buy household goods, computer equipment, iPods - even power tools - just like men. So whatever you sell, there’s an opportunity here to help all your customers with their buying decisions, not just “the ladies”.

Blogs are an easy way to share your opinions and reviews about products. Here are some to explore:

Shiny Shiny - hmm, very pink and very focused on the gender thing but a good and useful site in spite of that.

Endgadget - the ultimate gadget guide

Rugged Notebooks - a number of bloggers blog about this hardy product, one of whom is digitalnomad, a ZenGuide regular commenter.

Amazon of course have the customer review sections for all their products. I rely on those fairly heavily when considering whether or not to buy a particular book or digitial gadget they are offering. Whether it’s the case or not, customer reviews always feel as if you’re getting a range of opinions and not just the store or manufacturer’s party line.

Photo: thanks to brittanycondo.com

A recent online survey by the Recruitment Employment Confederation (REC) confirms what some people feared was true. Employers check up on potential employees before they hire them - and there’s no easier way then via the internet. You google people you know, don’t you? The ones you’ve just met or are about to meet; your friends and associates; your lost love? So it figures that employers do, too.

The survey shows that 86 per cent of the 298 recruitment consultants questioned think candidates should think twice before putting certain information on the Internet for fear of it affecting their chances of employment. The REC press release on their site reports:

Tom Hadley, the REC’s Director of External Affairs commented: “As more employers take interview shortcuts and rely on Internet searches to filter out unsuitable candidates, it’s vital that job seekers take their Internet footprint seriously and keep in mind that it could affect their job prospects.

Before posting any personal details on the Internet, candidates need to think twice about how an employer might perceive them.”

This is of particular concern for the “millenials” - the 75 million young people born between 1977 and 1998 who are the main participants in social network sites like MySpace and Facebook where they let it all hang out, sharing their views, thoughts, mis-adventures and much more - often in casual, coarse or uninhibited language as well as photos and videos that might be fun and crazy in that context but shocking and inappropriate in a career context.

On the other hand 51 per cent of the recruiters thought that recruitment agencies may find themselves with fewer candidates to place as social networking online becomes the new way for people to find jobs. Think of the professional online networks like LinkedIn (for business people and professionals) or MyRagan (for business communicators).

While it is worth noting these concerns and thinking before you blog or video yourself or post a photo of yourself in horseplay, bear in mind that we are in a time of change - and fast change at that. At one time, Richard Branson was a maverick because - shock, horror - he didn’t believe in wearing a tie to a business meeting. These days, among the old guard, there are new businesses with new work/ life values - think of Innocent smoothies, Google, Yahoo! , any tech startup and indeed, Virgin. Perhaps as the millenials grow up and rise to positions of power within companies and businesses, they won’t be so concerned about the shenanigans of other millenials documented online. They will be the ones recruiting each other via social networks and maybe their criteria might include “Proven drive and energy - please link to your MySpace video showing wild partying and to the software application you designed the morning after”….

As it is, a recent Twitter job ad for an Operations Engineer included this line: “Must have: excellent triage skills, mild manner, rockstar inside (ready to rise to any occasion), strong interest in Twitter.” (my emphasis).

Personally, the one finding from the report I found the most disturbing was this one: “71 per cent said something written in the ‘other interests’ section of a CV has put employers off taking candidates through to the interview stage”. What?! There was a time when you needed to put something in that section to show that you were a well-rounded person. Now, it looks like some companies want only one-dimensional entitities, rather like robots who will work and work and work and nothing more. Having interests outside of your job is not only healthy but also contributes to factors that make you do your job better - like motivation (quality time with your family brings you bouncing into work the next day), creativity (working on a complex hobby can stimulate ideas for complex problems at work), diverse and transferrable skills (volunteering on a committee brings team building skills to your job), people skills (having friends helps you get on well with co-workers and customers), networking (that person you meet at playing cricket could bring in some work for your company) and the list goes on …

What do you think? Do you let it all hang out online? Or have you never taken the step to blog because of exactly these worries? Add a comment or email me and share your thoughts.

Photo: thanks to Xamonich from flickr.com

NOTE: ZenGuide is updated Mondays and Thursdays

Some recent conversations I’ve had with executives and professioals has got me thinking: what’s in a name?

For many companies and businesses who have a natural affinity with innovation and early adaptation of new technology, a business blog is something they have embraced with enthusiasm. They see it as a great way to keep in touch with their clients and customers and to showcase their expertise. However, for other businesses still wondering if communicating online with their stakeholders in this way is something for them, the notion of a blog comes with a bundle of negative pre-conceptions - it’s for teenagers and loud-mouthed mavericks, it’s not a proper platform for serious business communications, it’s about trivial things like what I had for breakfast this morning.

Many busy professionals and senior-level executives have said to me that they don’t have time to read blogs. They aren’t interested in what someone had for breakfast. (What is it about things people have for breakfast that’s become this catch-phrase for blogging?) They’ve got too many emails to get through. What possible business value is there in spending their limited time reading a stranger’s blog?

When working with some clients, I’ve recommended that it may be an idea to re-think this interactive online thing that they are implementing. It’s just a tool that allows you to upload information quickly and easily in reverse date order - you can sort the information into categories and link to other information. What about defining it by what content or information you’re putting on it? If it’s a place where you are offering additional resources to your clients eg you are sharing your expertise for free online; or you are pointing them to other resources they can find on the web; or you are putting up your materials from a conference or workshop - why not refer to it as a Resource Centre? Or what about focusing on the objective of why you want this social media tool - is it to stimulate discussion and engage your stakeholders in conversation? Well, what about calling it a Discussion Space or Conversation Corner?

This simple re-thinking of what the tool is has opened up for my clients a whole range of possibilities which have excited them about the blog platform - a complete transformation from their previous scepticism and uncertainty. For the one setting up a Resource Centre, the creative juices started to flow and they brainstormed a long list of information, resources and articles they could post on their site. For the one creating a Discussion Space, they began to look for contributors to write articles with different views around one theme so that readers might be prompted to add to the discussion via the discussion responses facility (ie comments).

And for those coming to read or participate in such spaces, they are immediately entering an added value space that offers Resources and Discussion, rather than a potentially time-wasting personal diary thing called a blog.

For me, I enjoy reading blogs or discussion spaces or newsletter or whatever you call them, especially blogs by:

• industry experts eg high-profile marketing guru Seth Godin (whose blog is on The Times’ list of top 50 business blogs),

• trend watchers/ news breakers eg TechCrunch and Mashable

• writing and book lovers eg Bibliobibuli

• colleagues eg X-Culture by Silvia Cambie

• friends eg massage therapist Melanie Crowe

• other Asians/ Orientals eg British Born Chinese

I generally steer away from blogs by journalists and reporters like those on the Guardian or the BBC - though I do sometimes find it useful to go to those blogs as well. My reasoning is that I read or hear these paid writers’/ commentators’ views anyway via the news and traditional media channels. The joy of blogs is to hear the voices and encounter the thoughts of those who don’t necessarily already have a grand outlet like the premier news channels for sharing what they have to say. I like the democracy and clamour of the ordinary individual adding to the discussion. I keep them all on my blog aggregator and pick and choose a few to dip into over lunch or when I feel like being stimulated.

Which blogs / resources/ newsletters/ whatever do you like? Add a comment and share your favourite with me!

Photo: thanks to raisinsawdust on flickr.com

NOTE: ZenGuide is updated Mondays and Thursdays

Continuing the Conversation from the social media discussions in Slovenia….

One of our round table participants held that one of the core values of blogging is its openness for everyone to take part, to add their comments, to disagree or disagree, to share ideas. That gives blogging and social media its vibrancy and energy and it is through open conversations without centralised control that fresh ideas emerge, freedom is embraced and exercised and democratic principles are lived out in the flesh.

Is there a place for private blogs or private networks? Can an online space that is public and open to all in some situations restrict one’s freedom to express oneself fully and truly? Some possibilities come to mind:

• a forum where bloggers who have experienced cyberharrassment might want to share and support each other.

• a business network where financially sensitive information needs to be discussed

• a network where business leaders may wish to network freely with each other - be able to disagree, argue, debate etc without what they discuss being open to misinterpretation to those not within their industry

I’m sure you can think of other examples as well.

It can be very valuable for victims of trauma to speak openly about their experiences without feeling judged or put down by others. Public spaces on the web can be uncivil and unruly, jostling spaces, just like any street or the subway in rush hour. A safe space for such discussions would need to be private.

Similarly, with any other matter that is sensitive whether financial, personal or in business, private networks may be the only way that social media can be used effectively.

Debate, discussion, disagreement and argument in are all part of the process of negotiation or coming to a decision or consensus in the Western democracies. Sometimes there are disagreements between people on the same team or same Board or the same committee while they work out their ideas and before they come to a firm conclusion. It may be that where social media is used to facilitate this process, it needs to be private between the relevant people so as not to have the process hampered by those who are not meant to be involved in that process. It also may not be appropriate for these people who are playing on the same team to be seen by their stakeholders in the process of the disagreement if that is going to be misinterpreted as a problem in the leadership and cause unnecessary instability within the corporation or their market - when in fact it is merely a process of interrogating an issue that will ultimately be resolved.

I find this issue a challenging and very interesting one. I agree whole-heartedly with my colleague who upholds the value of openness and lack of controls on the blogosphere as a whole. And yet, I find that there are circumstances when in fact you can only have openness within a ring-fenced “safe” area.

What do you think?

~~~~~~~~

Photo: thanks to Aaron Jacobs on flickr.com

Note: ZenGuide is updated Mondays and Thursdays

prjslv