Rollyo (a contraction standing for Roll your own). Allows you to customize a search engine to fit your own specific needs.
While this concept may have merit with specific projects or jobs, I don't necessarily believe it's worth the effort. I am of course saying this without putting forth any effort to create one myself, this way I can speak about it from a soapbox made largely of ignorance and surface observations.
I can see use in it. Just not for me. I'll draw a parallel. I've got digital cable. It's cool and I actually like the fact that I can filter out a lot of the channels that I can't use yet (HD signals), I can't use effectively (in spanish), or just downright loathe (anything country or sports). The great part is, I don't have to sift through those things while I'm browsing. But there's a downside. When things change (like the channel lineup) I have to re-accomplish, or at the very least, re-examine, my filters. If you tailor a suit, it may fit you perfectly, but if you get fat, you've got to make changes again.
Rollyo seems to provide some very basic 'canned' customization, which, really, isn't customization since you're still getting broad strokes. I'm assuming there is more to it, if you so desire, I just don't care enough to dig deep into this effort. It's nice to know it exists, in case I ever come across a need for it, or have a user that might benefit from it.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Wikis, groupthink, and accumulated knowledge...
Probably one of the most fascinating aspects of online social efforts is inevitable accumulation of knowledge that occurs. When you've got MILLIONS of people contributing information, perspectives, and content you end up with an enormous wealth of data.
Now, it's not perfect. There are some interesting side effects. As you can well imagine, corporations have an interest in this knowledge, and Stephen Colbert did a great bit on Wikiality (I can't link to the video clip because viacom opposes posting their property on youtube since they want to protect profits by only allowing Daily Show, Colbert fans to view it from Comedy Central's site).
In a sense, resources like Wikipedia end up representing the accumulated knowledge of those with access to the internet. And while it certainly isn't a perfect, or even completely representative, mass of knowledge, it certainly is a start.
Anyone can start an article, and anyone can feel free to correct that information. Due to the nature of this particular beast, ignorant, malicious or ulteriorly motivated users can also plant wrong, fraudulent, or misleading information. Also due to the nature of the beast, this usually corrects itself because it's likely that eventually, someone in the community will see fit to correct it. Removal of information, though, is much more dangerous. In the first link in this post, there is a growing trend for organizations (government, corporate) to make modficiations to information placed in Wikis, particularly to remove information that is sensitive, negative, or particularly critical of their organization or efforts.
I'm curious to see where it ends up. My guess is, big business and government will probably win. They always seem to come out on top.
Now, it's not perfect. There are some interesting side effects. As you can well imagine, corporations have an interest in this knowledge, and Stephen Colbert did a great bit on Wikiality (I can't link to the video clip because viacom opposes posting their property on youtube since they want to protect profits by only allowing Daily Show, Colbert fans to view it from Comedy Central's site).
In a sense, resources like Wikipedia end up representing the accumulated knowledge of those with access to the internet. And while it certainly isn't a perfect, or even completely representative, mass of knowledge, it certainly is a start.
Anyone can start an article, and anyone can feel free to correct that information. Due to the nature of this particular beast, ignorant, malicious or ulteriorly motivated users can also plant wrong, fraudulent, or misleading information. Also due to the nature of the beast, this usually corrects itself because it's likely that eventually, someone in the community will see fit to correct it. Removal of information, though, is much more dangerous. In the first link in this post, there is a growing trend for organizations (government, corporate) to make modficiations to information placed in Wikis, particularly to remove information that is sensitive, negative, or particularly critical of their organization or efforts.
I'm curious to see where it ends up. My guess is, big business and government will probably win. They always seem to come out on top.
Awesomely awesome thing I said the other day
It's like throwing mustard at a brick wall...totally pointless.
deelishus iz neet
It's a pretty interesting aspect of social browsing. It uses peoples own perspectives and triggers to create tags, rather than a prefabricated structure and rigid definitions.
I 'tag' a site, write a description for it, and make up my own tags for it. This way, my perspective is represented as a part of the whole. The primary benefit of this is that eventually trends should emerge. The way I think about something may guide me to others who think about it the same way. It will also produce a categorization based upon my own unique take on a website.
I 'tag' a site, write a description for it, and make up my own tags for it. This way, my perspective is represented as a part of the whole. The primary benefit of this is that eventually trends should emerge. The way I think about something may guide me to others who think about it the same way. It will also produce a categorization based upon my own unique take on a website.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
MySpace my ass.
While exploring the idea is interesting, MySpace (near as I can tell) is virtually a dead medium. It is no longer the hub of questionably-social-pseudo-party-atmosphere interaction it once was. Now it seems like it's reserved now for corporate marketers, bands, janey-come-latelys and would be child stalkers.
I created a MySpace page from selection of crappy layouts into what (to an outsider) seems like a pathetic attempt by some aging bachelor to remain hip and relevant in todays web-savvy world. I'm embarrassed by it, and I'll probably remove it before too long.
It seems like the more modern, or perhaps the more topical (to the University), medium seems to be Facebook. Most of my hip young student friends are much more active in that world than MySpace, which most seem to regard as a 'been there done that' kind of thing.
I know that MySpace was selected specifically for a reason, but I do think that if part of the purpose of the Learning 2.0 exercise is to stay relevant, it's probably a good idea to start with the more relevant applications. This way, people aren't (METAPHOR WARNING) reading last years news. Just my opinion of course.
I created a MySpace page from selection of crappy layouts into what (to an outsider) seems like a pathetic attempt by some aging bachelor to remain hip and relevant in todays web-savvy world. I'm embarrassed by it, and I'll probably remove it before too long.
It seems like the more modern, or perhaps the more topical (to the University), medium seems to be Facebook. Most of my hip young student friends are much more active in that world than MySpace, which most seem to regard as a 'been there done that' kind of thing.
I know that MySpace was selected specifically for a reason, but I do think that if part of the purpose of the Learning 2.0 exercise is to stay relevant, it's probably a good idea to start with the more relevant applications. This way, people aren't (METAPHOR WARNING) reading last years news. Just my opinion of course.
Willful ignorance vs. willful idiocy.
Willful ignorance exists when you decide to remain ignorant and uninformed of those things you should know or be aware of.
Willful idiocy stupidity is when you are aware of or informed about the things you should know or do, yet you refuse to act or behave accordingly.
I'm not saying to pick one. I'm telling you so you can avoid them both.
Willful idiocy stupidity is when you are aware of or informed about the things you should know or do, yet you refuse to act or behave accordingly.
I'm not saying to pick one. I'm telling you so you can avoid them both.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Awesomely awesome thing I wrote down, and I think I probably said.
"How can they work on anything new if they haven't caught up to where they are yet?"
Belated Flickr post
Yes I'm late, but I guess it's better late than never, I'm going to do my best to catch up this week.
I did the Flickr thing. Seems like an interesting idea, but it's not my bag. If I were a photophile, I would probably already have an account with 302 pictures of my cats, my kids, or my car.
As it is, though I generally avoid cameras being pointed at me, and in general am reluctant to do the same to others. It might be a projected courtesy as clearly there are people who like being photographed. I don't dally in that business, so Flickr has always seemed something I didn't need to actively indulge in.
As an individual, Flickr doesn't really offer me anything I need. I don't feel the need to document moments in my life, or share pictures of myself or my world with anyone. As I said, it's not my thing.
As an observer, Flickr(like blogs) offers a kind of voyeuristic opportunity as it can reveal facets of both the subjects in the photos, and the original photo poster. Some may not like that term, but in it's simplest form that is what many of the 'personal' web incarnations (avatars, blogs, etc.) provide.
I find Flickr itself fairly unintuitive, and I found myself halted at several points in my attempts to customize or even use the tools they provided. Once you know where everything is at, though, it isn't too difficult to accomplish tasks.
I did the Flickr thing. Seems like an interesting idea, but it's not my bag. If I were a photophile, I would probably already have an account with 302 pictures of my cats, my kids, or my car.
As it is, though I generally avoid cameras being pointed at me, and in general am reluctant to do the same to others. It might be a projected courtesy as clearly there are people who like being photographed. I don't dally in that business, so Flickr has always seemed something I didn't need to actively indulge in.
As an individual, Flickr doesn't really offer me anything I need. I don't feel the need to document moments in my life, or share pictures of myself or my world with anyone. As I said, it's not my thing.
As an observer, Flickr(like blogs) offers a kind of voyeuristic opportunity as it can reveal facets of both the subjects in the photos, and the original photo poster. Some may not like that term, but in it's simplest form that is what many of the 'personal' web incarnations (avatars, blogs, etc.) provide.
I find Flickr itself fairly unintuitive, and I found myself halted at several points in my attempts to customize or even use the tools they provided. Once you know where everything is at, though, it isn't too difficult to accomplish tasks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
