Tag: filters

  • Binary Code

    Facebook is in the process of updating its Newsfeed algo again so that we see more posts from friends and family, and less from ‘Pages’. Great news, except that when every person is media, and there is a limit to the pruning one can do, the feed will still consist of biases, prejudices, hoaxes, paid endorsements without disclosure, and yes, cat videos, Lincoln’s quotes on self driving cars, click bait and baby pics. My point above is less about filter failure and more about the continuing explosion of content and its distribution to set the context.

    But now let’s talk about filters. The sheer volume of content means that (in general) the reader will want quickly digestible information before he/she moves on to the highly entertaining video waiting in line. Absolutely connected to ‘the demise of the middle ground in the attention economy‘. The article talks about nuance in political debate getting lost, but I think its reach extends beyond that. As this fantastic Guardian article “How technology disrupted the truth” states, “..everyone has their own facts“. But why do this happen? (more…)

  • The narratives that we drive

    It probably started with the ‘narrative’ post, but a few things I read later made me wonder about our choices of narratives and where this could be leading to. Some narratives happen to us depending on our circumstances – time, geography etc, and some we choose of our own volition, or so it seems. Continuing from the earlier post, I think it’d be safe to say that with a more connected world, our ability to choose narratives has been heightened. Abundance of creation, and consumption. I think this was the related fantastic little piece of content that triggered this entire line of thought. It has some thoughts on material consumption, and though delivered differently, it has some profound insights as well.

    Partly thanks to that abundance, the noise around us has also increased, and has found better ways of being amplified. To quote Clay Shirky,

    It is our misfortune, as a historical generation, to live through the largest expansion in expressive capability in human history, a misfortune because abundance breaks more things than scarcity.

    In fact, one could argue that compulsive consumption (material, and otherwise) is one of the reasons for our ‘emptying out‘. (do read) As I was writing this, I had a sense of deja vu, and some searching pointed me to this, written 3 years back, in which I tried to figure out whether there was a middle path between a self that was driven by others’ perceptions and one that was driven by a moral compass dictated by few external stimuli. In that post, I had quoted from Paul Graham’s ‘addiction’ post,“we will increasingly be defined by what we say no to” I think that still holds true.

    In this era of abundance, what narratives should we choose to be part of? How can one be objective, is one even right by being objective? An excellent post whose advice I hope to implement more is this. I really couldn’t disagree with any of the 30 things mentioned, it just seemed intuitively right. But I think this would serve as an excellent first lesson..

    (via)

    until next time, an open and shut existence

  • Brands and Plus points

    Considering that I tweeted this sometime back, and found this a great read, this post is not on the pros-cons/ how to use Google Plus or on the lines of 'why I am getting out of Facebook and hopping into bed with Google Plus'. These are just thoughts based on a query I asked on and about the platform a couple of days back.

    The context: I observed that, on my Plus stream ( I have 'circled' about 150 people), a few people were sharing the same content they did on Twitter and LinkedIn, presented the same way as well. I could understand why they would use these as distribution networks because it is difficult to accurately predict who catches what in busy streams. But what did surprise me was this content being shared as 'Public' on Google Plus, when it is very easy to create circles of people with common interest and share accordingly. (using earlier interactions on other networks or even what they share on Plus) And so I asked

    Predictably, the most insightful comment came from generic propecia online no prescription 1

    twitter.com/#!/misentropy” target=”_blank”>Iqbal, who nailed it with “we are used to the environment defining the limits of who we share with – rather than having the ability to choose and consciously picking one set of people over another, every time we have something to say.” In this context, I remembered an excellent post by JP Rangaswami on the subject of filters, publishers and subscribers. While I agree with his summation that “We can only fix filter failure by providing subscribers with better filters, by providing publishers with tools that allow subscribers to filter better“, I did feel that in the interim, till the environment (/infrastructure) is able to deliver this at least to a certain degree of satisfaction (it's a dynamic scenario, not likely to be completely perfect), publishers (us) should filter our output too.

    All of this led me to a comparison of this scenario to that of brands as publishers. Thanks to traditional media platforms, brands had an environment which to a large extent defined the what/who/where/how of marketing communication. Few brands have been able to cope with the explosion of platforms and the freedom, choices and protocols that come with it. As consumers become filters and learn selective broadcast, exploring and navigating the platforms might be a good idea for brands, but it might be a better idea to (also) invest in a content-communication infrastructure which can be customised to meet both the dynamics – the brand's messaging needs and the consumer's sharing habits. (in the brand's context)

    until next time, helpless to help+ 🙂

    zp8497586rq

  • Brands & Niche Networks

    For a while now, I have believed that one of the inevitable consequences of the sprawling social networks we see around today, would be niche networks. This is not something we don't see around already – in fact, most of the networks or users address it in their own ways – groups/pages on Facebook, LinkedIn, lists and cliques on Twitter.

    But I see niche networks as an evolutionary phase because currently, the popular networks seem to have been designed for mass, with features evolving when there was a demand – from the users or clients for more segregation. Users, because, sometimes even for the infovores, (apparently the term was the title of a book by Tyler Cowen – HT @uglybutbearable) the deluge of information without efficient filters meant that they were losing out on information they'd have liked to have, and businesses, because without more customisation options, social would just be another media/distribution platform. But social and mass seem to go intuitively together, so the usual way is to aggregate and then segregate.

    (Bonus: Great read on filtering by JP Rangaswami on his blog)

    However, there are many manifestations of niche networks that I can already see emerging. Ashton Kutcher, whom I'd consider a personality brand, has built his own custom Twitter app with the help of Ubermedia

    . A new service called MyCube, still in private beta, is offering users the ability to monetise their information. (via) Raptr, a social networking service for gamers is customising users' news streams extremely well using the information it has on its users. (via)

    The only commonality here is that all these seem to be moving away from a mass design to one that's meant for smaller/more specific user sets. Of course, the existing large networks can always figure a way for users themselves to be filters and recommend appropriate things to their own network, (eg. Facebook's new feature) but that's a rewiring.

    But I believe that the rise of the niche networks provides an excellent opportunity for brands to get into the thick of things and 'own' the domains they operate in. Nike+ has always been a favourite. I also think Toyota's approach to social networking, built with help from Salesforce is a good first step. The challenge, as always, will be to find ways of how a user need can be satisfied with a new offering that is synced enough with his familiar territory (existing networks) for his experience to be as frictionless as possible. If brands can do that well, they will have built something that's not utterly dependent on the vagaries of current and emerging media platforms.

    until next time, admoniche 🙂

    zp8497586rq

  • Services, Information, People

    Even as the first trailer of ‘The Social Network‘ was released last week, and even as fresh rounds of humour/angst on Facebook’s privacy algo (Google’s too) are unleashed regularly, I found that the amount of things I share on Facebook has vastly increased, though the time spent hasn’t increased in proportion. Its probably the ease of sharing information, the threaded conversations (none of my usual twitter clients have it) around the shared item, or the lack of (self imposed) constraints that my blogs suffer from, but photos, videos, comments and all sorts of content (my own as well as the ones I find) get shared on FB. Sometimes I even miss not being able to send a quick mail (where is Project Titan?!) to someone on FB from GMail (yes, I have FB friends who I don’t connect with on GTalk) In a recent interview, Mark Zuckerberg also shared his views on credits, and its portability. With search and location coming up as major initiatives, I wonder when my Facebook data will become portable.

    In this context, I saw the three kinds of webs (similar to the ones mentioned in the last post) and more that are almost seamlessly connected now – information, service and people. The need for filters in this information deluge is indeed pressing. While I do see some nifty tools that are being developed (eg. Pivot , Avoidr, specific search engines or even Twitter’s annotations) I sometimes wonder if it can ever catch up with the broadening scope of commonly used services. That’s also the reason why I think Facebook’s Open Graph search engine, which aims for social semantic search, is a big step, even while granting that not everyone’s on Facebook and their execution still has some way to go. Add to this privacy/security concerns (even Twitter was pulled up recently), and it does look complicated. Further layers like location will only add to this. And I wonder what new levels of complexity Google Me will bring. With each new service, the deluge of information increases, many times in the form of repetition, and our consumption changes.

    The increasing usage of these services has meant that the web of ‘friends’ have also increased. In my case, while FB consisted of only real friends earlier, in the last few months, the number of virtual friends – mostly from Twitter, have increased manifold. Since I don’t usually share anything on the web that I don’t want anyone to see, my problems with privacy have been limited. But as the amount of sharing increases, I realise there are things I share that could be taken out of context. There is also the fact that personal and professional lives are no longer silos. (Read) The other take out from the last point is that its not just communication from brands/services that need to be looked at closely, but people too.

    When the three webs are absolutely seamless, we will also see a shift in the kinds of relationship we have shared with brands, services and people. Facebook making payment for advertisers easier, sending me marketplace links, services making it easier for embedding ads, posts from my ‘friends’ plugging services/products with no disclosure, all work as signs for me. I do see a lot of work in setting up new ‘trading currencies’ and even different kinds of social networks (mobile phones – closed network ) and also note that the one factor that all the three entities need to keep in mind is trust. And that’s when I begin to wonder if similar systems are being developed for ‘sharing’ trust and whether they can keep pace with the deluge of information, services and people. Or maybe its already working under the radar – new services (endor.se), recommendations on LinkedIn, Twitter lists etc.

    until next time, SIP investments for mutual benefits 🙂