chieftech’s blog

Curation is the process by which aggregate data is imbued with personalised trust.

Good quote from JP.

Just a thought: Curation is not the same as creating content, in the way for example that a pro-blogger earns a living like any other advertising driven channel. So with that in mind, I wonder, can someone make a living (a job, a business, etc) from being a digital curator? Or is it something that is purely social and altruistic?

In other words, can we buy this kind of trust and are we willing to pay for it?

Over night I've had a chance to sit back and review the buzz about Google's Buzz (to avoid confusion with Yahoo! Buzz or any other social apps with 'buzz' in its name).

One thing I will say first off is that we know Google has an excellent track record overall with producing fast, usable, popular Web apps and services. There is no doubt in my mind that Gmail is in fact the best email client available* (yes, even better than any desktop client I've ever used). For example, why can't all email clients deal with meeting invites like Gmail? So, on the face of it, Gmail and Buzz looks like a great combination from a user experience perspective. The mobile client, experienced through my location aware iPhone, also feels good.

However, alas, these days I spend most of my time in a desktop mail client or my iPhone mail client, because I've got multiple mail boxes to manage (and no, I don't want to route them via Gmail). Unfortunately a lot of the really good stuff appears to take place in the client provided by Google... so are all those third-party developers going to be able to replicate that experience in the mailbox you are using instead?

This is quite a contrast to Twitter, with its generally minimalist approach that has seeded a great deal of innovation both in terms of software, but also how people have invented different ways of working around and within its constraints. Twitter works better for me as it sits separately from other identities - and in fact, using a desktop Twitter client I can manage multiple identities. I also have a slick iPhone app to go with it.

Google of course is placing emphasis on the power of analytics of overcome filter failure. However, as I signed up for Buzz via Gmail I felt it failed on the first hurdle. There was no one it suggested that I either wasn't already following some other way or didn't particularly want to follow anyway. Of course, that's just my experience. An opt in suggestion or expertise location is one thing, but scanning my Gmail address book and equating that to my socialgraph is, well, a major filter failure if you ask me.

I note that Dion Hinchcliffe wrote yesterday about the same issue and said:

"for hyperpersonal, in Buzz this is driven by underlying algorithms that filter and guide the user experience. Google’s VP of Engineering, Vic Gundotra, noted that Google’s insight into the early Web with the famousPage Rank algorithm drove their initial success. He went on to hint that they believe the same algorithmic insight into the Social Web will succeed with Buzz. Either way, Google has clearly used its competency in data and computation to attempt to one-up today’s online social networking services... I do think they’re generally on the right track here but the left brain approach to the Web that dominates Google’s product strategy tends to obscure the notion that social systems are also highly self-organizing and emergent.

To me, Google Buzz makes a lot of sense for people that do spend a time in Gmail and have lots of friends using Gmail and Google Chat. It will make a lot of sense if they are aiming, as they've hinted, at providing a corporate version as part of their enterprise apps offering (so, rather than Twitter being concerned, its the likes of Yammer and Social Cast that should keep an eye on Google in this instance).

If its going to fail, its because ironically it might be because its too clever for its own good.

*Ok, I admit it - its just the Ninja theme I love.

If we're building a public stage, we need to give people the ability to protect themselves, the ability to face the consequences honestly. We cannot hide behind rhetoric of how everyone is public just because everyone we know in our privileged circles is walking confidently into the public sphere and assuming no risk. And we can't justify our decisions as being simply about changing norms when the economic incentives are all around. I'm with Marshall on this one: Facebook's decision in an economic one, not a social norms one. And that scares the bejesus out of me.

People care deeply about privacy, especially those who are most at risk of the consequences of losing it. Let us not forget about them. It kills me when the bottom line justifies social oppression. Is that really what the social media industry is about?

Danah Boyd makes an important point about the relationship between privacy and privilege - its fills a nagging doubt I have had about social networks and privacy. I always think about the story of the 16 year old, who was sacked for complaining about being bored at work. Her comments might well have been wrong, but her treatment is a stark contrast to people in other public positions who have been caught out doing things that are far worse or when dubious aspects of the private life have come to light. The social Web isn't always as egalitarian as we might think.

BTW Its a real shame we can't get more intelligent commentary from the traditional media, but instead they prefer to be fuel FUD about this topic.

UPDATE: Another interesting post around this topic is from Stowe Boyd, who talks about Secrecy, Privacy and Publicy.

Hmm. I'm trying to work the significance of this research (if any). However, more data is good, right?

I can't but help think that their perspective is all wrong, rather than anything else. I get the impression that social networking and social media is thought as something out there beyond the walls of the organisation, rather than something that is in fact everywhere. Does this explain why they are surprised that these tools are being used for collaboration within and between organisation, not just between companies and their customers?

Their main conclusion is the "need for stronger governance and IT involvement", but again I wonder if in fact what they mean is that these new technologies have a broader impact beyond marketing and therefore need involvement from across the organisation to determine how to best integrate them into business as usual.

I come back again to the Headshift/Dachis Group's Social Business Design model - focusing on governance and IT involvement is just a symptom, when what is needed is new perspectives to management.

Hat tip to Oliver.

This Pew Internet Personal Networks and Community survey is the first ever that examines the role of the internet and cell phones in the way that people interact with those in their core social network. Our key findings challenge previous research and commonplace fears about the harmful social impact of new technology

Well worth reading. Its just shows that our relationship with technology is often a lot more complex that it first appears.

Who needs OtherInbox?

Anyone who can't keep up with their email

OtherInbox is great for people who shop online, interact with friends on social networking sites, subscribe to mailing lists and newsletters, try new software and websites, and more. It’s even perfect for recruiters listing job openings or real-estate agents with properties for sale.

This sounds really, really good! While I try to use RSS as much as possible, I still find social networking and social media notifications waste a lot of time and space in my inboxes.

But I'm not sure I want to hand over my email password. And I'm sure corporate IT managers are going to really love this once they bring in support for Outlook, POP and IMAP mail services.

Thoughts?