Kent is still looking for conversation. It’s funny because I’ve commented and linked to him numerous times, here and at Everybuddy and have never gotten any feedback.

I must be boring, too.

Well, one thing is for sure, he can’t claim I’m in it for the money. ; )

Yeah right. I predict this blog will make me rich. Check back in a year or so.

In fact, I predict anyone who has tagged a post ‘OPML’ in the last two weeks will be rich very soon.
Check back in a year or so.

No Comments »

Jeneane Sessum with some thought-proking ideas about Attention.

. . .anyone concerned with what you’re paying attention to is out to make money off of you. Trying to paint attention monitoring or tracking or trust or what have you as anything other than that is dishonest.

Hmmm. . .

I think there are exceptions, though rare.

But there are also differences in the way people make money off of their customers.

Providing a valuable service is a lot different than war-profiteering, no?

Thanks to Kent Newsome for the link.

No Comments »

Probably not something the whole world will rush out and buy but Kent Newsome showcases a neat USB turntable nonetheless.

No Comments »

Newsome counters a Jarvis post on Social Networks by saying he is singing to the choir :

As as far as niches go- the entire blogosphere is a niche. The tech blogosphere, where most of us hang out, would be a sub niche. A niche inside a sub-niche is not a niche. It’s a clique. That’s a quotable excerpt that will almost certainly not make its way up the mountain.

I don’t normally subscribe to the A-List argument, but it is true that, as in life, there are cliques in Social Networks.

Some are more enviable than others and some are more open to outside input than others.

But Kent has been linked to nearly a thousand times and I see Doc Searls and Dave Winer in that group.

Between both of my blogs, I’ve been linked to about one-tenth of that amount and linkers have included Jarvis, Searls and Winer.

I think they are doing an excellent job.

So is small the new big?

Yes, but look at it this way. I think it compliments Jarvis’s Law of Open Networks.
The Law of Network Fluidity: The number of working affinity groups within a social network should increase proportionately with its number of nodes. All nodes must be able to freely pass into and out of existing and new affinity groups.

If not, then you may have an A-list syndrome.One last point of clarity. I do not mean that a network cannot have a private or exclusive group. Just that there is no unintentional blockage that might signify a network design flaw or central control.

No Comments »

Kent, Kent, Kent!! I love ya buddy but slow down here , I think.

And Tom Morris concurs, I think.

I suppose by linking to them , I can’t also support the idea of gestures, but I don’t think that’s the case.

I’ll just put one half-baked thought out there for now. The discussion really needs a podcast, and I’m trying to get motivated on that one OPML gang. I’m just busy.

Links are dead. Long live Links.

Right, now links are the king of how we get information. Google PageRank, Technorati rank, etc.

Okay we agree.

But wait. We filter out Spam Blogs and SEO sharks so that we get better results.

But wait. We add context and history and dare I say “Attention” data to get better results.

But wait. We add the wisdom of the crowd to get better results.

There is so much additional metadata that is, could be, and will be added to the tools we use to get and give information, that you must at least agree the link is overrated.

As I’ve said before. If I write a good post reviewing a new cell phone and engadget writes nonsense and mentions that same phone, who do you think will show up higher in a Google search.

That indicates a system that is broken. But it doesn’t yet want to fix itself, because links are the basis of it’s economy.

Now, you may have heard about Google’s talk about pay-per-action as opposed to pay-per-click.

In that case, the point isn’t to get as many click-throughs as possible, but to entice the right person through the door. One who has the right intentions.

The way you do that is by examining what they have been paying attention to and what gestures they have implied.

I agree all of this can be rather silly sounding, but I have one real example that I gave to Steve Gillmor. and maybe you think this is as ridiculous as Scoble’s example (I’m not linking).

It’s happy hour and a local pub wants to draw a crowd in with a beer special.

You’ve been a patron there before and payed with your GoogleWallet. They know you like Guiness.
Fine, send out a text message to all who bought Guiness in the last year during the hours of 5 to 8, offering a free cascading treat.

But wait. The web service polls for my geocode and realizes my cell phone is in Austin, Texas.

I have just made a implicit negative gesture that I don’t want that message.

Damn, and I was thirsty.

A link is one of the most useful tools we have in the bag right now., but it doesn’t always have to be that way.

Me, I’m counting on the teleport to be the winner.

“Kosso had 500 people teleport to the RSS platform. Must be a an authority Flissl!” ; )

Don’t bother filing a patent on Pay-Per-Teleport. I already did.

No Comments »