SezWho.com Homepage

@, the at sign, started it’s career as a favorite amongst accountants. Then, in 1982 David Crocker wrote RFC 822, which defined that the lexical symbol “@” be present to separate the mailbox from the domain viz. person@domain.

During the 1.0 days, using an @ in a corporate brochure conveyed it’s online presence. To a large part the usage of @ was still in emails, until twitter was born 2 years ago. twitter’s @reply feature took away the symbol’s pull from the email. Now, we are seeing the people are increasingly using @ outside of twitter for calling out a conversation when threading is absent in a commenting system.

Take for example this slice of conversation from a blog:

The commenter in the above example _wants_ to talk directly to the other commenter except that the comments are laid out in single-dimension reverse chronological order.

We are noticing this new social behavior (mostly used by twitter users) where @ is being used to point to the conversation participants (eg. @anon_guy, I agree with @20, etc.). This is very popular practice amongst commenters in heavily commented blogs esp. on controversial topics where discussions sway in multiple directions. Is this a new social behavior? Does this new social behavior calls for a change in the way we see comments in the blogs? Is threading a requirement? Does threading invite more participation and 1:1 discussion between commenters within the realm of the larger topic which is the post itself? These are some interesting questions we are asking ourselves @least.

Our hat tip to Elisa, Jory, Lisa and all the other people involved in putting this conference together…Some fascinating insights from the speakers and from the data presented.  Check out some of the latest coverage from the show at the BlogHer blog.

Also check out this eye-opening finding that people trust social media content a lot because of its authenticity…

It looks like online conversations are important after all…Form the Does Chatter Matter? The Impact of User-Generated Content on Music post form the state of mind of art blog:

“We analyzed the usefulness of blogs and social networks, as well as reviews in
consumer, online media, and mainstream media, in predicting album sales in the four weeks before and after the album’s release date. We found that the most significant variable is blog chatter or the volume of blog posts on an album, with higher numbers of posts corresponding to higher sales.

Check it out…

Interesting piece - Web Video: Move Over, Amateurs - in BW about how quality is becoming more and more important for user generated content.

Amateur filmmakers hoping to win fame for amusing moments captured on camcorder ought to stick to TV’s long-running America’s Funniest Home Videos. These days they’re not getting much love on the Web.

One after another, online video sites that have long showcased such fare as skateboarding dogs and beer-drenched parties are scaling back their focus on user-generated clips, often in favor of professionally produced programming. “People would rather watch content that has production value than watch their neighbors in the garage,” says Matt Sanchez, co-founder and chief executive of VideoEgg, a company that provides Web video tools, ads, and advertising features for online video providers and Web application developers.

On Nov. 13 social networking site Bebo said it would open its pages to top media companies in hopes of luring and engaging viewers. “As more and more interesting content from major media brands becomes available, [online viewers] are going to share that more and more because those are the brands they identify with,” says Bebo President Joanna Shields.

Another site, ManiaTV, recently canceled its user-generated channels altogether (BusinessWeek.com, 10/22/07). The 3,000 user-generated channels simply didn’t pull in enough viewers, ManiaTV CEO Peter Hoskins says. Roughly 80% of people were watching the professional content produced by celebrities such as musician Dave Navarro and comedian Tom Green. “What we found out is, we don’t need the classical user-generated talent when we have the Hollywood talent that wants to work with us,” Hoskins says. Sony’s (SNE) Grouper in July relaunched as Crackle, sans user-generated content. Its only fare: professional-grade programming.

I think the deluge of user generated content has made finding quality content a priority for users. At the same time the distributed nature of the content means that its harder to find content by top producer to have a predictably good experience. This is going to be a key issue in the next few years.

Great piece by Jeremy Liew about now to make sense of all the user generated content. He explores 4 approaches prevalent right now:

Tagging is the first approach, and its use has been endemic to web 2.0. Sometimes the tagging is limited to the author of the content, and other times any user can add tags to create a folksonomy.

…

The second approach is to solicit structured data from users. Examples of sites that do this include wikihow (which breaks down each how to entry into sections such as Introduction, Steps, Tips, Warnings and Things You’ll Need), CitySearch (which asks you for Pros and Cons and for specific ratings on dimensions such as Late Night Dining, Prompt Seating, Service and Suitability for Kids) and Powerreviews (which powers product reviews at partner sites that prompt for Pros, Cons, Best Uses and User Descriptions, including both common responses as check boxes and a freeform text field with autocomplete).

…

The third approach to user generated data is the traditional approach to the Semantic Web. … Ideally, each web site creator would usa an agreed format to mark up the meaning of each statement made on the page, in a similar way that they mark up the presentation of each element of a webpage in HTML. In a subsequent article, Iskold also notes some of the challenges with a bottom up approach to building the Semantic web which can be summarized at a high level as “it’s too complicated” and “no one wants to do the work”.

The fourth approach to user generated structure is to build a central authority of meaning. Metaweb appears to be trying to do this with Freebase, a sort of “Wikipedia for structured data” which describes itself as follows:

…
There are clearly both advantages and disadvantages with a single authoritative source of user generated structured data; and criticisms similar to those leveled at Wikipedia (potential for systemic bias, false information, vandalism and lack of accountability could cause some data to be unreliable) could be leveled at Freebase. Wikipedia has combated these problems largely successfully through a robust community of Wikipedians - it isn’t clear if Freebase has yet developed a similar protective community.

I think all these approaches are important parts of the solution and so are other technologies like natural language processing, concept identification and extraction etc. Overall, there isn’t one approach that will address all the issues but its going to be a heady cocktail of a number of approaches and technologies. One thing is for sure though, search of meaning in the mountains of user generated content is a going to be profoundly important to the evolution of web 2.0.

Interesting piece in NYT about how BusinessWeek one of the more prestigious magazines is being redesigned to cater to ever more busy reader:

An arm smashes through a magician’s hat on the cover of the latest issue of BusinessWeek, highlighting an article about Bear Stearns’s inability to conjure a rabbit to fix its hedge funds. The image may be eye-catching, but some readers may be more arrested by the new logo for the magazine, which hits shelves today with an editorial redesign.
…
BusinessWeek, owned by the McGraw-Hill Companies, is looking for some magic of its own to raise circulation and keep advertisers interested. The Internet has hurt business magazines in particular, and the new BusinessWeek format — which includes more news summaries and fewer lifestyle articles — is meant to be more Weblike.

“We’re seeing a reader who is much busier than ever,” said Stephen J. Adler, editor in chief of BusinessWeek. “But if you really add tremendous value to the reader and they’re deeply engaged in the material, the broad premise is, that’s good for everyone: the consumer and the advertiser.”

While the traditaional media is following the path of the web, what should sites do to organize information better. All social media sites have been really hard to navigate as when users are producing content its really hard to figure out what is good and what is not…Anybody up to the challenge of going through all the comments on TechCrunch???

Interesting report by Laura Ramos of Forrester Research – “Marketing’s Role in B2B Blogging”, where Ms. Ramos touts the potential of corporate blogging as a “promising communication medium” capable of

• Increasing influence. Last year, 57% of business and IT professionals responding to a blog impact study rated blogs equally or more credible than information found in news outlets, industry publications, vendor white papers, analyst reports, and industry or professional associations.1 B2B bloggers understand that blog readership — and their ability to influence decision-makers — is on the rise (see Figure 1). So they create company blogs to build thought leadership and influence press, analysts, and investors.
• Creating new customer connections. Darren Wesemann, CTO for SunGard Financial Systems, explained how blogging allows him to influence not only prospects but also new contacts for current customers. Mr. Wesemann’s blog opens up issues for shared discussion and helps him synchronize SunGard’s architecture with that of its customers and service their needs better. This work paid off when one of his readers recently asked SunGard via the blog to submit a bid on a new system the customer had out for tender.
• Paying off big on a relatively minor investment. Blogging is dirt cheap compared with the cost of advertising, PR, and other mainstream marketing tactics. Moreover, B2B bloggers report that blogs can build trust, fuel publicity and word of mouth, and improve corporate intelligence. While short-term results are insubstantial, bloggers feel that blogs will improve brand perception, create more sales opportunities, and propagate new ideas in the long run.

She goes on to note that very few corporations have made the commitment to business blogging – “only 29 of the Fortune 500 show clear evidence of public-facing, business-oriented blogs”. Among the few firms which have adopted business blogging, the majority are still in the earliest stages. In fact, of the 16 blogs Forrester evaluated not one passed their usability tests. Specifically Forrester’s evaluators felt that the blogs

• Lack visibility as a company communications channel
• Favor technology and technical subjects but lack organization
• Struggle to sustain the conversation
• Can’t provide conclusive evidence of blog value
• Want consumer intimacy but don’t often get it

Clearly the most fundamental reason that corporate blogs are so underdeveloped is that they are still in their infancy, and over time organizations will add the usability and design features necessary to make them a useful marketing tool.

However, in order for corporate blogs to reach their true potential they will need to provide functionality beyond good layout and usability. The real power of the blog is its ability to engage an audience in multi-way interactive conversations and create an engaged online community.

Quality content must be easy to find verses the more common, less interesting content, in order for new users to become regular readers and ultimately active contributors. Readers should be able to evaluate, track and influence content without having to necessarily create it.

Blog contributors should be incentivized and rewarded for quality contributions. They should be given the opportunity to build a portable community reputation which will carry with them wherever they choose across the entire web.

Another piece on NYT talking about the conversational aspects of social media. Check it out here - its called “All-Stars of the Clever Riposte”.

DASHIV is in town and the celebration has not ceased.

Strange women are opening their apartments to him. Three parties have been given in his honor. His beer mug has been constantly refilled.

All hail DaShiv.

Who in the world is DaShiv?

Well, in one sense he is Bob Hsiao, a 28-year-old part-time wedding photographer from Berkeley, Calif., who does not have a girlfriend and lives with a roommate.

But thanks to a particular wrinkle of Internet culture, DaShiv is a star, an internationally famous portrait photographer, feted and fawned over during his 10-day visit to New York. This fame is not thanks to his own blog. He doesn’t have one. Nor has he scored big by creating a clever YouTube video or a flashy MySpace page.

DaShiv’s notoriety stems from the popularity of the comments and photos he posts on blogs run by other people.

There are those who have blogs. Then there are those who leave comments on other people’s blogs, sometimes lots and lots of comments, sometimes nasty, clever, brilliant, monumentally stupid or filthy comments.

Read the whole piece…It delves in how interesting the sub-culture of commenters is a huge part of the conversation.

NYT is now showing the user comments on the front page…This is great and shows a trend of recognizing the contributions of commenters on sites…Check it out here.

Interesting piece by Carl Bialik aka The Numbers Guy titled “Understanding How A Current Kids’ Flick Can Beat Out de Sica“. In the piece Carl examines a number of different ways rating systems operate online.

Compiling all of that information into a single ranking is a provocative numbers question. If the only two critics to rate Café Chris each awarded it the maximum five stars, while 100 diners rated its rival Dave’s Diner with an average of 4.8 stars, has Chris really surpassed Dave in culinary excellence? Or should we treat the much smaller number of voters for Chris — who could be Chris and his brother — with a grain of salt?

This raises a really good question…Are all ratings equal? And what does a rating really mean without some understanding of who the rater is? Let’s compare the situation to a real life scenario. Suppose a software engineer were to be recommended by Bill Gates and another one by somebody not as well know…Who would you hire?

Clearly the answer is that you will put more weight in a recommendation coming from Bill. You would justify putting higher weight on Bill’s recommendation by noting that Bill has better access and understanding of software talent and clearly has a lot more to lose in terms on his reputation by making careless recommendations.

But on the internet its hard to identify, who is who. This patina of anonymity forces sites to adopt hokey solutions like the IMDB

Internet Movie Database, the cinema site owned by Amazon.com, approaches its list of users’ favorite films in this way. A new release whose first two votes are enthusiastic doesn’t push it past “The Godfather.” Instead, IMDB assigns all new movies 1,300 votes with a rating of 6.7 — the average rating for all films listed on the site. Then each actual vote is added to those.

This is how “Umberto D.,” with an average user vote of 8.3, can rank at No. 242 of all time, while “Shrek” is 10 notches higher despite having an average user vote of just 8.0. “Shrek” wins because almost 30 times as many people have voted for it than for “Umberto D.,” adding more certainty to its acclaim.

This modified formula dates from the early days of IMDB, nearly a decade ago, managing editor Keith Simanton says. At first the site used a simple average, but “it wasn’t working out well,” he says. The current ratings system helps “to mitigate the fan-boy aspect.” In other words, two die-hard fans — such as the director and his mother — can’t easily game the ratings.

Another interesting problem here is the problem of context. What is the point of putting together a list of all time favorite movies on IMDb? Is the list intended to display the movies one should watch? If that is the case, a genre based organization might be more successful. In terms of ratings, such a classification would ensure that the fans of a particular genre, like animation movies, who tend to be excitable and a lot more comfortable with rating things online are not directly compared with fans of a different genre who might have different characteristics.

When applied to a specific context and where community credentials of a participant can be clearly established, a rating system can indeed produce results.

A similar approach underlies player rankings on Halo 3, the Xbox 360 title released two weeks ago that lets players in multiple locations join the same game online. The first day Microsoft released the futuristic war game, players joined a game 2.4 million times. Some were playing with friends, but others relied on the game’s matchmaking feature to find equally skilled strangers to compete against.

Microsoft uses a Bayesian formula similar to IMDB’s, called TrueSkill, to change players’ rankings slowly as they get more experience. After all, a single great result in a Halo 3 match could be the result of a fluke (your opponent gave up because an urgent offline need took her from the game) or a deliberate effort to game the system (your friend threw the game so you could gain rating points).

Getting the TrueSkill ranking right is crucial. “If there is a great disparity in skills between competing players, neither of them will have a lot of fun,” says Microsoft researcher Thore Graepel, who helped develop TrueSkill.

…

A new Halo 3 player who gets good quickly may have to wade through tiresome routs until TrueSkill catches up to his true skill. And IMDB users may not be able to discover highly regarded films that haven’t received enough votes to make the Top 250 chart, which in turn makes it hard for those films to get more attention and so more votes. Many other sites, such as the local-reviews site Yelp, keep it simple and just show average ratings.

While TrueSkill is clearly an important component of Halo 3, it also brings up the limitation of such context restrained interactions. Even though a user has skills playing video games and even has a great score in other games, Halo 3 still treats the user as a newbie who has to earn their reputations before playing at their true level. These kind of limitations are likely to force a number of good players to abandon the game in the course of ramping up.

This is the point I have to make a plug for SezWho :-)…We think we have a solution that does not have any of the limitations, identified above. It assigns proper weight to ratings based on reputation of rater, it rewards users for identifying themselves and handles context based translations across different social media (Blog, forums etc.) communities.