Technology Gets Accepted Faster and Faster
Posted: April 9, 2012 Filed under: technology | Tags: Adoption of Technology Leave a comment »Awesome graphic:
A cool graphic, and a fascinating development in how fast things have gotten adopted in the last 100 years. A solid commentary on the role and access to technology accompanies the graph over at the Atlantic.
News and Tech Survey: Pie Charts That Add up to Over 100 Percent
Posted: April 9, 2012 Filed under: Department of Digital, Department of News, Department of Print | Tags: future of newspapers Leave a comment »The question, from News and Tech’s 2012 Tech Survey, is “what trend or technology do you believe the newspaper industry can’t afford to ignore if it wants to remain viable?”
A bit confusing to read there, so here’s a better way to think about it: almost two-thirds of the respondents (based out of News & Tech’s industry-wide readers) said mobile can’t be ignored, while almost half went with the paywall answer. Intriguingly, I think the answer that was the lowest – becoming data-first or digital-first – is the most fascinating.
Destroying the New York Times Website
Posted: April 5, 2012 Filed under: Department of Digital | Tags: NYT Magazine Leave a comment »
With a game! It’s fun, and somebody in the comments had the same clever idea that I was going to joke about, but he executed it better:
The article is also a great read if you’re into social games and time wasting.
[The Space Between] Newspaper and “Online Publishing”
Posted: April 3, 2012 Filed under: Department of Digital, publishing Leave a comment »The more that we separate the idea of “media” into the different categories of where people publish it, and not its contents, the more we will continue to get charts like this:
Newspapers lost, Online Publishing gained. Great. Those aren’t that different in the job skills department.
Britannica: This is Truly, Madly, Deeply Not Wikipedia’s Fault
Posted: March 14, 2012 Filed under: Department of Digital Leave a comment »Perhaps it was SXSW fatigue, but what appeared the be the biggest story of the last few days happened far from Austin, Texas. The iconic Encyclopedia Britannica announced that it was foregoing a print copy of its volumes for the first time in two and a half centuries, focusing on online availability.
It is absurdly easy to blame Wikipedia.
It is absurdly far more difficult than that.
There are several arguments at hand as to the waning value of printed encyclopedia resources. Dan Lewis shone the spotlight on one part of that story (here’s his Storify), so I’m not going to go into the way the secondary resources game changed by way of digital CD-ROM driven guides like Encarta. The short version: what used to cost families monthly payments and a row of a mahogany bookshelf was now available for $50 and exponentially more detailed. It also had one feature you didn’t have before: search. The more information you have, the more insane alphabetical order is as a guide. Intuitive search and linking articles between each other changed how we researched.
The Wikipedia argument is also a nice crutch, but I could spend plenty of time debunking any validity concerns when it comes to data. Yes, Britannica was labeled as authoritative and earned that reputation over 240+ years, but to say that it lacks bias is patently inaccurate. Wikipedia may be peer-edited, but in a way it shows it’s biases a little more because primary resources must be linked in accordance to Wikipedia’s guidelines. The best articles on Wiki are those that include lots of back-up, and when it comes down to it, you can sort out the bias based on where the article points you.
What is really underlying this point is that user validation actually plays a part, and as both Wikipedia and Britannica are ultimately secondary sources, it is on the researcher to sort through the bias and confirm with primary information. Just because Wikipedia allows us to create pages for things that would never appear in a print encyclopedia (you know, like a far, far too detailed article on the history of Savage Garden’s “Truly, Madly, Deeply“), that doesn’t mean it’s any less valid as a secondary source. We still need to verify, and failing to do that with either print or online resources is a user error.
Facebook Timeline Apps: When it Comes to Health, it’s Fitness – For Now
Posted: January 24, 2012 Filed under: Department of Digital, social media | Tags: Facebook timeline Leave a comment »
Facebook’s quest on engagement and centering around activity and less around status updates from pages could mean that the power of apps that plug into the Timeline will be huge to actually getting people to do something. Last week’s announcement about Facebook’s new apps is important to keep an eye on based on who decides to get involved.
For me, I always look immediately to the health categories, and a very common trend among social media is present already. Flip through the categories and you’ll see the common denominator of news, music or other fun things to share (Food or Pinterest-like apps focused on Fashion and Shopping). I guess you could classify some of the food apps in the health category, but that’s stretching it.
What we do have, though, is the most social of the health category: fitness. Two competing apps (RunKeeper and MapMyFitness) are there to help you track fitness activities, connecting them with your friends and publishing them to your wall. Sociologically it all makes sense – those are things that you may share to show off an accomplishment or strive for moral support to hit a fitness goal. I’ve argued the social/peer pressure argument a lot in this context, and it certainly fits. They are also both solid apps (although I’ll admit I skew toward RunKeeper since it is Boston-based).
How do you take the other aspects of health beyond wellness and plug them into the timeline app feature? If apps are going to have a big impact on the Timeline and what appears in news feeds, getting involved in that avenue will be a clutch method of engagement. My gut is that the trajectory will next involve more social awareness/fundraising applications (Causes is also currently already a Timeline app), and turning that into health outlets for more public issues such as obesity or cancer research. Part of me wonders, though, what aspects of certain chronic conditions are (a) possible to track and (b) public enough that people actually would.
This one is definitely to be continued.
Chart of the Day: Your Tablet as the Evening News
Posted: January 23, 2012 Filed under: Department of Digital Leave a comment »I have thoughts on this, but even standing alone, it’s brilliant and makes a ton of sense: the tablet is fundamentally a reading/entertainment device. If you can connect a tablet app to some other primetime activity, perhaps there’d be something fascinating that could be done?
via PaidContent
Today in Commenting Irony
Posted: January 9, 2012 Filed under: Department of Digital Leave a comment »I could make a series out of comments like these, but this may be one of my all time favorites. From a post on THCB that is worthy to read on its own on health care and social media, this gem appeared in the commenting section:
I love when this stuff happens.
The Reddit Shark Jump May Be Coming
Posted: January 4, 2012 Filed under: Department of Digital | Tags: Reddit, SOPA Leave a comment »
Gawker’s post on this is far too good. From fighting GoDaddy’s stance on SOPA to then going after bigger game and everything that could happen by way of that, will Reddit outgrow its stay? Methinks this is right:
Stories like this will make “the power of the Reddit hive mind” an inescapable meme of the 2012 race—replacing the old and busted “power of social media” trope.
Stat of the Day: New Levels of YouTube Dislikitidue
Posted: December 8, 2011 Filed under: Department of Digital Leave a comment »
As of 12:45 ET on December 8, Rick Perry’s controversial campaign ad “Strong” has earned 181,393 dislikes and 3,916 likes over some 747,000 views (the Governor, in his wisdom, has not allowed comments). That’s almost 46 dislikes for every single person who liked the campaign, and an absurd 24.8 % engagement rate on the video.
In comparison, the nearly universally hated while loved “Friday” music video by Rebecca Black (on only its official post) clocks in at a measly 3.5 dislikes for every like and an engagement rate that is 3% (without comments) and 4.8% if you include the YouTube user free for all.
YouTube commenters would have had a field day with LBJ’s treatment of Barry Goldwater.
