von Roland Hachmann | Dez. 4, 2006 | Blog, Digital Culture, Digital News
TechCrunch writes about Boo.com launching again. Weren’t they the ones that „started“ the burst of the first bubble in 2000/2001?
In 1999 Boo.com, a fashion retail site, burnt through $120 million in six months […] Founded by Ernst Malmsten, Kajsa Leander and Patrik Hedelin, Boo.com’s largest backer was Omnia, a fund backed by members of Lebanon’s wealthy Hariri family, which put nearly $40 million into the company. Over 400 staff and contractors were made redundant when Boo went into receivership in May 2000.
Is it good or bad, if they come back? Not sure, but you better watch out 😉
(hat tip)
von Roland Hachmann | Dez. 4, 2006 | Blog, Digital Culture, Social Media Marketing
I have been into this discussion of Serendipity and Homophily for a while. I consider this an extremely interesting topic that arises with all the discussion about how digital changes information usage and value. But also personal surroundings, user behaviour, group thinking, etc. Some time ago I found an interesting post: O’Reilly Radar „Homophily in Social Software“
In short, you hang out with people who are like you, a phenomenon known as homophily. This happens online, and indeed the Internet can lower the costs of finding people like you. But homophily raises the question for social software designers of how much they should encourage homophily and how much they want to mix it up.
So the internet is – according to this sofar – the main cause of homophily:
It’s often been asked whether this filtering just encourages people to see the news that supports their prejudices and never see news that counters them.
I don’t think so. There are tips of how you can avoid that and provide more serendipity:
Doing this creates serendipity: pleasantly surprising the user. For example, don’t show just the top 10 most similar items in your recommendations list, but show the eight most similar and two from the mid-range. Or call the „less relevant but also likely to be interesting“ results out like you’re advertising them: put a heading like „Take a walk on the wild side“ or „Break out“ on top and act like it’s a feature you’re offering, not a bug you’re fixing.
I think that most platforms will do that quite well. Purely, because people are too different to have too many alike recommendations. There will always be people who add new input to the recommendation system. And secondly, this variable increase, the more likes&dislikes from other parts of life are taken into consideration. If you shop at amazon for books, but the recommendation system takes your preferences for food into account when offering books, you get to see books from people who enjoy the same type of food and read books you might never have heard or thought of…
However, just to make this complete: TechDirt doesn’t believe in technical recommendation systems, though.
And read/write web has an interview with the chief architect StumbleUpon, one of the major „serendipity engines“, if you like.
von Roland Hachmann | Dez. 3, 2006 | Blog, Digital Culture, Digital News, Social Media Marketing
An interesting post by Chiara Fox, a senior information architect on tagging vs. cataloging.
Tagging differs from traditional cataloging in a number of ways. First, tagging no longer belongs solely to the world of librarians and indexers: now anyone can tag and describe assets. And not only is it possible for any user to apply a tag, but in some systems (such as Flickr), users can even add tags to other peoples’ assets.
It’s nothing groundbreaking new, but a good summary of folksonomies vs taxonomies. My favourite quote:
tagging has brought metadata to the masses
von Roland Hachmann | Dez. 2, 2006 | Blog
Business 2.0 asked 50 influential people How to Succeed in 2007.
A few outtakes I enjoyed:
None of these sound like they’re especially relevant for only 2007, but that’s why I enjoy them even more.
von Roland Hachmann | Nov. 28, 2006 | Blog, Digital Culture, Digital News
PSFK lists the top 10 Viral Videos, at least according to the Times Online.
They are:
1 Star Wars Kid (viewed 900 million times)
2 Numa Numa (700m)
3 One Night in Paris (400m)
4 Kylie Minogue: Agent Provocateur (360m)
5 Exploding Whale (350m)
6 John West Salmon Bear Fight (300m)
7 Trojan Games (300m)
8 Kolla2001 (200m)
9 AfroNinja (80m)
10 The Shining Redux (50m)
I must admit I hadn’t seen most of these. And I just wonder, how „The Viral Factory“ measured these figures?
Interesting is one reaction of TV companies:
Television companies, losing viewers to the net, are now launching channels to show “viral videos�.
And apparently they need to react, since:
A BBC Online survey has found that the online video craze is eating into the time that young people spend watching television, with 43 per cent of those who watch video from the internet or on a mobile device at least once a week saying they now watch less normal television as a result.
von Roland Hachmann | Nov. 27, 2006 | Blog, Online Advertising
A nice online ad idea can be found at the Sloganmaker Blog:
Hit the pedal and enjoy. Wonder how they did it?
von Roland Hachmann | Nov. 26, 2006 | Blog, Digital Culture, Digital News, Online Advertising
I haven’t done this in a while, since I prefer proper Blogposts to link lists, but here is a bullet point list of articles about „web 3.0“:
- Robert Scoble writes about Bill Gates and the fact that Bill Gates thinks we’re again in some sort of bubble. Also providing his own view why he thinks that this is not necessarily true.
- Dan Farber from ZDNet also thinks that Web 3.0 is bubbling up. And it will be the Semantic Web.
- The NY Times Article announces Web 3.0 and is seemingly widely discussed. If anything, there is one interesting point:
In its current state, the Web is often described as being in the Lego phase, with all of its different parts capable of connecting to one another. Those who envision the next phase, Web 3.0, see it as an era when machines will start to do seemingly intelligent things.
- Ross Mayfield says there is no „Web 3.0“ and calls it a Marketing Desaster.
It is about the semantic web, which is fine, generally speaking. But I just think there is too much future-hype in this. Web 2.0 hasn’t even happened for the average Joe-on-the-Web. It’s entertainning to think about how „Web 3.0“ will look like, but let’s still focus on Web 2.0 for now, ok?