Excellent discussion this week on The Long Tail, so my thanks to Caitie and Tracy for leading us,
and shame on those who missed it.
To extend and continue the discussion, I would like us to focus on smart filters, which were a major theme of the second part of the book, and the many ways in which content is being filtered online. The book mentioned several:
- taxonomies and folksonomies (and they are not the same thing)
- pattern matching
- collaborative filtering (wisdom of the crowd)
- word-of-mouth (word-of-mouse) and other recommendation systems
- bottom-up buzz (another term for word-of-mouse)
- tagging
To illustrate the power of tagging and of folksonomies, I’d like to use Caitie’s experience buying her copy of The Long Tail at the local Barnes & Noble, a story she related in the discussion. She walked into the store, which has a layout by topic determined by “experts” (as opposed to a folksonomy, regular folk). She went to section after section looking for the book before breaking down and asking a human, a store representative. Though humans are flawed, this one knew to direct Caitie to “economics,” one of the last sections in the store Caitie said she would have thought to look. This is Old World. Let’s step into the New World, that of long tails, smart filters, collaborative filters and of the tagosphere.
Caitie goes online, where hundreds of Digital Communication alum have purchased Anderson’s book in the past, tagging it with terms like “digital communication,” “Anderson,” “WIRED” and “Dr. Carroll’s favorite book.” These tags lead Caitie in one click to a page from which she can “BUY” a copy of The Long Tail. Before she clicks, however, she sees a scroll of reviews of the book, a discussion among peers, or “tastemakers,” about its merits and its limits and a link to a free chapter for her to sample if she wishes before plunking down the money.
My questions, then, for expanding our discussion, are these:
From the book, p. 98: “Peers trust peers. Top-down messaging is losing traction, while bottom-up buzz is gaining power.” For buying books and music, this is great. What about for news? Can peer-to-peer folksonomies really helps us when it comes to news? Artifacts here would include Digg and De.li.cio.us. What are some of the implications of folksonomies in news and news consumption?
Second, relating to a sub-theme of our talk this morning, how much privacy are you willing to surrender to get these ever-smarter recommendations? At what point does the “creep out” factor kick in, motivating you to opt out of whatever environment (Facebook) or service (Netflix or Amazon)?
February 15, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
Ithink that folksonomies work to some extend for news, but certainly have their drawbacks and negative connotations. They are good because they help people find news relevant to their interests tagged by others with their same news values. However, folksonomy also poses the risk that people will be linked to trivial news and completely miss the major events like news regarding the Iraq War, the economy, presidential elections, etc because they are only interested in reading about their narrow field of interest.
As for privacy and ever-smarter recommendations, I have a relatively low tolerance for privacy invasion in terms of software watching and recording my every move. I would rather stumble upon something myself, however long that may take, than have a piece of software tell me what I want based on “spy data”. If smart recommendations ever become flawless, or close, I’m out. The inaccurate recommendations show me that at least the software hasn’t learned so much about me that it can stay one jump ahead of my every thought, whim, or desire. Besides, I thrive more off of the “porcelain Superman” method of discovering content that on the smart recommendation method.
A large portion of the population, however, has an exponentially greater tolerance for filters than I do. As such, the “creep out” factor for many people may come when it’s too late to disentagle yourself from “Big Brother” in a Long Tail sense. Many people are surprisingly apathetic about their online presence and security which I feel may let these recommendation systems get way out of control.
February 16, 2008 at 10:29 am |
“spy data” … “porcelain Superman method” … “creep out factor” >> I like these terms. We’re developing our own class vocabulary.
And I’m gratified to see a student thoughtfully concerned about privacy issues and aware of the tradeoff for all this “smartness” and convenience. We, as a society, should be a bit more deliberate before giving away so much about ourselves for a few cents off a gallon of milk at Kroger or “one-click” buying convenience at Amazon. And we haven’t even talked yet of biometrics.
I readily see the negative dimensions of relying on folksonomies for news, and they include what Caitie has described. I don’t know if I understand what the negative connotations are, however. I’d like to hear more about that.
February 17, 2008 at 1:32 pm |
In my opinion, peer-to-peer folksonomies are a good way to narrow down what news someone would personally be interested in reading or watching, and even to “tease” someone into reading information that they may not have been looking for, but would still interest them. However, there are so many news items that would be considered “similar” to a specific topic that someone may receive frequent recommendations to news that is similar to what they are looking for but they wouldn’t be exactly what they wanted to know. But, on a more positive note, I also think it’s a creative way to link people together who have the same interest in materials. I mean, isn’t that what people want? To know that there are other people out there who share their interests?
However, when it comes to the privacy issue, I agree with Caitie. I think it is a little creepy to know that searching for data could be that infallible. Humans would probably say that having access to a system that knows exactly what they want would be ideal, but if a system was constantly correct in everything you were looking for, I think people might start to be afraid of how “smart” the web can be. I probably would not post so much about my own interests on facebook. However, if it weren’t for these “smart recommendations” our lazy world probably wouldn’t know what to do with itself. It really is nice to have so much assistance in any search you make, so I don’t think many people would sacrifice the information they have at their fingertips for a little more privacy. I might sacrifice a little more, but that’s just “old fashioned” me.
February 17, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
I think peer-to-peer folksonomies have the potential to allow people to go deeper into the news they receive. Key words could help people dig a little to gain more of an understanding. I just found out from Digg that a ballot in Florida incorrectly spelled Barack Obama’s name on a ballot. I wouldn’t have otherwise known or cared, but it appeared on Digg. I think that is what Digg and de.li.cio.us. are good for- pointing people to news they otherwise wouldn’t have known or cared about. Is it important that I know that Barack Obama’s name was misspelled? No, but it’s slightly interesting and amusing. But, maybe after reading about this incident, I’ll go click on something about Obama that might be important to know.
Facebook creeps me out much less than Amazon does, just because I can somewhat control the privacy settings and what inforation I actually allow people to see. I don’t like the “One Click” feature on Amazon that allows you to buy something with, surprise, one click, without re-entering ANY information. I would much rather go through a long process than 1. Have my info sitting there or 2. Accidently buy something I don’t want (actually happened…)
February 17, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
I think folksonomy is beneficial for certain news stories, but I wouldn’t give the news completely into the hands of my cyber-peers. I agree with Catie when she writes that folksonomy runs the risk of leading people away from major news stories. However, for lighter news stories I think folksonomy would be quite useful: For instance, when I do research for my Forensics speeches and try to find currant news articles pertaining to my topic. I just wrote a speech about zebrafish: a news site might have a general article under science or technology but I’m specifically looking for the advantages of zebrafish over lab rats. If some zebrafish fan were out there, and had read and tagged an article because he or she recognized zebrafish’s usefulness, that would have saved me a lot skimming over other less relevant articles. Even though only someone who has researched zebrafish would care about that news article I still would have benefited.
I was both impressed and bothered by the “spy data” I read about pertaining to music online. I’m a big fan of Pandora and have found a lot of new music thanks to their recommendations, but now it just seems kind of creepy. I’m not as concerned with Facebook since their advertisements have yet to appeal to my tastes (on the surface, at least, it doesn’t seem like they’re paying too much attention to my profile). Disney Land is about open a new House of the Future with closets that recommend clothes and counter tops that recommends recipes. It would seem, if we are to believe the imagineers of Disney, that these recommendations are only going to become more advanced and more a part of our lives. Yes, it’s a bit more disturbing when this information is online rather than contained within our own homes, but, like Catie said, we’re still missing out on the porcelain Superman…though I don’t plan to stop using Pandora any time soon.
February 17, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
Someone — I believe it was Elizabeth — mentioned a recent article in the New York Times about how difficult (really impossible) to delete your profile in Facebook and, as a result, some of the problems this might cause later in life, when the expressions during college years no longer represent (or worse) how you feel or who you are. I wanted to link to that article (and have above), but along the way stumbled across an update in the Times detailing Facebook’s recent efforts and pledges for more efforts to ameliorate this permanence problem.
Facebook announced just after the Times story ran that it was making changes to facilitate deletions of profiles and private information. Previously it has been possible only to “deactivate” your profile.
I bring it up because a few of you are more skeptical of the smart filter recommendations provided by e-merchants like Amazon and Pandora, which are generated entirely by computer algorithms (no humans involved) than by Facebook’s ownership of so much of your private data. I’d like to hear more about this, because I would be much more suspicious of Facebook than general merchants online merely trying to array their product more in line with what you want, with what you’ve purchased in the past. Anyone?
February 17, 2008 at 6:04 pm |
At least in this decade I’m far more concerned about what Facebook can do with personal information placed in its lap, than what Amazon and its super computers are doing. After seeing the interview with Zuckerman, I’m even more skeptical of what they do. The things that people are willing to disclose and reveal on Facebook is crazy. In some ways they deserve everything that they Facebook can lay on them when they give away such personal info.
Now on to the original question…I am far more attracted to the news that comes from media outlets that I can trust. The questions and opinions raised in my mind from alternative news sources often send me back to safe outlets (although I’m kind of skeptical of NYTimes presidential coverage, but that’s another topic). Digg and de.li.cio.us are useful in their own right, but so much of the info presented fall into the “waste of time” category. If the pillars of news gathering and distribution disappear, we wil be in trouble. Things will crumble.
February 17, 2008 at 6:33 pm |
To the preference for news from sources we trust as opposed to sources we merely know or are familiar with (peer-to-peer), I bring up a study done by I believe MIT that revealed that most people most trust news passed along to them or ordered for them by friends, by peers. Editors were something like No. 4 or 5 on the list, after computer algorithms like GoogleNews and a few other sources. It shocked and dismayed me.
I cannot help wonder then how peculiar we are in Communication and especially those of us in journalism. We aren’t normal, is my point, at least in regards to knowing how information is gathered, checked, checked again, edited and reported. We come to the question a bit differently than does the general public, which seemingly has a higher threshold for “waste of time” category news and information. I risk condescension, one of the greater journalistic sins, but it seems to be true. What do you all think?
February 17, 2008 at 6:42 pm |
As far as privacy goes, I think privacy is a bigger issue when the misuse of the information could actually be used for harm. If five years from now, Pandora released the fact that I liked Jack Johnson a lot, then who really cares. On the other hand, if five years from now, Facebook released a post on my wall that involved embarrassing information, then I would have a lot more reason to care. Trusting someone with information that is more about who you are and what you have done than about what your preferences are in books, milk or music takes a much bigger leap of faith, or lack of concern.
Personally, I don’t really use Digg or de.li.dio.us, but rely on more traditional news outlets, like the NYTimes. I prefer the standard news outlets, because they provide what is ideally a more whole and comprehensive effort at presenting the news. When you are relying on the targeted “peephole” vantage points of many different people, you run the risk of missing certain areas of information completely.
February 17, 2008 at 6:49 pm |
The idea of “folksonomies” isn’t really a new one (although the word might be), is it? People have been sharing news word-of-mouth for years. Today, people are able to share the to share news in, essentially, the same fashion and society is carrying on a tradition of conveying what stories they deem newsworthy. (On the note of what constitutes “news,” sites such as Digg and de.li.cio.us are good for lighter news–or what I would consider lighter news–while the traditional news sources are the ones I turn to for “hard news.”)
I agree with Amanda P. about not having to re-enter information and having it sit there. Identity theft (or something along those lines) is a much bigger threat to me than the privacy settings I can control with something like, oh say, Facebook.
February 17, 2008 at 7:31 pm |
The role of folksonomies is not new, true, but its application and technology are entirely new, with incredible implications for news providers online. From Wikipedia, a definition of folksonomy, so we know what we’re referring to (I can tell from the posts that we don’t, though Anderson takes some pains to make it clear and specific):
“Folksonomy (also known as collaborative tagging, social classification, social indexing, and social tagging) is the practice and method of collaboratively creating and managing tags to annotate and categorize content. In contrast to traditional subject indexing, metadata is not only generated by experts but also by creators and consumers of the content. Usually, freely chosen keywords are used instead of a controlled vocabulary.”
“Folksonomies became popular on the Web around 2004 with social software applications such as social bookmarking or annotating photographs. Websites that support tagging and the principle of folksonomy are referred to in the context of Web 2.0 because participation is very easy and tagging data is used in new ways to find information.”
February 17, 2008 at 8:46 pm |
I’m completely freaked out about Facebook saving people’s deactivated profile for when/if they decide to get back on the site. It’s creepy to know that no matter what, somewhere out there that information is available. When we put our information on a site like Facebook we really are giving up our privacy rights, sometimes without even knowing to what extent. I think people are starting to realize this more (myself included) and it gets us thinking about what we really want the world to know about us.
On the subject of filters, I agree that once they are always accurate it will be creepy. But I think that we’re growing so dependent on the Internet that eventually it won’t make a difference. We’re being told now to be careful about what we post online, but a lot of people don’t care and post whatever they want. We’re always going to rely on the Internet to help us find things at this point. I think a lot of that is the laziness it creates in us.
February 17, 2008 at 11:55 pm |
From my limited experience of Digg and De.li.cio.us, it seems like a neat way to find information that I might not otherwise stumble across. However, I think it’s easier to get lost in trivial information than if I was looking at, say, the news section of the NY times. With Digg and De.li.cious.us, we can look at see down to the moment what is interesting to the internet using public. And as I mentioned in my last blog comment, the internet allows people to now have more say as to what the issues of the day are, whether trivial or important.
By using “folksonomies” to tag news items, people are able to more easily search for what they are interested in because this technology allows more than just a small number of people to decide how a news item is found. I think it’s a neat way to connect people with more information that they are interested in.
February 18, 2008 at 12:04 am |
First, my apologies to Caitie and Tracy for missing out on the discussion on Friday. In regards to what Dr. Carroll said: “a study done by I believe MIT that revealed that most people most trust news passed along to them or ordered for them by friends, by peers”- I find this, at least in my personal life, to be very true. At the beginning of the year, I listed one of my most trusted news sources as my sister, Sarah. While I receive one or two emails a day from NYT will all of the headlines, I receive from my sister about 15 emails linked to news and blog articles that, as she knows, I would inevitably find interesting or worth my time. This is a huge factor into what news I read, and it’s a perfect filter for me: she surfs the web, news sites, blogs, and passes on to me only what is relevant. This is what is so attractive about folksonomies- the people have have to the time to weave through and label all of the information out there make the search shorter and easier for people like me, who have little to no time. There are, of course, concerns about different words used as labels, that it’s all subjective and there is no formally approved ‘vocabulary’. But in my mind, with a little searching, a person would be able to find one or two of these new kinds of gatekeepers whose results coincide enough with personal preference as to make the use of these folksonomies worth it.
This isn’t to say that the big news outlets, such as NYT, and the emails I receive from them everyday aren’t important. We need these traditional news outlets to provide the information through which we sift. Our new internet roles are more along the lines of personal “editors”, but we will always have a demand for the “hard” news to provide the meat of our self-made, ground up folkonomies.
February 18, 2008 at 12:43 am |
It seems to me that most people agree that we all trust peer review sites and that we do not want to give up too much information to make the smart filters “smarter”. I am one more that agrees with this. Though I only trust peer reviews when it comes to product reviews, because most of the time it is just user feedback and helps me create an opinion on which product best serves my needs. I would not trust a generic peer review when it comes to news though, because those who express their feelings about articles usually have an agenda of some sort. I would rather go to several news sites that I have come to trust and browse among the headlines and read the articles that appear to be interesting.
February 18, 2008 at 12:51 am |
Like many of my classmates, I have limited experience with Digg and until this class, was unaware of De.li.cio.us.
I do find it incredibly fascinating as a means of passing on and finding “interesting” artifacts on the web. Strangely enough, after visiting the digg homepage I managed to spend half an hour reading the tagged stories, none of which held any type of personal significance or news value. In my opinion, I have to agree with Stephen’s assessment that most of the info packaged and tagged on sites like digg and De.li.cio.us fit into the “waste of time” category, which sends me looking for other news outlets.
As for Facebook, I spent a few minutes reading through the Privacy Policy (as I did not read it when initially signing up) and actually was quite startled with the amount of information that is taken from what is posted and sent to third parties. So I would have to say that my creep out factor has been kicked into overdrive, as now I will seriously consider what I add or have tagged to my name.
February 18, 2008 at 1:13 am |
Digg and De.li.cio.us do seem like good concepts but they seem a bit trivial to me. To Amanda Powers post it is interesting about the mis spelling on the ballot however not exactly the most important news on the table right now. I just don’t really necessary to have news filtered, it is already filtered by big news organizations and I would rather get my information from them.
Facebook does creep me out a lot. Actually the mere fact that web space keeps information is creepy to me. This stuff is tied up with our names and it will be forever. I am seriously considering changing my Facebook a lot. But I guess it won’t matter much. The old stuff will stay with me… I think there is just too much personal info on there, and how private is our privacy really?
February 18, 2008 at 1:42 am |
One of ideas I like best from reading what people have said was posted by katie landry. I think she really hits the ‘nail on the head’ when she says it doesn’t matter to her whether or not someone finds out she likes a certain Jack Johnson song, but she does mind the more personal information that is put on facebook being passed along. I feel the same way. I don’t think a company knowing what books I am buying matters that much, but when it comes to how I am seen by other people I do care. I feel like I have done a fairly good job on facebook of keeping myself anonymous when it comes to a lot of personal details about my life. The information I put up is information that most friends would know already. David made a big deal out of my “relationship status” on facebook. However, I only allow people I know on some level to view my profile, so anyone that would be looking at my profile would know that I am not actually married to my friend Emilee. And, if someone (like a prospective employer) did happen to see my profile and was offended merely by the fact that I might be in a relationship with another woman, then they are not the kind of person I would want to be employed by anyway. I hope that when people are judging my character it is because they have taken some time to know me outside of a self-created webpage.
Off of that tangent… I don’t mind the concept of folksonomies, but I also appreciate the importance of “porcelain superman” moments. If everything you experience in life is merely generated by the recommendations of others life would be much less exciting. True randomness adds much beauty to life.
I guess the moral of all this is go ahead, recommend away, but don’t sell off pieces of my soul.
February 18, 2008 at 2:33 am |
I love random. I love trivial. So I appreciate folksonomies, but I also love news, being aware of the world around me so I appreciate NY Times and other harder news sites. Mostly I like to mix them together; I find random, trivial stories and then run searches on NY Times to see similar stories but with a bigger scope. I find a hard-hitting story in the headlines, and then I want to go see what trivial stories are related.
In this mix, tagging is very useful; it saves me time searching for those “waste of time” stories. Ironic, isn’t it? Related to privacy, what is tagged to me? I agree that most people don’t know or don’t care about these increasingly accurate recommendation systems and when they do it will be too late. But who’s to say the government won’t be recording all our cell phone conversations then? In a vote of being creeped out, I raise my hand.
February 18, 2008 at 8:32 am |
I think the trend is definitely true that people are starting to trust your every-day user/commenter more than an expert when making consumer and even news decisions. Perhaps they simply can relate to someone like them. Companies like Google who are using every-day users to tag photos and information are succeeding simply due to this fact. While I myself wouldn’t agree to such a task for no charge, props to those who do and much thanks for improving my search results.
As far as the “creep out” factor goes, it seems to be individually based, but I also see a trend with generations. The least trusting seem to be our parents and grandparents, who spent most of their lives without things like eBay. Next comes my generation, who still flock to Facebook and MySpace, but make use of the privacy settings. Finally comes my sister’s generation (current high school/middle schoolers). Not only do they flock to these environments, they trust them with all sorts of information (cell phone numbers, etc.). I think as time passes we’ll be able to tell if it is simply an age-based concern, or if it really is generation-based. To sum up my opinion, Amanda Powers once said in an article in the Carrier, “MySpace is like the shady part of downtown that you don’t want to go after dark.”