Jakob Nielsen’s Web 1.0 post today sends lots of gestures:
1. Don’t do quick posts like Scoble.
2. Don’t risk being an idiot like Scoble.
3. Don’t put comments on your idiocy like Scoble.
4. Don’t link to other idiots like Scoble.
5. If you want to seem like you know something, unlike Scoble, write long ass white papers with lots of charts.
6. Don’t have fun like that idiot Scoble.
7. Don’t you dare put pictures of cats or babies or other personal details up like Scoble does.
8. Don’t add Web 2.0 mechanisms to your Web site like Scoble does. Definitely no “del.icio.us” or “Digg” voting graphics.
9. Don’t get caught dead inside an Apple store like Scoble does.
10. Don’t give Fake Steve or Valleywag a reason to deride you like Scoble does.
11. Definitely don’t get close to Twitter/Jaiku/Pownce/Facebook like Scoble does. If you can say it in 140 characters you shouldn’t say it at all.
OK, he didn’t quite say all of those things on his Web site today.
Well, I wish I could tell you the truth about Jacob (he worked for me back in the 1990s at one of our conferences — we never hired him again) but Steve Wozniak taught me to never say anything if I can’t say something nice about someone.
Yes, I am a sucker for good link bait. Sorry. Guilty as charged. I’m not the only one.
I will say this, it’s amazing that we’re listening to a guy who has an uglier Web site than I do.
Oh, wait, he just wrote a post worthy of Valleywag or Fake Steve except he doesn’t have comments, doesn’t have trackbacks, and used about 2,000 words to say something a better writer would say in about 300 words.
Heh!
David: Twitter might be extremely limited, but seems to be doing just fine, even with two very good competitors (and with Facebook too).
http://www.twittervision.com is seeing TONS of Twitters every few seconds. It is so “not popular” that I can’t keep up.
I have been called a statistical outlier many times before. When personal computers came out many people said that only weird geeks would use them.
When email came along, I remember people telling me no one needs that.
When IM came along and I was early then people told me that only kids would use it and that businesses would never use it.
Etc. Etc.
You forget that there aren’t many Alisters, but there are millions of bloggers out there with more being added every day (and that’s after subtracting out the spam ones).
Nielsen has credentials, sure. But I think he studies the late followers too much. That causes many people to miss the ball. The world is changing. But Nielsen’s data still shows the way the world is, not the way the world is changing to.
If that gets me derided as an outlier, so be it.
But it’s the statistical outliers who’ll tell you where the world will be tomorrow. Not the guys like Nielsen who study the way the world is yesterday.
Okay, we may have FINALLY nailed this discussion, thanks to an observation by Richard MacManus over at Read/Write Web. (See http://tinyurl.com/2ryo9r .)
The difference may be between ANALYSIS blogs (like Read/Write Web) and NEWS blogs (like TechCrunch, and this blog). Both have their place. Amen to that?
And we each have our personal preferences. I prefer analysis blogs, although I read TC, Techmeme, yada, yada, but I try to limit the number of news blogs that I read.
Also, too many news blogs say the same basic thing over and over and over again, not within the same blog, but by other blogs. Techmeme is a perfect example of this. Let’s be honest, most of the secondary posts (i.e., those linking to the primary post) are worthless. The problem is that there may be a gem or two among the high noise level. After a while, we hope we can pick those that matter from those that don’t. Another problem is that the news blogs may get something first, i.e., become the primary post, but a secondary ANALYSIS blog may have much more useful and thoughtful information.
Robert, I don’t care if each sentient being on this planet has a blog or not. Keen’s position is too extreme. But we need a better way to sift through what is important and what is not.
Also, you can post photos of your dog or child or whatever and get away with it, but it’s NOT a good strategy for most bloggers. You have an almost cult-like following. Good for you (I guess). But this strategy doesn’t work well for most bloggers.
Regarding being a statistical outlier, you’re dead wrong. Betting on everything doesn’t make someone a successful gambler. Twitter is noise and will have limited appeal. Might have some utility as an updating service, kind of like a 911 blast message. But for normal discourse, no way: Way too much noise.
I was one of those guys who built an Altair 640 back in 1975, was at the opening of the first personal computer store in the world at 820 Broadway in Santa Monica in September 1975. Even prior to this, I was an HP-65 guy, so we’re talking early adopter stuff. Regarding e-mail, I had a Bitnet account. Did you? (It was restricted back then.) And I used Lynx for web “browsing”, prior to any graphical browser. And, as you might expect at this point, I used IRC.
But not ALL tools make sense. Like I said, betting on everything (or just about everything) does NOT make one a successful gambler.
Second Life will fail, but something will come along to replace it. It’s simply the next generation after Worlds, Inc. The technology simply isn’t ready yet, nor are social structures. Twitter functionality might have some utility, like I mentioned, but creates too much noise in general. Basically, a step in the right direction, but a failure waiting to happen. (Evolution is a tricky thing. Or, to put it another way, pioneers usually end up with arrows in their back.)
There are a lot of little steps in the right direction, but will they take hold for the masses, will they cross the chasm? No, not in their existing forms. Somebody else will get it right, offer a fully baked version that will be acceptable to the masses. IRC couldn’t cut it. Remember use Pine for e-mail? That didn’t cut it, either. Remember CUSeeMe? All steps in the right direction; all failed to thrive as new products and services too hold. (Yes, there are some geeks still using Pine and IRC; maybe even someone still uses Lynx. But they’re hardly mainstream when the core tech is now mainstream, i.e., e-mail and IM.)
Search isn’t even close to being where it needs to be. Good a Google challenger come along? Don’t know. Might be Microsoft … or IBM; doesn’t have to be a start-up like Powerset. But we ALL know that search sucks, has a long, long way to go. And even when we get search right (or better), then we’re merely moving up the food chain to knowledge management issues. And what is all this for: Collaboration, not merely communication. This is one reason the iPhone doesn’t matter as much as many think. It’s a step in the right direction, but communication is so yesterday … and it’s not a platform for collaboration.
So, as an early adopter, can you really recommend the iPhone? It’s just a communications device, that’s it. Nice UI. Wow!! Is really revolutionary? If you think, just check SIGCHI proceedings published 5-15 years ago and you’ll see just about everything that makes the iPhone special. No big deal. Jobs had the guts and courage to take it to market; for this he deserves a lot praise. But the device itself: Come on!! Jon Peddie + SIGCHI = iPhone. No big deal. It wasn’t hard to see it coming. (Unfortunately, I no longer have access to Jon Peddie’s newsletter and at about $5,000 per year, it won’t make my short list anytime soon.)
Here’s a piece of advice: Read Technology Forecasting & Social Change. Futures is also good, so is Long Range Planning, blogs by EDS and the IFTF, Shaping Tomorrow, things like this. (I’ll soon be joining Shaping Tomorrow’s contributing staff.) But TF&SC is MUST reading to put tech in perspective. You’ll laugh your butt off at how wrong forecasters (whatever you want to call them) can be. Also, read Paul Saffo’s current feature in Harvard Business Review. GREAT stuff. It’s always important to match technology with society. People are indeed users, but people form a society — they are more than mere users.
Okay, we may have FINALLY nailed this discussion, thanks to an observation by Richard MacManus over at Read/Write Web. (See http://tinyurl.com/2ryo9r .)
The difference may be between ANALYSIS blogs (like Read/Write Web) and NEWS blogs (like TechCrunch, and this blog). Both have their place. Amen to that?
And we each have our personal preferences. I prefer analysis blogs, although I read TC, Techmeme, yada, yada, but I try to limit the number of news blogs that I read.
Also, too many news blogs say the same basic thing over and over and over again, not within the same blog, but by other blogs. Techmeme is a perfect example of this. Let’s be honest, most of the secondary posts (i.e., those linking to the primary post) are worthless. The problem is that there may be a gem or two among the high noise level. After a while, we hope we can pick those that matter from those that don’t. Another problem is that the news blogs may get something first, i.e., become the primary post, but a secondary ANALYSIS blog may have much more useful and thoughtful information.
Robert, I don’t care if each sentient being on this planet has a blog or not. Keen’s position is too extreme. But we need a better way to sift through what is important and what is not.
Also, you can post photos of your dog or child or whatever and get away with it, but it’s NOT a good strategy for most bloggers. You have an almost cult-like following. Good for you (I guess). But this strategy doesn’t work well for most bloggers.
Regarding being a statistical outlier, you’re dead wrong. Betting on everything doesn’t make someone a successful gambler. Twitter is noise and will have limited appeal. Might have some utility as an updating service, kind of like a 911 blast message. But for normal discourse, no way: Way too much noise.
I was one of those guys who built an Altair 640 back in 1975, was at the opening of the first personal computer store in the world at 820 Broadway in Santa Monica in September 1975. Even prior to this, I was an HP-65 guy, so we’re talking early adopter stuff. Regarding e-mail, I had a Bitnet account. Did you? (It was restricted back then.) And I used Lynx for web “browsing”, prior to any graphical browser. And, as you might expect at this point, I used IRC.
But not ALL tools make sense. Like I said, betting on everything (or just about everything) does NOT make one a successful gambler.
Second Life will fail, but something will come along to replace it. It’s simply the next generation after Worlds, Inc. The technology simply isn’t ready yet, nor are social structures. Twitter functionality might have some utility, like I mentioned, but creates too much noise in general. Basically, a step in the right direction, but a failure waiting to happen. (Evolution is a tricky thing. Or, to put it another way, pioneers usually end up with arrows in their back.)
There are a lot of little steps in the right direction, but will they take hold for the masses, will they cross the chasm? No, not in their existing forms. Somebody else will get it right, offer a fully baked version that will be acceptable to the masses. IRC couldn’t cut it. Remember use Pine for e-mail? That didn’t cut it, either. Remember CUSeeMe? All steps in the right direction; all failed to thrive as new products and services too hold. (Yes, there are some geeks still using Pine and IRC; maybe even someone still uses Lynx. But they’re hardly mainstream when the core tech is now mainstream, i.e., e-mail and IM.)
Search isn’t even close to being where it needs to be. Good a Google challenger come along? Don’t know. Might be Microsoft … or IBM; doesn’t have to be a start-up like Powerset. But we ALL know that search sucks, has a long, long way to go. And even when we get search right (or better), then we’re merely moving up the food chain to knowledge management issues. And what is all this for: Collaboration, not merely communication. This is one reason the iPhone doesn’t matter as much as many think. It’s a step in the right direction, but communication is so yesterday … and it’s not a platform for collaboration.
So, as an early adopter, can you really recommend the iPhone? It’s just a communications device, that’s it. Nice UI. Wow!! Is really revolutionary? If you think, just check SIGCHI proceedings published 5-15 years ago and you’ll see just about everything that makes the iPhone special. No big deal. Jobs had the guts and courage to take it to market; for this he deserves a lot praise. But the device itself: Come on!! Jon Peddie + SIGCHI = iPhone. No big deal. It wasn’t hard to see it coming. (Unfortunately, I no longer have access to Jon Peddie’s newsletter and at about $5,000 per year, it won’t make my short list anytime soon.)
Here’s a piece of advice: Read Technology Forecasting & Social Change. Futures is also good, so is Long Range Planning, blogs by EDS and the IFTF, Shaping Tomorrow, things like this. (I’ll soon be joining Shaping Tomorrow’s contributing staff.) But TF&SC is MUST reading to put tech in perspective. You’ll laugh your butt off at how wrong forecasters (whatever you want to call them) can be. Also, read Paul Saffo’s current feature in Harvard Business Review. GREAT stuff. It’s always important to match technology with society. People are indeed users, but people form a society — they are more than mere users.
dood! how come nobody told me that clicking on the link of the dud’es press photos is NSFW?!?!
dood! how come nobody told me that clicking on the link of the dud’es press photos is NSFW?!?!
So Nielsen preaches an academic attitude towards blogging; nothing wrong with that. I find myself regularly wondering if this is worth posting or that I should do more fact/background checking.
I don’t like quick, short copycat blogs. But that’s just my opinion. I thought the blogosphere was us, and therefore open to the opinions of many.
Clearly Scoble has strong negative sentiments towards Nielsen, but the way he voices them are pretty immmature. I didn’t got that impression from him when reading “Naked conversations”. Pity.
So Nielsen preaches an academic attitude towards blogging; nothing wrong with that. I find myself regularly wondering if this is worth posting or that I should do more fact/background checking.
I don’t like quick, short copycat blogs. But that’s just my opinion. I thought the blogosphere was us, and therefore open to the opinions of many.
Clearly Scoble has strong negative sentiments towards Nielsen, but the way he voices them are pretty immmature. I didn’t got that impression from him when reading “Naked conversations”. Pity.
Marc: what Nielsen advocates is not blogging. No “joining in the conversation.” He stays “above it all” and only posts “long, authoritative” posts. No trackbacks. No bookmarking icons. No comments. No ping servers. No links out to other people talking about him.
Just long academic posts.
I’m very open to the opinions of others — if they join in.
Nielsen has not, so can’t be considered a blogger. Sorry. And if that makes me immature so be it.
Marc: what Nielsen advocates is not blogging. No “joining in the conversation.” He stays “above it all” and only posts “long, authoritative” posts. No trackbacks. No bookmarking icons. No comments. No ping servers. No links out to other people talking about him.
Just long academic posts.
I’m very open to the opinions of others — if they join in.
Nielsen has not, so can’t be considered a blogger. Sorry. And if that makes me immature so be it.
You can call it poking fun at yourself, but your neediness shines through.
You can call it poking fun at yourself, but your neediness shines through.
First, not all of his Alertbox columns are “long academic posts.”
Second, but even if they were, this doesn’t necessarily discount their value. Thought leadership pieces are a good thing. Thought leadership is hard, if not impossible, to convey is a relatively short blog post.
Third, he couldn’t have said what he did in less words. If he would have, he would have been susceptible to a lot more criticism, I’m sure. He needed to write a long(er) column to make his point, to prove his point. Haven’t you found this to be the case with your own writings? I write very controversial stuff, probably because I have a tougher topic than you: China. People often respond to things about China will little or misguided first-hand knowledge of what it’s like here, what goes on in our industry, without understanding the role of the three (or four) key government agencies guiding our sector. People just react. Lots of emotion, often based on little fact, almost no experience. And then it also gets political. It’s a minefield. So, in order to make a point, I often have to write a long(er) column with a gazillion links to prove my point. That’s life. Nielsen knew he needed to write a long(er) article/column to make his point.
Also, a lot of the best technologies cannot be discussed in blog postings. I’m surprised you don’t know this. Example: How am I going to talk about the advantages of combining Kalman filtering algorithms with backpropagation neural nets in a pithy blog post? Not doable (or, if it theoretical was doable, it would be meaningless).
Fourth, he never claimed that he’s a blogger. Regardless, what does this have to do with anything? Let’s face it, Robert, most people are lurkers. They read, they rarely (if ever) comment. Does this mean that most people are not part of the conversation? Ever heard of the “silent majority”? They’re still part of the conversation unless the elitists have no regard for what the silent majority may really be thinking. It’s up to bloggers to try to find out what the silent majority is thinking, not to be falsely led into believing that people like you and those of us commenting on this post (like me) represent the majority. We may not.
Some more food for thought …
Anyway, even your supporters seem to think you overreacted. I suspect that you now agree with them. This isn’t to concede that you believe that Nielsen is right; that would be false and disingenuous. But give him some space. If you really want an open conversation, don’t jump all over someone with reactionary tendencies. Alas, you’re just another blogger Jihadist!!
Peace, my friend …
First, not all of his Alertbox columns are “long academic posts.”
Second, but even if they were, this doesn’t necessarily discount their value. Thought leadership pieces are a good thing. Thought leadership is hard, if not impossible, to convey is a relatively short blog post.
Third, he couldn’t have said what he did in less words. If he would have, he would have been susceptible to a lot more criticism, I’m sure. He needed to write a long(er) column to make his point, to prove his point. Haven’t you found this to be the case with your own writings? I write very controversial stuff, probably because I have a tougher topic than you: China. People often respond to things about China will little or misguided first-hand knowledge of what it’s like here, what goes on in our industry, without understanding the role of the three (or four) key government agencies guiding our sector. People just react. Lots of emotion, often based on little fact, almost no experience. And then it also gets political. It’s a minefield. So, in order to make a point, I often have to write a long(er) column with a gazillion links to prove my point. That’s life. Nielsen knew he needed to write a long(er) article/column to make his point.
Also, a lot of the best technologies cannot be discussed in blog postings. I’m surprised you don’t know this. Example: How am I going to talk about the advantages of combining Kalman filtering algorithms with backpropagation neural nets in a pithy blog post? Not doable (or, if it theoretical was doable, it would be meaningless).
Fourth, he never claimed that he’s a blogger. Regardless, what does this have to do with anything? Let’s face it, Robert, most people are lurkers. They read, they rarely (if ever) comment. Does this mean that most people are not part of the conversation? Ever heard of the “silent majority”? They’re still part of the conversation unless the elitists have no regard for what the silent majority may really be thinking. It’s up to bloggers to try to find out what the silent majority is thinking, not to be falsely led into believing that people like you and those of us commenting on this post (like me) represent the majority. We may not.
Some more food for thought …
Anyway, even your supporters seem to think you overreacted. I suspect that you now agree with them. This isn’t to concede that you believe that Nielsen is right; that would be false and disingenuous. But give him some space. If you really want an open conversation, don’t jump all over someone with reactionary tendencies. Alas, you’re just another blogger Jihadist!!
Peace, my friend …
[...] tante parole quel che un bravo blogger avrebbe invece riassunto con un post semplice e diretto. Da leggere anche [...]
Wow, Robert, you really are clueless at times. You don’t even get why Shelley was calling you insecure.
You reek of insecurity in a whiny, weak way and try to cover it up by saying that you make fun of yourself so you’re secure? Yeah, Bush makes fun of himself so he’s not stupid, right?
Wow, Robert, you really are clueless at times. You don’t even get why Shelley was calling you insecure.
You reek of insecurity in a whiny, weak way and try to cover it up by saying that you make fun of yourself so you’re secure? Yeah, Bush makes fun of himself so he’s not stupid, right?
[...] Robert Scoble’s post about Nielsen’s column [...]
WHAT?
He didn’t even mention you? Not once. So you decided to apply everything he said you your site, take offence, and then whine about it, making yourself the focus of this?
You have a grudge against Nielson? His work is fair, I have gone into detail on much of his stuff.
You take what he has written, a valid poke at the off the cuff gossipy nature of the web, which has collapsed into a link whoring state of noise, and then make a ‘insult-but-I-won’t-say-what’ expression about him.
Post saved, one day to be juxtapositioned against Niesen’s to show what an asshat you are scoble. tsk.
WHAT?
He didn’t even mention you? Not once. So you decided to apply everything he said you your site, take offence, and then whine about it, making yourself the focus of this?
You have a grudge against Nielson? His work is fair, I have gone into detail on much of his stuff.
You take what he has written, a valid poke at the off the cuff gossipy nature of the web, which has collapsed into a link whoring state of noise, and then make a ‘insult-but-I-won’t-say-what’ expression about him.
Post saved, one day to be juxtapositioned against Niesen’s to show what an asshat you are scoble. tsk.
What: he didn’t mention me, you’re right, but I did take offense. His advice here is bad, but you keep that post, OK?
What: he didn’t mention me, you’re right, but I did take offense. His advice here is bad, but you keep that post, OK?
Scoble, what a beautiful secondary, reflective and superficial, egotistical, linkwhoring post about this article.
It actually says: regardless of software (a way to stop idiots like you confusing what is a blog / not a blog) there are valuable signal posts, places that link and collate articles, and then the dregs of the web.
The noise. I am glad you self labelled yourself in that role. I realise you must be tired of being just the link person, and then seeing yourself in this mirror of Neisens post really must have been the last straw.
You have nothing of value to write, so you take any context you can from his post now and dispute it, making it look like an attack on you. sad.
Scoble, what a beautiful secondary, reflective and superficial, egotistical, linkwhoring post about this article.
It actually says: regardless of software (a way to stop idiots like you confusing what is a blog / not a blog) there are valuable signal posts, places that link and collate articles, and then the dregs of the web.
The noise. I am glad you self labelled yourself in that role. I realise you must be tired of being just the link person, and then seeing yourself in this mirror of Neisens post really must have been the last straw.
You have nothing of value to write, so you take any context you can from his post now and dispute it, making it look like an attack on you. sad.
N) Don’t have fun like that idiot Scoble.
Don’t have fun? Idiot Scoble?
Wow. You really read a lot into that. I pity you now.
N) Don’t have fun like that idiot Scoble.
Don’t have fun? Idiot Scoble?
Wow. You really read a lot into that. I pity you now.
Hey Scoble, I didn’t expect you to reply, now you did I will be more curteous – why did you take offense? Precisely… I am curious, what element of it related to your post. I can see you disagreeing, but where did you take offense?
Thanks
Hey Scoble, I didn’t expect you to reply, now you did I will be more curteous – why did you take offense? Precisely… I am curious, what element of it related to your post. I can see you disagreeing, but where did you take offense?
Thanks
>You have nothing of value to write
So why are you here then? Did someone hold a gun to your head and say “go check out that valueless Scoble?”
Why did I take offense?
Because I wrote a whole book about how corporations are getting better customer relations through doing exactly what he decried.
I’ve seen lots of things happen due to short, seemingly “noisy” posts. Heck, you should see what’s happening over on Twitter, Pownce, Jaiku, and Facebook — all places you’ve gotta stick to 140 characters or less. But I’ve seen enough business activity happen over there to know that Jakob’s advice is bad if taken alone.
>You have nothing of value to write
So why are you here then? Did someone hold a gun to your head and say “go check out that valueless Scoble?”
Why did I take offense?
Because I wrote a whole book about how corporations are getting better customer relations through doing exactly what he decried.
I’ve seen lots of things happen due to short, seemingly “noisy” posts. Heck, you should see what’s happening over on Twitter, Pownce, Jaiku, and Facebook — all places you’ve gotta stick to 140 characters or less. But I’ve seen enough business activity happen over there to know that Jakob’s advice is bad if taken alone.
“What: he didn’t mention me, you’re right, but I did take offense. His advice here is bad.”
I look forward to finding out why you took offense, but as for the advice, which part is bad? Before you start talking about butchers and thank yous, he talks about content being higher than the software used to write it.
You can write news on a blog engine. You can blog on a twitter engine. You can twitter on a joomla portal.
Did you take offense at that distinction?
The 3 points about primary / secondary, indepth / superficial, users expertise (actually adding something) versus reflectively driven.
I think the ‘superficial and reflective’ is what offended you, if I am wrong, let me know.
This really wasn’t about you though. It is about the mass of secondary, tertiary, superficial and reflective content online though. It also says, don’t feel you have to blog because you installed ‘blog’ software.
“What: he didn’t mention me, you’re right, but I did take offense. His advice here is bad.”
I look forward to finding out why you took offense, but as for the advice, which part is bad? Before you start talking about butchers and thank yous, he talks about content being higher than the software used to write it.
You can write news on a blog engine. You can blog on a twitter engine. You can twitter on a joomla portal.
Did you take offense at that distinction?
The 3 points about primary / secondary, indepth / superficial, users expertise (actually adding something) versus reflectively driven.
I think the ‘superficial and reflective’ is what offended you, if I am wrong, let me know.
This really wasn’t about you though. It is about the mass of secondary, tertiary, superficial and reflective content online though. It also says, don’t feel you have to blog because you installed ‘blog’ software.
> >You have nothing of value to write
> So why are you here then? Did someone hold a gun to
> your head and say “go check out that valueless
> Scoble?”
I meant generally, point me to posts of primary source – the vast majority (from what you said) seems to be what I mentioned.
> Why did I take offense?
> Because I wrote a whole book about how corporations
> are getting better customer relations through doing
> exactly what he decried.
Why offense? If I write a book saying outsourcing is a good strategy, and someone writes that building an internal department is good, where is the reason for offense?
> I’ve seen lots of things happen due to short,
> seemingly “noisy” posts. Heck, you should see
> what’s happening over on Twitter, Pownce, Jaiku,
> and Facebook — all places you’ve gotta stick to 140
> characters or less. But I’ve seen enough business
> activity happen over there to know that Jakob’s
> advice is bad if taken alone.
Sadly this seems to be out of the scope of what the article covers. It isn’t denigrating these services or saying that they don’t build anything.
It is talking about content structure, and not internet dynamics, yes it reflects on the majority of content online, but in a good way:
“The beauty of the blogosphere is that it’s a self-organizing system. Whenever something good appears, other blogs link to it and it gets promoted in the system and gains higher visibility. Thus, the 24 postings that are better than our expert’s very best attempt will gain higher prominence, even though they’re written by people with lower overall expertise.”
(I hate the use of the word blogosphere).
For validation of Jakob’s article, look at A List Apart – that seems to fit what he is talking about.
You seem to have substituted something else you are thinking about in place of what he is writing about.
I also thought the ‘I am not saying he is dirty, but don’t shake his hand’ approach to saying you ‘know’ something about him, was a very low blow.
> >You have nothing of value to write
> So why are you here then? Did someone hold a gun to
> your head and say “go check out that valueless
> Scoble?”
I meant generally, point me to posts of primary source – the vast majority (from what you said) seems to be what I mentioned.
> Why did I take offense?
> Because I wrote a whole book about how corporations
> are getting better customer relations through doing
> exactly what he decried.
Why offense? If I write a book saying outsourcing is a good strategy, and someone writes that building an internal department is good, where is the reason for offense?
> I’ve seen lots of things happen due to short,
> seemingly “noisy” posts. Heck, you should see
> what’s happening over on Twitter, Pownce, Jaiku,
> and Facebook — all places you’ve gotta stick to 140
> characters or less. But I’ve seen enough business
> activity happen over there to know that Jakob’s
> advice is bad if taken alone.
Sadly this seems to be out of the scope of what the article covers. It isn’t denigrating these services or saying that they don’t build anything.
It is talking about content structure, and not internet dynamics, yes it reflects on the majority of content online, but in a good way:
“The beauty of the blogosphere is that it’s a self-organizing system. Whenever something good appears, other blogs link to it and it gets promoted in the system and gains higher visibility. Thus, the 24 postings that are better than our expert’s very best attempt will gain higher prominence, even though they’re written by people with lower overall expertise.”
(I hate the use of the word blogosphere).
For validation of Jakob’s article, look at A List Apart – that seems to fit what he is talking about.
You seem to have substituted something else you are thinking about in place of what he is writing about.
I also thought the ‘I am not saying he is dirty, but don’t shake his hand’ approach to saying you ‘know’ something about him, was a very low blow.
> But I’ve seen enough business
> activity happen over there to know that Jakob’s
> advice is bad if taken alone.
So where is the offense? It seems like ‘bad if taken alone’, even if true, or indeed what he was writing about, doesn’t justify martyring your blog and putting words in Nielsens blog, knowing most of your readers wouldn’t even link through and read it to verify themselves (bored after first paragraph)
You are defining what happens on twitterjaikssikefacewtf by the 140, not by the content, this is what Jakob is warning against. Its not the format, or needlessly the length, but a combination of 3 factors (and in this case, not about communication in a p2p sense, but disseminating information for mass reading, publishing, not talking.)
> But I’ve seen enough business
> activity happen over there to know that Jakob’s
> advice is bad if taken alone.
So where is the offense? It seems like ‘bad if taken alone’, even if true, or indeed what he was writing about, doesn’t justify martyring your blog and putting words in Nielsens blog, knowing most of your readers wouldn’t even link through and read it to verify themselves (bored after first paragraph)
You are defining what happens on twitterjaikssikefacewtf by the 140, not by the content, this is what Jakob is warning against. Its not the format, or needlessly the length, but a combination of 3 factors (and in this case, not about communication in a p2p sense, but disseminating information for mass reading, publishing, not talking.)
Probably it had more to do with his headline:
“Write articles, not blog postings.”
It was a direct slap at people like me who blog.
Probably it had more to do with his headline:
“Write articles, not blog postings.”
It was a direct slap at people like me who blog.
Print: you’re right about the low blow. But I have my reasons.
Print: you’re right about the low blow. But I have my reasons.
> Probably it had more to do with his headline:
> “Write articles, not blog postings.”
> It was a direct slap at people like me who blog.
It is hardly a slap to point the obvious that there is different value in writing articles, and shows that A List Apart uses blogging style software, but writes articles.
It says – don’t be defined by the medium, the software. In this sense he is saying the same as you in so much that you enjoy the business benefits of the 140character club.
However, you see the difference between ‘community based’ clique messaging and linking and online resources.
So as you say ‘things happen’ on 140chars, Nielsen says ‘authorative posts’ can happen on blogs. Sadly for the most part we have to take him on his word, although there are such sites around.
> Probably it had more to do with his headline:
> “Write articles, not blog postings.”
> It was a direct slap at people like me who blog.
It is hardly a slap to point the obvious that there is different value in writing articles, and shows that A List Apart uses blogging style software, but writes articles.
It says – don’t be defined by the medium, the software. In this sense he is saying the same as you in so much that you enjoy the business benefits of the 140character club.
However, you see the difference between ‘community based’ clique messaging and linking and online resources.
So as you say ‘things happen’ on 140chars, Nielsen says ‘authorative posts’ can happen on blogs. Sadly for the most part we have to take him on his word, although there are such sites around.
Reading below the title, Nielsen makes a terse and reasonable equation of his article:
“If you’re an expert who wants to live from adding to the world’s knowledge, you must go beyond the mainstream Web model of single page visits driven by search traffic. It’s easy enough to build a website that freeloaders will use, but that shouldn’t be your approach. You must change the game and create content that’s so valuable that business users are willing to pay for it.
You should also focus on material that lower-ranked content contributors can’t easily create in their spare time.
Both of these needs are met when you produce in-depth content. ”
What, may I ask, is wrong with that? It clearly isn’t the points you raise above, and it an entirely different topic to that of twitter models.
I would say you missed the point, but that is possibly the least of your issues with this whole affair.
I do not deny you have some beef with this, but perhaps it is a symptom of you own coming to terms with content, as a resource.
Reading below the title, Nielsen makes a terse and reasonable equation of his article:
“If you’re an expert who wants to live from adding to the world’s knowledge, you must go beyond the mainstream Web model of single page visits driven by search traffic. It’s easy enough to build a website that freeloaders will use, but that shouldn’t be your approach. You must change the game and create content that’s so valuable that business users are willing to pay for it.
You should also focus on material that lower-ranked content contributors can’t easily create in their spare time.
Both of these needs are met when you produce in-depth content. ”
What, may I ask, is wrong with that? It clearly isn’t the points you raise above, and it an entirely different topic to that of twitter models.
I would say you missed the point, but that is possibly the least of your issues with this whole affair.
I do not deny you have some beef with this, but perhaps it is a symptom of you own coming to terms with content, as a resource.
Just to add: “If you’re an expert who wants to live from adding to the world’s knowledge, you must go beyond the mainstream Web model of single page visits driven by search traffic.”
This clearly shows that this *isn’t* aimed at you.
You don’t claim to be someone ‘adding knowledge’ nor has any of your work been geared towards this. Your job as a consultant doesn’t carry over into knowledgable posts on this site.
So, in fact, it is definately not about you. Why you have a problem with it, and why you made the hysterical post you did is beyond me and I suppose everyone else who didn’t make the same glib conclusion without reading into it.
Just to add: “If you’re an expert who wants to live from adding to the world’s knowledge, you must go beyond the mainstream Web model of single page visits driven by search traffic.”
This clearly shows that this *isn’t* aimed at you.
You don’t claim to be someone ‘adding knowledge’ nor has any of your work been geared towards this. Your job as a consultant doesn’t carry over into knowledgable posts on this site.
So, in fact, it is definately not about you. Why you have a problem with it, and why you made the hysterical post you did is beyond me and I suppose everyone else who didn’t make the same glib conclusion without reading into it.
It’s aimed at Scooble and all other bloggers. I don’t see that Scooble’s post is hysterical at all, other than being a pretty funny and ironic take on what our friend the refined & notable expert is hoaxing up on his own little weblog. Yes, the old school paradigm guarder Mr. J writes a weblog. He just doesn’t get it.
It’s aimed at Scooble and all other bloggers. I don’t see that Scooble’s post is hysterical at all, other than being a pretty funny and ironic take on what our friend the refined & notable expert is hoaxing up on his own little weblog. Yes, the old school paradigm guarder Mr. J writes a weblog. He just doesn’t get it.
See Usability Expert Misses the Magic of Blogging for my response.
See Usability Expert Misses the Magic of Blogging for my response.
No offence friend, but this is quite the presumptuous post. It requires quite the herculean stretch (and quite an ego) to conclude that post was aimed specifically at you