Startup Toolbox

Jay Parkhill June 6th, 2008

I don’t totally get the point of FriendFeed- or maybe I just don’t like it. I consider it a meta-social network because it doesn’t do a lot that is totally new. It aggregates my contributions across the web (and those of people I follow), but there isn’t very much to actually do on the service.

At the same time, I would love a social web “home base”- a place I where I could both aggregate and contribute. I use Twitter and Brightkite a lot, but one friend might post often to Flickr and another to Yelp. Home Base would be a single place from which I could both keep track of my friends’ activity, and also interact with their photos, tweets and reviews.

Friendfeed lets me post to Twitter, but still isn’t as dynamic as that platform and it ends up being just another place for me to check, but not to post from.

In the end, it comes down to where most of my friends are. I have the most contacts on Facebook currently, but interact with people less there than any other other social network I’m on. That’s just me, I know. Plenty of people have entirely fulfilling internet social lives on Facebook.

I’ve realized that the place I interact with friends the most is Twitter. In addition, many other services feed into Twitter easily, so I can add a new service and not have to rebuild my social graph there before it becomes useful.

I’m close to the point of putting my Twitter ID on my email signature because it’s such a good way to get in touch with me, but at the same time I’m afraid of getting any more attached to Twitter because of its reliability problems. It’s really a shame. The service is so easy and so valuable. I sure hope they can overcome their “we built the wrong platform at the outset” issues and become the powerhouse they deserve to be.

twitter.com/park3

• Twitter , social graph , social media

Jay Parkhill May 22nd, 2008

There has been a dust-up in certain corners of the Internet recently over Twitter’s alleged failure to deal appropriately with interpersonal conduct on the site. The relevant tweets have been removed, so none of the facts are easily verifiable. To summarize the story quickly, though:

*social media consultant Ariel Walden complained to Twitter that she was being stalked and harassed on Twitter by a specific user.

*Twitter declined to take action several times over several months, citing a desire not to filter content appearing on the platform, and also saying that the alleged conduct did not, in Twitter’s mind, violate the site’s Terms of Use.

*Twitter recently made several public comments on the matter, including one to say that it is reviewing its Terms of Use to more clearly say that it will not actively monitor content.

I spent a little time looking at this and came away interested much more in the issue as a study of human behavior than anything else. Specifically, comments on Twitter’s official blog post contain nothing but glowing praise for Twitter’s approach. In contrast, the thread on Twitter’s support forum is filled with nothing but condemnation of the company. Literally in each case- the comments are 100% pro-Twitter in one venue, and 100% pro-Walden in the other.

Is there a point to this? Possibly not, except that even within Twitter, finding “community” depends on how you turn the coin- look to the official outlet and find Twitter diehard supporters; look to the support forums and find a completely different view. Fascinating.

• Twitter , Uncategorized , social media

Jay Parkhill April 10th, 2008

This is a smart manifesto of sorts on how to use multiple social media platforms well.  With multiple places to post content (blog, Twitter, Tumblog, etc.) it’s very easy to end up re-listing the same content in multiple spots, but that tends to dilute the individuality of each outlet.

When I started exploring social media in earnest I really wanted everything to tie together, but there is no need.  The offline pieces of my life don’t naturally tie themeselves together offline, so I shouldn’t try to force them together online.  Thanks carpeaqua.

carpeaqua - Your Twitter is not your blog is not your Tumblr is not your FriendFeed

My Tumblog imports all of this blog’s posts as links, so I am breaking one of the rules here.  I should take out that reblog link. This blog works better for the work side of my life and the other one for personal interests: music, cycling and occasionally a dash of yoga, skiing or something else.  I think I’ll keep it that way.

• social media

Jay Parkhill March 31st, 2008

Moira Gunn’s Tech Nation podcast covers a lot of ground and has some great interviews. One of the most interesting I have heard in a long time was with NYU professor Clay Shirky, who wrote a recent book on social media.

The best part of the interview was where he talked about the use of social web tools for political purposes. Starting with a reminder that Chinese students used fax machines in 1989 to obtain Western reports on the Tiananmen Square protests and crackdown, he went on to discuss several examples of social media being used to record things that matter to the world- as opposed to everyday events that matter to specific individuals. My favorites:

* A flash mob convened in October Square, Minsk, Belarus in May 2006 (in Belarussian(?) with lots of pictures) to eat ice cream. Mass gatherings in October Square are illegal and security forces monitor the same social networks as the activists, so plainclothes police were ready and arrested a number of participants. Photos document the entire episode, including the arrests.

*Twitter used by Egyptian activists to let the community know their whereabouts, esp. whether they have been arrested. Shirky pointed out that when the fact of a person’s arrest is widely known, the likelihood that the person will be seen again increases dramatically. In this case, Alaa was able to Twitter the circumstances of his detention from his mobile phone.

Shirky opines that tools like Twitter and SMS mean that connectivity is an all-or-nothing proposition for repressive governments. I don’t think he has it quite right- China and other countries manage to screen web sites effectively. The point is well taken, though- lightweight communication tools can find ways through the walls. This is really inspirational stuff.

• Twitter , Uncategorized , social media

Jay Parkhill March 24th, 2008

This post is a little macabre. It is also personal and I am having trouble sorting through my feelings in a coherent way, but need to get a few thoughts out of my head regardless. Apologies in advance.

A friend died suddenly and tragically two weeks ago. His friends and family organized (and continue to organize) a number of real-world events to celebrate his life and to say goodbye. This is about what happens in the virtual world.

Matt had a Linkedin and a Facebook account. The accounts are free, of course, so presumably they will stay up unless/until someone figures out how to get his passwords, log in and remove the accounts.

I don’t know why anyone would want to do this any time soon. Friends have left messages on Matt’s Facebook wall and turned the page into a memorial of sorts. His Linkedin page is more sterile, predictably, and stands as a record of his work life. People could leave messages of some sort (post-mortem recommendations, perhaps?), but no one does.

I find it comforting to visit his Facebook page once in a while and see a reminder of Matt the way he recorded his life unfolding. There is a memorial blog as well where people can leave comments for/about him and that is also a really nice thing, but it is about him. His own pages are him.

Writing this has produced a lot more tears than I expected. Facebook is “a social utility that connects you with the people around you”. It is also designed to be transient and ever-changing as the page owner’s life unfolds. When the person isn’t around any more his life-record freezes, but the connection continues as friends stop by, leave messages, tag him in their photos, etc. It is extremely poignant.

Maybe someday someone will decide that the Facebook page has served its purpose and remove it. For now, though, it is a way for Matt’s friends to reach out to him any time and remember him the way he wanted to be remembered. It helps.

So long Matt.

• death , social media

Jay Parkhill March 18th, 2008

This is a great read. The author penned a scathing Linkedin “recommendation” of another user, pointing out in the process that Linkedin is built only to allow positive reviews, which makes the system less than valuable.

tartley.com » The Long Overdue LinkedIn Backlash

What to do then, when one thinks that a person should not be trusted with a pencil, never mind a job? Be honest or let the matter drop? It would be nice if our “trust networks” let us trust the collected wisdom, but it is a hard nut to crack. Ebay has worked hard at it, but it still requires egregious conduct to merit a negative review.

The problem, in my opinion, is endemic to virtual communities. Written text (email or site-based) is tone-deaf. Nuance is lost completely and context is nearly so. Compare this with a private conversation in which negative points can be explained and put into accurate context, and couple it with the adage that negative feedback outweighs positive by a factor of 10:1 or so, and the problem becomes apparent- no one wants to be dissed, and few are willing to risk the fallout from posting a negative opinion of someone else. VentureBeat has extensively chronicled thefunded.com’s efforts to create a fair and honest feedback system. It’s not easy.

This is not to say that the nut can’t be split, but capturing the real meaning
and reasons behind someone’s negative comments and framing them accurately may require extreme fact- and situation-analysis. Thefunded has it easier than most in this regard, since the VC-entrepreneur relationship is well-defined.

When all is said and done, though, Linkedin is among the worst at producing meaningful feedback. They should take comments like these as the must-fix issues they are. Get after it, Linkedin. You are too useful to be sidelined by a lack of trust in your recommendations.

• Uncategorized , social graph , social media

Jay Parkhill January 22nd, 2008

Scrabulous is, I am told, the 9th most popular application on Facebook. It was created by two student brothers in Calcutta, launched on FB in June 2007, and as of this writing is used by approximately 600,000 people per day and generates “over $25k” in monthly revenue for its creators.

The rights to the Scrabble board game are co-owned by the world’s #1 toymaker Hasbro (US market), #2 toymaker Mattel (rest of the world) and #1 electronic game maker Electronic Arts. Hasbro sent the Agarwalla brothers and Facebook a notice of copyright infringment and takedown demand shortly before the start of 2008, and Mattel apparently joined the demand shortly after.

So if I understand the story so far: somehow these three giants let slip Scrabulous’s meteoric rise on Facebook for six months, and nearly a month after the takedown notice the application remains live on Facebook with nary a reference to the controversy.

Some opine that the toy makers are losing a great marketing opportunity and accruing negative publicity. I doubt it. I am inclined to agree with Josh Quittner that the toy barons are simply letting Scrabulous take the line and run with it, building a fan community and working out bugs in the online implementation. They’ll reel it in when they’re ready and land the fish for themselves.

EA’s position is ideal here. A friend in the game industry told me that EA has more attorneys on staff than any other type of professional (including developers!). My guess is that they are pushing Hasbro and Mattel behind the scenes and quietly locking up their online rights without risking negative press.

I’m still rooting for the little guys- the Agarwalla brothers- and hopeful they can work out a deal that nets them something for their effort to build the platform. Time is not on their side, though. The bigger Scrabulous gets the tighter the vise is likely to squeeze them.

As Quittner’s article says, they started the game “without thinking through the legal aspects”. Here’s hoping they pull through with enough cash to try again, and give those legal details a few moments’ thought.

Full disclosure: I played Scrabulous once and lost badly.

• Facebook , social media

Jay Parkhill January 15th, 2008

VentureBeat reported that Facebook is set to buy Plaxo and speculates that the latter company’s huge database of email addresses and its technology for syncing contacts across platforms could be driving factors. That sounds like a reasonable idea, and it might be just as likely that any acquisition is a preemptive one to keep Plaxo’s technology from being snapped up by another social network.

Whatever the reasons, and assuming there is any truth to the rumor it sounds like a great idea. I have accounts on Plaxo and Facebook and check them both almost daily. I’ve realized they are nearly complete opposites: Facebook has a wealth of “stuff” happening with all the various applications my friends use, but it’s a roach motel- data goes in but has a hard time getting out.

Plaxo, on the other hand, is a completely open list of many more of my contacts, but with nothing much happening. I get news feed updates showing my friends’ Twitter and blog posts, updated contact information and birthdays, but that’s about it. Nothing original.

A merger that combined Plaxo’s openness with Facebook’s usefulness could be interesting somewhere down the line. I (along with probably just about everyone else) would love to check out new social websites from time to time without having to re-invent my social graph on every one just to make it useful. If Facebook could Plaxo-sync-invite my friends into applications that live outside of Facebook (I gave up on Tumblr after about 15 minutes because I didn’t know anyone else on it)- now that would be neat.

P.S.   I’d be pleased if Plaxo’s current or future management made it a little more difficult to send “connect with me” invitations. I realized recently that I accidentally spammed every single person in my address book- including all the people I met once and don’t really know- with an invitation.  Sorry about that.

• M&A , social media

Jay Parkhill December 6th, 2007

I was pleased to see Facebook do the right thing by letting users opt completely out of Beacon.  From the uproar it seemed clear that the world just wasn’t ready for that level of sharing.

Social networks make it really easy to share, but sometimes users want to keep things private, and making sure that certain information doesn’t get out can be easier said than done.  Case in point for me was an experience I had last week.  A couple I know, both avid Facebook users, separated.  I found this out when I logged in one morning to find that both had updated their relationship status.

I sent them a note and one responded that she had tried to keep things quiet by removing relationship status from her profile entirely, but forgot that the change itself would go into her news feed.

I think there is no way out of this.  From what I can see, I can change my relationship status or I can remove the status from my profile entirely, but either way the action goes into my news feed.  In other words, there is no way to choose not to share that information without telling my network that I’ve stopped sharing.

The lesson here for me is that once I have opted in I may not be able to opt out without bringing more attention.  Trying to close the barn door may itself let the horses out.  This is good to keep in mind.

• social media

Jay Parkhill October 23rd, 2007

I was in college when the first Gulf War happened, and I remember the school setting up a TV to show the round-the-clock (a new concept then) coverage on the upstart CNN network. People more media-savvy than I credit CNN’s rise in esteem and viewership to that coverage.

The fires tearing through Southern California are relevant to a much smaller population, to be sure, and I doubt Twitter will benefit to even 1% the same degree in absolute terms. However, many people- and media outlets- that previously dismissed it as a toy or a distraction are going to start paying attention because it is actually a convenient vehicle for distributing news in disaster environments. It is:

*Lightweight. It works nicely even on a mobile browser. No TV or computer required from the sending or receiving ends.
*Easy to update. It’s type-and-go. No setting up cameras or preparing to broadcast.
*Easy to aggregate. Tracking makes it possible to pull in tweets from lots of sources on the same subject.
*And perhaps most important, short (or “pithy” if you prefer). The problem with reporting disasters is that there usually isn’t much to report from minute-to-minute. Twitter lets networks broadcast tidbits as they become available.

Imagine if the news crawl at the bottom of a network broadcast was actually a Twitter feed. They serve basically the same purpose, and then there would be a place to find the crawl text one missed because one was watching the top part of the TV screen.

I’m not saying Twitter is suddenly going to be on everyone’s lips everywhere, just that people are going to realize it can be a really useful adjunct to other media distribution systems.

• Web , social media