Tag: web2.0

Upgraded, but is it improved

I have my own social bookmarking site I have built from an early version of Scuttle. I liked Scuttle, but wanted a system that would prioritize links based on a system of use and rated value. More popular and valued links would appear at the top. As a bookmarking system grows and becomes complicated you need a way to tap into others for assistance. Just going through all of the links to see which still function would take hours. The value rating (the checkmarks) allows others to help. Rate a site as “not useful” and I will eventually take a look.

One problem in creating a system that is built on participant contributions is that you will soon encounter spammers and worse. So, I created a login system that allowed authentication. I encountered the problem that Scuttle already had a simple login system so I had a login system protecting a login system. It was a mess and too complicated for all but the most hardy.

I have finally had the time to work on the site. I have modified the login system so that only one login is now required. My site is certainly not as polished as Diigo or Delicious, but it has a specific focus and it improves with the activity of those who participate.

Loading

Sidewiki from Google – Cool, but beyond my control

Google introduced a feature within the Google Toolbar that allows users to comment on web sites. Other Google users can then review these comments. In the image below, I have identified the toolbar (in the case added to Firefox) and a comment I added to my own web page. The service is called Sidewiki.

sidewiki

Here is the description from the official Google blog and the NYTimes.

Here is perhaps the most useful post I found on sidewiki (Danny Sullivan).

This idea is not exactly new and reminds me of some of the features of Diigo. Most others have compared sidewiki to other services so perhaps they are seeing something different in this product.

It is important to note that this service has already drawn criticism. Jeff Jarvis, normally a Google advocate (What would Google do?), predicts this will generate criticism of Google. I think the issue is that I as creator of content cannot control whether this service is linked to me content or not. I might welcome the interaction and see this is easier than some other add-on (e.g, tinychat), but I might also prefer that others not add to what I offer and perhaps encourage links elsewhere. The point is I am not in control. Google offers other services based on the inclusion of a small bit of code within the HTML of a page, this approach might have solved the lack of control issue. (Follow-up post from Jarvis)

I did a Twitter search on sidewiki and it has been a very hot topic today.

BTW – the Google toolbar has other interesting capabilities. For example it, allows the translation of a page into other languages. Cindy is in Russia at the moment. So, babe – see if someone can read this.

inrussian

Loading

Nature of blogging changing?

Louis Gray has generated a post contending that blogging may be moving from blogging 1.0 to 2.0, identifying the issues involved in this transition, and reflecting on why 1.0 bloggers may be frustrated. The 1.0 to 2.0 transition was not described in the manner I expected. I think of the switch mostly focused around the one-direction vs. bi-directional distinction. 2.0 apps to me are intended to be participatory. I would regard comments and track-backs as 2.0 participatory, but perhaps this position just shows how 1.0 I am.

The impetus for the post comes from general concern being raised by bloggers who find that viewers can access their content without coming to their blog site. But, as I understand the Gray post, the trend also involves the movement of the conversation offsite via twitter or other social media services encouraging more conversation.

Part of this trend I like and part concerns me. I think greater interaction is a good thing. If a few words and a link is what you have to offer, I guess that is better than nothing. This reminds me of the early days of blogging when many blogs were a series of posts directing readers to useful web sites one had encountered. However, this seems more of a form of active consumerism and offers limited value in terms of personal reflection. Hard to think deep thoughts and then externalize the results in less than 20 words.

I am going to the mail room to see if I received any mail today.

I worked on my web site last night.

I am drinking cafe feminino this morning.

[just practicing in case I decide to make greater use of Twitter 😉 ]

Loading

Web 2.0 Resource for Educators

Terry Freedman has organized a group of educators (14 I think) to put together a resource summarizing new web developments (Web 2.0) and the role these developments may play in education. The product is an interesting summary being distributed as a pdf.

If you are interested in taking a look, I would recommend downloading the pdf from another site (e.g., edu.blogs.com) because I had difficulty with the Freedman site. An affiliated wiki has also emerged and is fun to explore although very slow.

Loading

Newsweek on Web 2.0

The lead story in the latest Newsweek (April 3) is focused on “new” web applications (“Putting the We in WEB). The discussion, which covers MySpace, Flikr, etc. and a collection of Web 2.0 startups I have not encountered (e.g., Plum, Jajah), includes interviews with founders of some of the more well-known services. The interviews provide some insight into what the writers (Steven Levy & Brad Stone) and company founders see as the key features of new offerings (e.g., community, user-generated content).

Loading

Social software, web 2.0, education, etc.

Trying to get a handle on the concepts of Web 2.0, social software, folksonomy, metadata, and the cluster of related terms that seem to continually pop up in blogs you follow? I would suggest an article written by Bryan Alexander appearing in the March/April Educause Review (actually I suggest the online version because it is interactive and invites exploration).

I am not certain “official” definitions for some of these concepts (e.g., Web 2.0) exist and one has to appreciate the effort to capture some of the core attributes. I would describe the trends differentiating older and newer versions of the web as a greater emphasis on microcontent (the contribution of elements of information – e.g., blog post), content flow rather than constancy, multi-user contributions of such content, and greater interactivity among users (cross-referencing, tagging). I have taken considerable liberty here and I would encourage you to read the article.

The article continues with a nice review of several categories of software (nicely linked from the online version) and an attempt to consider the educational applications of such services/software. I felt the article was stronger in identifying the concepts guiding these online services and in considering some of the technical aspects than in outlining issues of educational significance.

Loading