WebProNews

Tag: Opinion

  • Maureen Dowd’s Paranoid Pot Ramblings, at Your Fingertips, for Just $6 per Month

    Yes, I’m kind of mixing a couple of stories here, but two interesting things happened today in New York Times land.

    First, the venerable newspaper launched a new digital subscription for Opinions only, and second, columnist Maureen Dowd got really, really high (and lived to tell the tale!).

    The New York Times has focused their paywall options to allow readers who presumably only care about the various op-ed columns the paper regularly publishes to gain all access. For $6 a month, the new nytOpinion option gives you access to the full Opinion section online and on the new iOS app, as well as “curated commentary from around the globe and new features like Q&A with columnists.”

    If you jump on it now, they’ll let you have your first three months for just $0.99.

    And if you do, you can (hopefully) expect more articles like this.

    In Don’t Harsh Our Mellow, Dude, veteran columnist Maureen Down shows why you should always ask someone who knows about the drug you’re about to ingest, before you ingest said drug.

    Dowd flew up to Denver to sample the newly legal cash crop, and didn’t have a great time. Edibles can be tricky, Maureen.

    For an hour, I felt nothing. I figured I’d order dinner from room service and return to my more mundane drugs of choice, chardonnay and mediocre-movies-on-demand.

    But then I felt a scary shudder go through my body and brain. I barely made it from the desk to the bed, where I lay curled up in a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours. I was thirsty but couldn’t move to get water. Or even turn off the lights. I was panting and paranoid, sure that when the room-service waiter knocked and I didn’t answer, he’d call the police and have me arrested for being unable to handle my candy.

    I strained to remember where I was or even what I was wearing, touching my green corduroy jeans and staring at the exposed-brick wall. As my paranoia deepened, I became convinced that I had died and no one was telling me.

    Good lord.

    It was only the next day that she thought to ask someone about how much she should eat, considering she was a novice.

    The rest of the op-ed…well, you can go read it yourself–unless you’ve already used up your free views for the day. With the new Opinions only subscription option, this won’t be a problem.

    I can’t wait for Thomas Friedman’s op-ed on that huuuuge bong rip that completely changed his thinking on globalization.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Already Bitching About Facebook’s New Video Ads? Well, Stop.

    Facebook’s new video ads are pretty much the most tolerable kind of video ad around, so stop your bitching before it even starts.

    You know, unless you want to quit internetting altogether. In that case, you probably have a point – Facebook’s just-announced autoplay video ads are just another reason to scream at your phone. We’re all just walking, talking, farting wallets. I get it. Can’t anything just be free? Grr, I quit.

    On the other hand, if you’re planning on continuing to use the internet (and Facebook, naturally) like a normal human being, you should sit back and thank Zeus that Facebook’s video ads are the most non-intrusive, easily avoided ads of their kind that you’ll likely come across.

    Before you call me a Facebook apologist, let me just say that I’m not a Facebook apologist. I’m really not. Now, that’s out of the way. What I am is someone who spends a lot of time sitting through ads – and I’m a realist. You’re going to have to deal with ads on Facebook. There was never a time – never – when the possibility of a Facebook utopia, one free of all advertising, existed.

    And from what I know about Facebook’s upcoming video ad offering I can say, with confidence, that oh man – it could be so much worse. Still, you’ll probably see a lot of this in the coming weeks:

    Ok then. Here are some things that we know about Facebook’s imminent autoplay video ads:

    – Yes, they autoplay – the same way your friends’ videos also autoplay in your news feed right now.
    – They will appear in your news feed just like any other piece of content with which you’re familiar.
    – The will be silent unless you tap/click them and force fullscreen

    My point is simply this: How many other major forms of media consumption (for many so vital to your daily life) allow you to simply ignore the advertisements with one quick flick of the thumb?

    “If you don’t want to watch the video, you can simply scroll past it,” says Facebook.

    Just keep scrolling and all of the content that you want to see awaits you – your friends’ witty statuses and their cute babies. Your redneck uncle’s insane Obama rants and a photo of the cutest goddamned puppy you’ve ever seen – it’s all there and completely unaffected by the autoplay video ad that you so casually ignored with a simple scroll.

    Let’s think about other common forms of media consumption – YouTube and live television. Video ads? Of course. Can you skip them? Not immediately – maybe you can after 5 seconds or if you’re working from a DVR’ed program.

    With most types of video ads you encounter, the ad itself stands between you and the content you want to see. Want to watch this YouTube video? Here, sit through an ad. Want to watch the second half of that NFL game? Here, sit through 45 thousand ads. “Autoplay” ads, I might add. Many websites employ autoplay video ads that divorce you from the articles for at least 5 seconds or so. The fact that Facebook’s autoplay video ads basically do nothing to separate you from that real content you desire is kind of astounding.

    What if Facebook made you watch a video ad before you accessed your feed? Seriously – now that would be reason to grab the pitchforks. Don’t get any ideas, guys.

    Here’s another thing: the new ads won’t bleed your data dry.

    “On mobile devices, all videos that begin playing as they appear on the screen will have been downloaded in advance when the device was connected to WiFi – meaning this content will not consume data plans, even if you’re not connected to WiFi at the time of playback,” says Facebook.

    Post by Facebook for Business.

    Facebook is and will always be free. For that to happen, you’re going to have to deal with some ads. And before you immediately start the ol’ “fuck ’em, I’m quitting” bit – just know that it’s highly unlikely that Facebook’s new video ads are going to negatively impact your experience at all.

    Or, if you really want to, you can just quit – I’m not trying to call your bluff or anything.

  • John McCain: I’ll Reply to Putin’s NYT Op-Ed in Pravda

    For the first time in history, one world leader will respond to another world leader via newspaper columns in their respective nations and languages. Vladimir Putin penned a NYT column last week that discussed U.S. foreign policy with regard to a forthcoming attack on Syria. That column incensed many readers, and some Twitter reactions labeled Putin a “concern troll” who’s now “doing donuts in Obama’s front yard.”

    Following open criticism of the diplomatically-arranged plan by Russia and the United States to deprive Syria of its chemical weapons arsenal, John McCain now stands ready to toss his hat into the ring after he jokingly suggested to CNN that he’d “love to have a commentary in Pravda.”

    Things became interesting when the English language editor of Pravda, Dmitry Sudakov, told Josh Hudson at Foreign Policy’s The Cable that John McCain is more than welcome to write for the Russian paper, which has moved online: “Mr. McCain has been an active anti-Russian politician for many years already. We have been critical of his stance on Russia and international politics in our materials, but we would be only pleased to publish a story penned by such a prominent politician as John McCain.”

    At this point, Slate questioned whether or not McCain knew which Pravda he would be writing for: the Pravda that represented the official mouthpiece of the Soviet Russian government (which no longer exists), or the Pravda as it exists today, which Slate author Josh Keating describes as “a frequently updated and highly-entertaining tabloid, publishing in both English and Russian, whose content is a kind of cross between WorldNetDaily and the National Enquirer.”

    Slate collected a few interesting examples of the modern day Pravda, which included an op-ed about the 2012 presidential election that equated electing Mitt Romney with “appointing a serial paedophile as a kindergarten teacher, a rapist as a janitor at a girls’ dormitory or a psychopath with a fixation on knives as a kitchen hand.”

    As ridiculous as it sounds, when The Cable talked to McCain’s communications director Brian Rogers, he told them on the record that “Senator McCain would be glad to write something for Pravda, so we’ll be reaching out to Dmitry with a submission.” Sudakov was thrilled at the news, and intends to have McCain’s column “published in English and then translated into Russian so that all our Russian readers could read what Mr. McCain has to say.”

    [Image via a CNN video on YouTube about the political jousting between Russia and the United States]

  • It’s My Food and I’ll Instagram It If I Want to: A Defense of Amateur Food Photography

    Apart from posting a copious amount of baby photos on Facebook (nobody cares and your kid isn’t even that cute anyway), and going overboard with the politically-charged rhetoric (nobody cares and your opinion is stupid anyway), there’s not really a social media faux pas more common and more annoying than the oversharing of food photography. Personally, I enjoy a well-shot, delicious looking culinary masterpiece appearing in my news feed every once in a while. But too much is never a good thing. Unless you’re the one actually eating the food, in which case go ahead and gorge yourself you lucky prick.

    Apparently, your social media followers aren’t the only ones that are becoming increasingly annoyed with your photos of that spectacular marinated pork belly with garlic-miso glaze and asian slaw. It looks like the guy who made it may be just as sick and tired of your culinary documentation as everyone else.

    The New York Times has published a piece entitled “Restaurants Turn Camera Shy,” which details the growing number of high-end establishments that are taking measures to stop the flood of amateur food photography. According to the report, some restaurants are implementing bans on flash photography, and some are even outlawing photography altogether.

    It’s as if their crab-stuffed ravioli with pureed parsnips in a basil aioli and pickled watermelon rind is in danger of being damaged, like an ancient fresco.

    Oh I’m sorry. I thought this was America.

    The following is a defense of amateur food photography, from an infrequent food photographer who is often annoyed by food photography.

    The NYT points to one restaurant in particular, Momofuku Ko in New York City, that has banned photos altogether. It tells the tale of one woman, whose embarrassment has forced her to remain anonymous, and her brush with the food photography police.

    “I was definitely embarrassed…I don’t want to be that person…But I was caught off guard,” she told the NYT.

    “That person” was a person attempting to take a photo of her plate inside a small, Michelin-starred restaurant – a flashless photo nonetheless.

    The Times goes on to name another half-dozen restaurants who have implemented restrictions on photography in their dining rooms. Many discourage flash photography only.

    Table photography “totally disrupts the ambience,” said one executive chef.

    “Some people are arrogant about it. They don’t understand why. But we explain that it’s one big table and we want the people around you to enjoy their meal. They pay a lot of money for this meal. It became even a distraction for the chef,” said another.

    Restaurant owners and chefs: I know someone else who also paid a lot of money for their meal. Notably, the guy trying to take a photo of his food.

    Not only did he pay a great deal for his meal, but it’s highly likely that this meal is special to him. He probably doesn’t get to eat the kind of high-quality food sitting in front of him everyday. Not many people do. There’s a good chance that he simply wants to remember the experience through photography, and possibly share it with his friends.

    Maybe he’s a food blogger, and that’s his livelihood or hobby.

    Maybe he’s…it doesn’t matter why he’s doing it. He paid for his meal and wants to take a picture of it. Loosen up a little. Take it as a compliment. Or take it as whatever. The point is, just take it. There are too many social networks that feature too much food photography. Don’t turn against the tide.

    Oh, and there’s the simple fact that HE PAID FOR IT, GODD*MNIT.

    Plus, any photo of your perfectly-cooked gnocchi that gets posted to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Foodspotting, or any other social media service is free advertising. People rarely post photos of terrible food.

    And if you’re worried about flash photography, I agree. Flash photography is usually terrible for food photos. But if I can’t see my hand in front of my face (restaurants can be pretty dim at times), how the hell is my iPhone camera going to be able to see my fennel-crusted rack of lamb with creamed leeks?

    To be fair, some of the restaurateurs featured in the Times’ article have come up with interesting solutions to the problem. One chef has decided to allow patrons into the kitchen, to photograph their food before it hits the dining room. Another has offered digital photos of the food, taken by the restaurant itself when the meal is complete. But this still means that they frown upon patrons whipping out their cameras and snapping a quick pic of their own.

    Don’t misunderstand me; I encourage courteous, inconspicuous food photography. Don’t draw attention to yourself and don’t act like an as*hole. Even with that, it can get annoying at times, I don’t doubt that. But to ban it or make people feel bad for wanting to document something that they paid a lot for and is probably really special to them? You can go fork yourself.

    [Photo via Instagram]

  • The Avengers Apparently Waged A War On Adopted Kids

    The Avengers Apparently Waged A War On Adopted Kids

    Has everyone had the chance to see The Avengers yet? I sure hope so – it’s pure escapism at its finest. Critics and fans agree that it’s a must-see for the summer, so I won’t take any more time participating in the crowded online circlejerk.

    We all know that the film shattered box office records in its opening weekend, and its second weekend in theaters wasn’t that bad either. If the ending scenes didn’t give enough of a hint that a sequel is in the works, Disney has already confirmed it. Tony Stark is awesome, Scarlett Johansson tight suit, HULK SMASH – ok all of this is awesome. But there’s a small chink in Captain America’s shield, if you will, and it comes from a group of adoption advocates upset with a particular joke from the film.

    I’m sure you remember what joke I’m referring to. I mean, you must have been so overwhelmigly offended that you’ve spent the last few days steaming about it. Ok, just in case you let a harmless joke go by and lose itself in the perpetual intensity of the film as a whole, I’ll remind you [possible spoilers, but not really].

    During one of the rare but brilliant comic interludes in the action, Black Widow makes a point to say that the film’s villain, Loki, had “killed 80 people in two days.” Avenger Thor (and Loki’s brother) quickly replies that “he’s adopted.” You know, to separate himself from the bad actions of his brother in a lighthearted, harmless way…oh wait controversy.

    An official petition on change.org has been created by Jamie Burke, longtime About.com “Deafness guide.” That petition demands that Marvel apologize to the adoption community for the joke. Here are some snippets from the petition:

    Marvel Comics – with one line that you carelessly failed to edit out of the script for the Avengers movie, you have insulted adopted children, adult adoptees, and adoptive parents!

    Sooo..according to your scriptwriter, the fact he was adopted is the reason he is a bad guy!

    Being adopted is NOT something to use for the butt of jokes! Marvel, immediately cease using adoption as the butt of jokes AND issue a public apology to the adoption community!

    Furthermore, you have to consider how children think. A child doesn’t know the history of Thor and Loki. Plus, a child does not understand context the same way adults do. A child who is adopted only hears those lines above. So the child thinks to themselves, “I’m adopted. The bad guy was adopted too. Does that mean I am bad too?” One parent actually posted a comment along these lines on a certain forum, stating that their adopted child had actually made a very similar statement after seeing the movie. This statement is now posted under petition updates.

    The petition also directs you to some bloggers who are incensed about the joke as well. One blogger writes:

    Thor’s flippant “He’s adopted” comment could easily be better. Most likely a better line would have been “He’s my brother, though he was adopted and his background was from those who are worse than us.” Shows his love, but also his distaste for Loki’s actions. Probably would have taken all of a minute to deliver that line. For those who have or haven’t seen the Thor movie, that’s still a good and neutral line.

    When describing their reaction to the scene, another blogger writes:

    I missed the next 15 minutes of the movie because I was seething. Joking about adoption isn’t funny. Joking about being adopted isn’t funny. Making fun of a late discovery adoptee is especially not funny.

    There’s also a thread on the Disney forums if you’re interested.

    One parent says that his daughter didn’t get the joke. Here’s her line of thinking, according to him:

    Are people laughing because they think adopted kids are bad? Am I bad?

    I’ve prepared myself for the accusations of insensitivity, so here goes:

    Really, guys? Really?

    So, in writing The Avengers, Joss Whedon took the time to make a sweeping statement: Being adopted means you’re a bad guy. You’re sure that this insignificant line couldn’t have simply been Thor trying to differentiate himself from the appallingly terrible decisions of his brother.

    Or, you know, a joke.

    I’ll save everyone the broad, sweeping generalizations like “we’re all giant crybabies,” because some things really are offensive and it’s true that some people can be insensitive to certain groups – even if they aren’t actively trying.

    But all this kind of shallow demand does is lessen the impact of the truly insensitive stuff that people say everyday. If people keep crying wolf when it comes to taking offense, it will just continue to dilute our collective response when someone is genuinely hurt by something in our media or pop culture.

    Apparently, some in the adoption community tend to agree:

    “As an adoptee (now an adult) I would like to add my voice to this and say that you do not speak for me. You do not represent me, and I find this kind of evocation of nameless children for your own petty and bitter purposes to be vile exploitation,” writes Shannon Cuttle on the petition page. “I find this humorless attitude, which serves no purpose but to calm the egos of insecure people who have no concept of context, greatly offensive.”

    This isn’t the first time in recent memory that an adoption joke has caused controversy. Last year, a North Carolina dad publicly criticized the game Portal 2 for a few choice in-game quips. So this isn’t an isolated event. Hell, who am I kidding. People are going to get offended about anything and everything. But this outrage is so magnificently misguided that it stands out. I mean, it makes going full retard seem like a prosecutable hate crime.

    Maybe I just fail to see the harm where there is some. If you found this joke offensive and truly believe that the filmmakers owe the adoption community an apology, please sound off below.

  • I’m Glad Facebook Doesn’t Tell Me Who Unfriended Me

    I’ve been on Facebook since the first summer I was given a University address in 2004. Yep, back in ye olde days, you had to have that .edu email address to even register. It was a good time – perhaps the best of times. No thirteen-year-olds, no parents, and no big brands, just curious (and mostly horny) college students, your occasional faculty member, and lot of posts about our bad decisions from the night before. Okay, that last part hasn’t really changed.

    But since 2004, Facebook has made a lot of changes – most of them unpopular in the beginning. Remember when everyone bitched about the news feed when it first popped up? “What the hell is this bullsh*t? Writing on walls is good enough for me!” Through the various years, redesigns and new features have been unveiled, usually with the same response: Dear Facebook, we don’t want all of this crap. You’re all aware of this – Facebook is always adding things that people don’t want (at least at first).

    But there are also things that people have wanted Facebook to implement, for years – so much so that dozens of pages and groups have been created in their honor. Stuff like the oft-discussed “dislike button” or seeing who has looked at your profile have been demanded but never realized. Despite what some spam link offers, you’re probably never going to be able to hit dislike on your obnoxious cousin’s status. Sorry guys.

    To a lesser degree, people have always wanted to be able to see when they are unfriended. Vindictiveness? Masochism? Who knows. Unfriending someone on Facebook is the ultimate in passive behavior, and the thought of catching the bastard, not letting them just unfriend you and skulk off must appeal to plenty of users.

    As we all know, Facebook has not built this feature into the core experience. There’s no native functionality, a tab or something, where users can go and see everyone who has unfriended them recently.

    But with a couple of easy steps, any Facebook user can figure it out. Back in January, I told you about a script, compatible with multiple browsers, that adds an unfriend notification system to Facebook. It’s called Unfriend Finder, and after telling you guys about it I installed it myself.

    And today, a couple of months later, I’m removing it.

    Let me be clear – this is not a knock on the extension at all. It works perfectly. Any time that someone unfriends me, I get a notification. Every time someone deactivates their account, I get a notification. If someone rejects my friend request, I get a notification. Everything works like a dream, and that’s the problem. I’m pretty sure that I don’t want to know the second someone unfriends me anymore.

    Let me explain what happened to prompt this decision…

    The sad march of rejection

    Yesterday afternoon, I received a notification on my Unfriend Finder box. I clicked with little anticipation, mostly because I really don’t give a damn if someone unfriends me on Facebook. Most of the time it’s someone I a.) strongly dislike anyway or b.) haven’t thought about in so long I forgot they even existed. Only this time, the name that I saw listed before the phrase “is no longer on your friendlist” troubled me. It actually hit me pretty hard.

    So much so, that I thought it was probably a mistake. Maybe Unfriend Finder mislabeled the update. Maybe she deactivated her profile – she wouldn’t just unfriend me. So I quickly searched for her name in Facebook’s (crappy) search box. Nope, she was still there. Then I figured that she was probably just up to some Facebook-style spring cleaning – probably eliminating a lot of people. Once again, I was wrong. Dozens upon dozens of our mutual friends remained, a testament to all of the people that she for some reason still liked more than me.

    At this point, I felt a small wave of sadness, followed by a larger wave of sadness because I was letting something as stupid as an unfriending on Facebook rile me. Let me repeat, I’ve axed and been axed by so many online friends, I couldn’t even count if I wanted to. It was something about this one, however, that made me think.

    This was a girl with whom I had shared a pretty close (100% platonic) relationship not too many years ago. Sure, lifestyle and location had weakened the friendship but we had never been on anything but good terms. Why would she unfriend me, and not my fiancé for example? I tried so hard to not give a sh*t like I’d not given a sh*t so many times in the past. But I couldn’t shake it.

    I’ll save you the long version, and give you the movie trailer cut scenes version of the next few seconds:

    1. WTF?
    2. Why now?
    3. Oh, what did I say on here the other night?
    4. God, I’m a jerk

    In a matter of seconds, I’d realized that I’d said something on Facebook that while totally innocent, must have deeply offended my now un-friend. It was the relative recency with which I’d been given the news of being unfriended. I could instantly figure out why, and it sucked.

    And while it is not in my character to care about something like this, I must say, that night’s beers were sad beers. Over a stupid, childish, insignificant little thing on stupid, childish, insignificant Facebook.

    And that’s why I’m getting rid of Unfriend Finder and I’m glad that Facebook doesn’t tell me this stuff. First, because I didn’t like feeling crappy and second, because I’m pissed off that something having to do with Facebook could actually make me feel that crappy.

    Facebook just made masochism really tempting

    While it’s no real-time unfriend notification system, Facebook has just added a little more bait for those wanting to take a self-revelatory walk down memory lane.

    Back in 2010, Facebook unveiled the option to download all your personal data. One little zip file that contains all the stuff you’ve shared on the network – including photos, wall posts, comments, messages, and even chat logs.

    Now, Facebook includes a list of all of your friend requests. After a little digging, it wouldn’t be hard to use that data to find all of the people who have rejected you throughout the years.

    In conclusion…

    Facebook has been tied to any number of things – antisocial behavior, narcissism in teenagers, mood disorders, eating disorders & distorted body images, and even depression. Of course, most of this stuff is BS. Let’s be honest, people are going to exhibit all of these things with or without Facebook. Sure, putting yourself out there online could exacerbate some of these things, but in the end do we really know which came first? The depression or the Facebooking?

    All I know is that I’ll be happy to go on blissfully ignorant regarding who thinks I’m enough of an a-hole to unfriend me.

    Losing a friend in real life is one of the most devastating things that can happen to you – and this is true whether you lose them physically or emotionally. I’m not saying that losing a friend on Facebook comes anywhere close, but oftentimes it still feels like sh*t. And sometimes it’s just better not to know.

  • Why Zagat Might Be a Smarter Purchase for Google Than Yelp

    By now you’ve heard the news that Google has purchased Zagat Reviews. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Zagat, it has a worldwide set of reviews that travelers have relied on for decades to choose the right restaurant.  Google famously flamed out in its bid to buy Yelp in 2009, and has finally added the restaurant reviews it has craved. Not everyone thinks that Zagat was a worthy relacement for Yelp. One wag was quoted in TechCrunch as saying, “If you were losing to Wikipedia would your next move be to buy Encyclopedia Britannica?“

    As big a fan as I am of the snarky comment, however, this one doesn’t ring true for me.  I totally understand how Yelp reviews are very important and I see why Google went after them first, but I am left wondering whether Google ended up far better off than people think, perhaps even better off than if they had bought Yelp.

    First, regardless of whether they bought Yelp or Zagat, Google has desperately wanted to have its own reviews to add to its local offerings and now they have them. What’s more, I believe that Zagat reviews have a better brand image than Yelp’s. Whatever advantage Yelp might have had in cachet over Zagat was that Zagat might have seemed old school, but now that Google owns them, you can bet they can overcome any dowdy image that might have dogged them. How long before you see a Zagat app on Android that allows you not only to search for restaurants but to be one of the raters yourself?

    Then, there is the question of the price. That same TechCrunch article linked above pegs the price at somewhere below $66 million, because there is no government review needed for acquisitions under that price. Contrast that to the half-billion dollars reportedly rejected by Yelp. Even if you print money the way Google does, having an extra $400+ million to spend on other things can’t hurt. They could buy six more content companies the size of Zagat, for example and still have some change left over.

    But people who criticize this deal are missing something else. Zagat is not like Encyclopedia Britannica, because Zagat reviews are not written by one person based on one opinion. Zagat’s has a system that uses hundreds of thousands of surveys to combine for their restaurant ratings. Their system is full of fact checkers and other checks and balances to make sure that the reviews are accurate.

    Now, think about that. Suppose you take that systematic process that Zagat has painstakingly worked out over the years and you hand it to Google. Google could very easily start with Zagat reviews and then add a social media ratings and review component that allows Zagat’s to scale their reviews way higher than they do now. And fact checking of reviews is woefully missing from ratings systems today and sorely needed. Even simple things like, “Is the restaurant still open?” or “Is that phone number still accurate?” would be a major improvement to Google’s local offerings, because Google just doesn’t keep data up to date today.

    So, stay with me here. On top of what Google bought that everyone knows they bought–Zagat’s restaurant ratings–is it possible that Zagat’s system of collecting and curating ratings could be applied to other businesses, too? All of these rating systems have developed the Yelp way, aggregating many ratings of unknown quality. Google, for all of its love of technology, was the first one to implement a search ranking system based on links, allowing the human element to affect search quality–permanently for the better. It wouldn’t shock me if Google wanted to use humans in a scalable process that improved ratings quality.

    But even if this deal is about nothing more than buying a set of restaurant ratings, it is still a very good deal for Google. Expect to see these ratings incorporated into Google forthwith, which is a major improvement for all restaurant searches.

    Check out Biznology for more articles by Mike Moran

  • Google+, Am I Forcing This Relationship?

    I’ve been a member of Google+ for exactly three weeks today. It seems like only yesterday that I tentatively attempted a login that I was sure would fail, only to be welcomed into the selective arms of the hottest new social network on the block. What magnificent sorcery had allowed my passage? Great fortune? A glitch? Had my friend gamed the system by tagging me in a video, thus enabling my unexpected acceptance?

    Not quite. Turns out Google had just opened it up for an hour or so and I got lucky. But the fact remains, I was one of the chosen.

    Now, as more and more of my friends join and swear off Facebook for good, I find myself in a pensive mood.

    Actually, I just came across something from a few days ago that got me thinking. LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner made some comments about Google+, most of them dismissing the new social network as an unwanted addition to an already full party. Apparently, he thinks that there is no vacancy in the social media hotel.

    “Nobody has any free time,” he said. Facebook is for friends, Twitter is for short messages and LinkedIn is for business. “Unlike social platforms and TV, which can coexist, you don’t see people using Twitter while they’re using Facebook, or using Facebook while they’re using LinkedIn.”

    With all do respect to Mr. Weiner, that’s an atrocious load of crap.

    I, for one, frequently use Facebook and Twitter. My tweets are cross posted on Facebook – so that I can receive feedback on both sites. Not only am I quite active in both Facebook and Twitter, but I’m trying to beef up my Google+ activity as well.

    Although I believe that it is entirely possible for Google+ to coexist with the other social networks, Weiner’s comments got me thinking: Am I forcing it with Google+?

    While posting to Facebook and Twitter feels so natural, an integral part of my daily life, am I trying too hard to integrate Google+ into that routine – knowing that it feels superfluous? I like Google+, in some ways more than Facebook. But for an early Facebook adopter (2004), can Google+ ever feel as natural?

    That long-winded introduction brings me to this: a brief discussion of things I like and dislike about Google+, now that the initial firestorm has cleared.

    I am still undecided about the entire circles concept.  When I first encountered them, I was optimistic.  I even mentioned that to me, circles felt like a natural, fluid way to categorize people in your life.  And I still believe that to some extent, but the sharing with circles is tedious in my opinion.  While I am well aware that this complaint is the ultimate #firstworldproblem, it bothers me nonetheless:  The practice of having to click multiple circles with which to share my posts is oftentimes a burden.

    In a related note about circles, some people dominate my stream. Erick Schonfeld posted on Google+ today about how Robert Scoble posts so much that he needs his own circle. This is a solution for weeding out the super-noisy people who flood your stream.

    The problem is that I find myself in the Facebook mindset where I want a comprehensive stream that includes all of my friends. I don’t want my collaborative Google+ stream to be missing anyone because I will rarely remember to click on their specific circle to view an entire separate stream of just their posts.

    On a positive note, I’ve had a whole lot of fun naming my circles. It would be improper to go into the names of some of those circles, as they are a tad uncouth. But just know that I’ve been creative.

    I like the Google+ interface. I think it is basic, clean and easy to navigate. This is so important when it comes to using it via the web. I am also a fan of the iPhone app that just dropped. Sure, it could be spiced up a little bit but the functionality is there.

    I also love the ability to share actual text posts, not just videos or links that people post – like on Facebook. Being able to do this sparks interaction and promotes comments. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Facebook eventually allows this as well.

    I’m not really using the Hangout or Sparks features. This is not to say that I don’t like the Hangouts. I think that they are simple, fun and a great option when you want to chat with multiple people at once. I also really dig that YouTube watching feature within Hangouts.

    If you regularly use those features, this point doesn’t really apply. But for me (and I’m sure many others), I am using Google+ to post videos, links, and statuses. If that sounds familiar, that’s because that is exactly how everyone uses Facebook.

    And as of right now, Google+ doesn’t do that any better than Facebook. So for a person using Google+ primarily for that reason, I find myself wondering why I should post to Google+ instead of Facebook. This might not be a conscious debate that I have in my head every time that I have something to share, but it does feel like my default still lies with Facebook and Twitter – to an overwhelming degree.

    Sure, my experience with Google+ is still in its infancy, but I wonder: Am I already too connected with Facebook and Twitter? Could they ever cease to be my defaults?

    Google+ has a long way to grow. It’s still in a beta test, remember? Once it truly integrates all over the other Google properties into the network, that might be a game changer. The world that Google+ might end up being best suited for is that of business (once business pages are completely hashed out).

    Sure, Google+ can coexist with other social networks. But for many children of the Facebook revolution, can Google+ ever compete on the level of friend and family interaction?

    [Lead Image Courtesy XKCD]

  • My Own “Facebook Obsession”

    My Own “Facebook Obsession”

    I shuffled to the front of the room and scanned the crowd, looking on in bored anticipation. I stood up straight and addressed the room, "My name’s John Wiggill and I’m a Facebook ho."

    Last night I watched CNBC’s "Facebook Obsession"  and it made me think… am I being duped? Is Facebook really as evil as they seem to think?

    Is Facebook evil? Tell us what you think. 

    Social media, for  me, started with MySpace, when  my daughter went to college in 2002. She asked me to join this cool new Internet program to keep in touch with her.

    I joined and learned some things that I didn’t really want to know and wondered "Why would she say that online?" She knew I could see her comments!

    Maybe she thought I wouldn’t be looking, but hey I’m a super geek and she knew it.

    I was a little embarrassed, but when I told her to remember that I could see what she was posting, she didn’t seem to care. From that point on, I didn’t pay too much attention to what she was doing. I didn’t dare!

    Alcoholics Anonymous made the Serenity Prayer by Reinhold Neibuhr famous:

    "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

    It’s a hard lesson to learn, but I knew I had to figure it out if I was ever going have a good relationship with my little girl, so I tried to open my mind. It was hard for me.

    I was totally focused on my business, but one day, she told me about a new website called Facebook, so I signed on to see what it was all about. I didn’t realize that I had just joined the vehicle that would change the way the world communicates, but it was a lesson that I quickly learned.

    Myspace isn’t even a competitor now!

    If you want to be hear my opinions on travel, dieting, dating, politics and practically anything else I have to say, please "Friend" me on Facebook. (Adults only please.)

    I caught the computer bug in 1982 when I bought my first computer, a Commodore 64. Flash forward. I joined AOL in 1992. I’ve had my original e-mail address of [email protected] since 1995. My kids are all geeks too.

    Facebook Obsession Doc from CNBCLet’s just say I’ve seen it all, and I’m a little disturbed by the CNBC portrayal of Facebook. Facebook has revolutionized personal, family and business communication! Facebook was the vehicle that united my relatives around the world. I communicate now daily with relatives and friends in England, South Africa and Australia. I’ve reconnected with high school friends. I keep in touch with my kids, brothers, sisters, grandkids, nieces, nephews and business contacts. Best of all, we’re all "Friends!" If you want to know what’s going on in the world of Wiggill, you need to be on Facebook.

    Now, I worked for a major international corporation for 25 years and we were taught a simple principle: never say anything in public that you’d be embarrassed to see on the front page of your local newspaper.

    That’s an adult lesson that people who were portrayed on CNBC haven’t learned. Don’t blame Facebook if you say stupid things online.

    Yes the CEO of Facebook.com did and said some stupid things too. He was a kid! Facebook was worth millions when he was just 19 years old! I’m sure he wishes he could do some things differently, but he doesn’t make excuses and I’m sure he’ll find his way.

    The teacher that got fired for calling parents idiots…is an idiot. She caused her own problem but doesn’t want to take responsibility for what she said!

    My Mom taught me a life lesson when I was very young. "If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all!"

    Facebook didn’t put those bad words in her mouth or force her to write them!

    They have private messages if you want to say something private! If you’re afraid someone might be offended by something you want to say… don’t say it, but don’t blame the messenger if people see it.

    Blame yourself!

    As far as privacy goes, the company has adjusted its policy repeatedly, including after the huge uproar following the launch of its social plugins and Open Graph initiative last April.

    More discussion about CNBC’s Facebook doc on the WebProNews Facebook page. 

    Does Facebook have privacy problems, or do people just need to be more responsible? Share your thoughts.