Posts filed under 'Uncategorized'
Rating: 
What do they say it is?
“socialmedian is a social news service that connects people with personalized news and information. socialmedian enables you to easily keep up-to-date on the news that matters to you and to people who share your interests.”
What do I say it is?
Social bookmarking meets RSS reader with a social filtering element.
What’s great about it?
The way it combines the strengths of its influences. The way you can find out more about users. I’m not sure how, but the news mix here seems fresher - or that just might be its early adopter alpha tester user base.
What could be better?
Being in alpha stage, there are bugs. More social connections are desperately needed - I can add a delicious user to my network, why not a socialmedian user? It’s lacking a Great Idea that lifts it above the competition.
How is it going to make money?
The usual suspects would be advertising or a freemium business model. If del.icio.us is any guide, the business model is being bought up by a Big Name.
Should I pay it any attention?
It’s worth a try if you can get an invite (Every Tuesday a new alpha invite code is posted on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/socialmedian), as a useful tool on a personal level. As a business model, it’s not showing anything worth following, yet.
By Paul Bradshaw
Share
Sphere: Related Content
May 15th, 2008
Here is the European news interactivity index. Select a newspaper or country from the drop-down menus and you can compare any two newspapers or countries.
Share
Sphere: Related Content
April 29th, 2008
Rating: 
What do they say it is?
“Friction.tv believes that disagreement - or friction - is a vital element for a healthy debate, to reach new insights and to find out what’s really going on in society. We need disagreement before we can start to find some answers… Friction.tv is unbiased, open and uncensored (except for explicit content)… empowers you to climb on the soapbox and voice your mind about any topic at any time. You can ignore mass media and bring out the issues that really matter… Friction.tv will provide an interesting and stimulating alternative to the sanitised, agenda driven mediocrity of the conventional mass media.”
What do I say it is?
A formulaic video publishing site that relies too much on the soapbox for its claims to be an alternative media platform. For example, it has sections for Politics, Education, Environment, Local Issues, Sport, Society, Entertainment, and sponsored channels. A quick comparison, some of the sections of Guardian.co.uk are News, Sport, Politics, Environment, Culture, etc… Some of Friction.tv’s main content providers are The Conservatives, Greenpeace, LBC Radio. The content is somewhere between Youtube and Current.tv, without ever quite feeling either spontaneous, timely, or usefully provocative.
What’s great about it?
The speed of the viewing interface, the breadth of voices, the open access for any editorial, and the narrow brief—issues that can be debated.
I’m pleased to be able to access , for example, the views of Ian Taylor MP, Chair of the Conservative Science & Technology Committee, “arguing why there should be a rationale debate over this country’s energy requirements” as much as to hear the views of the Washington DC students talking over the noise of the kitchen party about old white men in power.
And forgive me, but I do love the retro curved TV box to watch the video through. I also think the learnt navigation / interaction is great (once learnt), in that you need to roll over the video for the dynamic control box (pause, play, volume, FFWD etc) to pop up. It’s probably a good idea, too, to hide the controls and time counter in this way, particularly when you’ve clicked on a video from David Cameron asking “I think our relationship with America is vital. What do you think?” and the first minute is all about the situation in the Balkans. Who edited that one?
What could be better?
Which brings me onto… content. Of course Friction.tv is subject to the quality of the video and argument uploaded, and some of it… most of it… just isn’t worthy of debate. Some areas of the mass media are banal, celebrity, agenda-driven, dumbed-down versions of journalism. But that doesn’t mean I want an online video debate site to reproduce that same dilute and scattergun approach to content, particularly when that site is claiming to provide an alternative. A lot of the content is either advertising a belief or position, or simply soap-box raving, which does not engender debate. Friction, maybe, but there is a difference.
Take this ‘debate’ as an example. I chose this example for two key reasons. First, it was one of the advertised ‘hot topics’ on the homepage. Second, its headline ties in with what Friction.tv says about itself, providing alternatives to the ‘agenda-driven mediocrity of the conventional mass media’.
Under the title “Islamophobes: don’t believe the media” it is in fact a very softly spoken advertisement for the Edinburgh Central Mosque and activities they are running at the Edinburgh festival (I assume last August, 2007: the debate has been running for seven months, but is on the homepage as it is one of the ‘hot debates’ as it has gained the most comments, 799 when reviewing).
But a) it is not a debate, b) nothing in the video makes reference to why the mass media cannot be trusted, and puts forward no arguments, c) the comments are not a direct debating response, d) there is no response I can see from the makers of the video, and e) can a debate run for seven months? Not to mention f) what are the answers, what next, what happens now?
This seems a fairly typical example. The ratio of video responses for this story (1 out of 799) is also about standard. The people at OneWorld.tv tried this video dialogue back in 2001/2 but it failed. Maybe it was too early. Maybe Friction.tv is itself also a bit premature for video-to-video debate.
A couple of points on accessibility/usability:
- Every video does not have a transcript, which to meet good accessibility standards they should have. Of course this will be difficult, but it does mean Friction.tv is only for those who do not have a hearing disability
- The debates / comments publish last at the top; there is no right answer to this, but if you are trying to read the flow of a debate (rather than just a list of comments) then you need to constantly scroll up, down a little bit, back up, etc. The BBC publish comments from top to bottom. As do sites that encourage debate on their articles, such as OpenDemocracy.net. Another video site, current.tv, also do comments chronologically from top to bottom, so you can follow the debate (as an example view this debate)
- Are the Agree/Neutral/Disagree flags with the original video, or to the comment before, etc? What if the original video is not posing a particular question, or it is crowbarred to fit the format for the site?
- The ‘local issues’ tab also means happening locally, not necessarily local to you. Which needs sorting, as there is no way to sort what is local (i.e. within 50 miles or so) to me. So it immediately frustrates.
How is it going to make money?
The numbers game. The more views and comments, the more traffic, hence the benefit from remaining editorially removed from managing the hot topic choices, for example.
Also, Friction.tv has a number of channels (e.g. sponsored video feeds) from the likes of The Conservatives, Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, all organisations that want to create debate and will bring in traffic. These channels are actually one of the better things on the site, as they try (although do not always succeed) to frame the content within a for/against debate.
Should I pay it any attention?
Out of the corner of the eye, yes. Friction.tv is one of the easy to use video/TV sites vying for a position of notoriety and fame (and the advertising revenue) along with current.tv, youtube.com, green.tv etc, and could potentially to be the one to win the race. But with only two subscribers to its Youtube channel, it needs to rely less on the ideal of free speech to make its name and more on delivering some of those ‘answers’ that it talks about in its promotional blurb.
By Alex Lockwood
Share
Sphere: Related Content
April 9th, 2008
Rating:
Paul Bradshaw looks at FriendFeed
What do they say it is?
“FriendFeed enables you to keep up-to-date on the web pages, photos, videos and music that your friends and family are sharing. It offers a unique way to discover and discuss information among friends.”
What do I say it is?
Facebook, but uglier and more flexible.
What’s great about it?
It does what it says. The suggestion feature allows you to discover people and feeds you would otherwise not know about. Unlike Facebook, you don’t have to be someone’s friend to follow their stuff. The imaginary friend feature allows you to aggregate feeds. It has also released its API, opening up all sorts of possibilities for third party apps.
What could be better?
A more usable interface; some way to filter the information overload that comes from a river of feeds from anyone and everyone.
How is it going to make money?
Given it’s copied Facebook’s success so far, probably advertising. But also selling services to other clients who want bespoke apps, etc. may be another revenue stream.
Should I pay it any attention?
Given the hype so far, it’ll be hard not to. The impression here is of something that will continue to develop in an iterative way, particularly with 3rd party apps, so yes, watch it and see how it grows.
Share
Sphere: Related Content
March 26th, 2008
Rating:
Paul Bradshaw looks at CoverItLive
What do they say it is?
“CoveritLive’s web based software takes your next live blog to a new level. Your commentary publishes in real time like an instant message. Our ‘one-click’ publishing lets you drop polls, videos, pictures, ads and audio clips as soon as they come to mind. Comments and questions from your readers instantly appear but you control what gets published. Try our software for your next live blog. Your readers will love it.”
What do I say it is?
A Twitter-meets-chatroom-meets-poll that you can embed on your site.
What’s great about it?
The combination of different technologies makes for a compelling mix. In particular the comments feature transforms into a chatroom of sorts. Using this to cover JEEcamp I found users were chatting to each other about the event they were following, creating a second level of coverage and discussion. It also enables multiple author coverage (we had four authors posting on separate laptops simultaneously), and more easy and flexible embedding than Twitter. The polls are a nice touch which also enables more dialogue with ‘viewers’, and you can embed video and images.
What could be better?
They are working on searchability, apparently, and have already made it possible to export onto your own site. It has also crashed previously, while embedding may not be simple for everyone (it worked on a Wordpress-hosted site). Tagging and geotagging could be added. Adding images and video could be easier - integration with a live video service such as Qik would make this incredible.
How is it going to make money?
Once they have a foothold, advertising is an obvious option. But more promising would be a ‘freemium’ model where users can pay for extra features. Most likely we’ll see a combination, with the paid-for version being ad-free as well.
Should I pay it any attention?
Very much so. Publishers will find this incredibly useful in covering live events. Entrepreneurs should pay attention to what looks like a potential profit-maker.
Share
Sphere: Related Content
March 26th, 2008
Rating:
By Nico Luchsinger
What do they say it is?
“Simply, Brijit aggregates the world’s best long-form content and abstracts it in 100 words or less, providing busy, omnivorous, and increasingly mobile readers with rich, qualitative summaries as well as better guideposts for what to read, watch or listen to now. We produce these abstracts in concert with our readers, as one community of readers, writers and editors. Think of us as your well-read friend who leads you to that can’t miss article, video clip or product.
We wish deep down that we were the kind of people who could read the Economist AND the New Yorker cover-to-cover every week, watch the Sunday morning political shows, and never miss an hour of This American Life. But we’re not. And chances are, neither are you. Because who’s got the time? And that’s why we’re building Brijit. Our mission is simple: make it easy for all of us to discover and access the world’s best content, quickly, inexpensively and on our own terms.”
What do I say it is?
In TechCrunch’s words, a “Digg for dead-tree media”. A site providing user-written abstracts of articles from about 100 sources, focusing on magazines from the US and the UK (for example, The Economist, the New Yorker, or Wired). The abstracts - according to Brijit founder and CEO Jeremy Brosowsky, there are about a hundred a day being added right now - are rated according to the importance that Brijit assigns to the original articles and can be browsed by source, subject, tags and popularity. Users are paid $5 for abstracts that are published, and there is an editorial process ensuring the quality of the abstracts.
What’s great about it?
Frankly, almost everything: The site gives me a quick overview of interesting long-form content that I might otherwise miss. The editorial process and payment method ensure that the abstracts are actually well written and helpful in deciding whether I should read the whole thing. There are various ways to access to browse the content, and a lot of different RSS feeds you can subscribe to. Brijit also has a very simple, clean design.
What could be better?
Being from a german-speaking country in Europe, I would love to have non-English sources like Le Monde diplomatique or Der Spiegel included in the service. Short descriptions of the sources would also help users to decide whether they want to read an article. And finally, Brijit could introduce some more social features, like a “Digg”-Button (although they now have a nicely designed Facebook application).
How is it going to make money?
Brijit has raised $1 million in venture capital. In the long run, the site wants to earn money from advertisement, syndication and partnerships. “We see interest in syndication and other partnerships primarily from ecommerce sites looking to offer their customers compelling content, from content sites looking to broaden their reach or increase their depth”, says founder Jeremy Brosowsky. There haven’t been any partnerships announced up to date, the site only runs some Google ads at the moment.
Should I pay it any attention?
Yes, you should. Not only if you are tired from the web’s constant river of news and want to read some great magazine articles again for a change, but also because Brijit understands how user-generated content can work: With a strong editorial control and with sharing the revenue with the users that are providing the content. With that insight, Brijit might well be one step ahead of all the other “social” news sites.
Share
Sphere: Related Content
March 7th, 2008
Just in case you were wondering “Who designed that lovely OJB logo and how much can I pay him to do something for me too?” His name is Adam Stewart and you can find his site here.
Share
Sphere: Related Content
February 1st, 2008
Rating:
By Gabriela Zago
What do they say it is?
“Pownce is a way to send stuff to your friends. What kind of stuff? You can send just about anything: music, photos, messages, links, events, and more. You can do it all on our web site, or install our lightweight desktop software that lets you get out of the browser”.
What do I say it is?
In spite of the efforts of considering itself more like a collaborative tool (a way to share things online with friends), Pownce is a microblogging service, just like Jaiku or Twitter, but with a few extra options, like sending files and event invitations, or splitting friends into sets. And, as a microblogging service, it can be used for a variety of purposes – including Journalism.
What’s great about it?
The extra facilities make it simple to share things online with friends. It is possible to send files (up to 10Mb in the basic account), event invitations (there are pages featuring each event, and you can sign up to take part of it). The ability of splitting friends into sets allows users to send messages to specific niches of people, which could be used as a Marketing or PR tool. There’s also the integration with other profiles in other websites, and it is possible to import friend lists from other services (including Twitter). The new version of their Adobe AIR based desktop client is really lightweight. The mobile page is also smooth.
What could be better?
Apparently, no RSS feed is provided. Being able to use it by SMS or IM would be nice too, specially because of the possibility of sending messages to groups of friends (which Twitter lacks). Pownce API is public, so as users database starts to grow (after a six month period of closed beta, the service was launched for public in January 22nd) new uses can emerge.
How is it going to make money?
There are discrete ads in the middle of the posts stream, using the same color scheme of the user updates. The ads are displayed both in the website and in the Pownce Application. Also, some features are for pro users ($20/year), like designing custom themes, or sending larger files (up to 100Mb).
Should I pay it any attention?
Yes. Since it is now open for everyone to join, the user database may grow, and, although slowly, appropriations and new uses might appear, including some possible journalistic approaches.
Share
Sphere: Related Content
January 26th, 2008
Rating:
What do they say it is?
“Skewz is a place to find out how News articles are skewed. These articles are submitted by people like yourself and then voted on by the rest of the Skewz community. You can submit any news article you want, from the mainstream media to the most obscure blogs. Skewz is also a great place to exchange view points and debate on the issues of the day.”
What do I say it is?
Think a political Digg that goes both ways. You can submit any news story and the community can vote on how “liberal” or “conservative” the story is. Until now however, there is not a lot of discussion, most stories only have a few, if any, comments.
What’s great about it?
The site has a very clean and simple design, and “skewing” stories can be done easily by dragging a handle to the left or the right. You can not only “skew” stories, but also comments from other users. There are several widgets and share options for each stories. And - my favorite tool - there is a Media Comparison Kit which shows you, based on the submitted stories and ratings, how biased the sources are on different subjects.
What could be better?
Well, first of all there should be more active users writing comments and discussing, and for my (European) taste the site is too US-centric. But the fundamental problem seems to be that skewz.com is rather a cool feature than a a full-blown news site. Although I like the idea of “skewing” stories and being able to compare biases of different sources, it is something I’d rather have integrated with the news aggregation sites I’m already using. And finally, although this is not directly related to the service: I expect people working in online journalism to be more communicative. The last blog entry from the skewz.com team dates from November, and my e-mails asking for additional information haven’t been answered yet.
How is it going to make money?
I guess from advertising. There are no ads on the site at the moment, but their Terms of Service mention the possibility of placing ads. But I seriously doubt that advertisements will ever create enough revenue to run the site.
Should I pay it any attention?
Yes, you should, because the basic idea as well as the execution are great. And if you’re the webmaster of an established news site looking for cool new features, maybe you should even write the guys from skewz an e-mail (and hope that they’ll write back this time).
by Nico Luchsinger
Share
Sphere: Related Content
January 13th, 2008
Previous Posts
