you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here

with this semester wrapping up, i'm down to my final months as a college student before graduation in may. as many of you can attest with your own experiences...soo hard to believe.

i'm a business major now but originally i was going to do CLEG. in either case, i never figured I'd be taking a class on blogs and social networking technology. i remember being one of the first of my friends from home to set up a facebook. how crazy is it to think i'd be taking a class on it before i graduated?? like that commercial says, life comes at you fast. sometimes in a good way.

as dissatisfied as i am with AU sometimes, it almost makes me proud to have a class like this. it's so current. text books and lectures and traditional powerpoints are so then. THIS is now.

i'm not sure exactly what we talked about in our class this one particular day, but things like blogs and user generated content came up in both of my classes later on in the day. i wouldn't have known much if it wasn't for stuff we did in this class. for once i felt like everything was coming together and i was truly receiving a real education.

as happy as i was for a second, it really made me think, too. education, success, happiness...they are all elusive entities. not something you can grab at once or hold on to very tightly. it takes continuous effort and development to stay on top of it. adapting is critical. recognizing how change can benefit you instead of how it might hurt you. the technology we studied is of course just a small part of it, but an important one at that.

thanks guys for a good semester and best of luck
see ya around

it's not WHAT you say...

why can't we all be as smart as andrew keen?

i have to say i didn't much like the tone of his "digital emperor" article and when i watched additional interviews of him, his arrogant tone and demeanor did nothing to sway my opinion.
basic searches of his name reveal many others who share this same sentiment. and how could they not?

seems like mr. keen is really concerned about "our culture" being destroyed by the content posted by anyone without ivy league degrees who is not part of the priveleged elite. the United States was borne as a country to fight these principles...to give anyone a chance. (ironically, keen is english)

the problem is not that non-traditional outlets of expression exist or that those without traditional background and expertise create content. those with long academic backgrounds and piles of degrees are free to use these mediums as well. they just are not using them as efficiently as others so this "tremendous knowledge" is, in a sense, being wasted. those who complain their messages are not being heard i think are forgetting one of the most important rules of all communication: know your audience. if you want your work to gain some respect outside the ivory tower, make it available, make it understandable. google results are not generated arbitrarily or by chance. they are determined by algorithms that find the most popular results. are people like andrew keen really disturbed by the "loss of integrity" they assoicate with new media, or are they more upset their work is not topping the charts?

blUGCs

derek powazek lambasting the term 'user-generated content' reminds me of my complaints about the term blogs. obviously his is much more clever and he actually suggests an alternative.

however, calling things authentic is too much of an endorsement for my liking. i happen to like the term user-generated content. that's exactly what it is. because of all the linking and tagging, one has to question how much is so 'authentic'. 'user-generated' lets you know someone is behind the work and that it truly is generated--that is, it may not be totally original or authentic, but someone has put their own spin on it and put it out there for the world to see.

honestly i think user-generated is a friendly term for some of this. generated implies that something has been created. what does a blog imply? someone was finally motivated enough to put their moans and groans in writing?

people love to name and re-name and nickname the most obscure things, so, with a movement as large as the now infamous UGC, i'm sure some alternatives will start to pop up. so until then, hang in there derek.

social (cause) networking

after reading the article on teens who raised money through other social networking sites, i was inspired to write about it. i almost couldn't believe it when i logged in and saw this.

if we use the web to do everything else, why not use it for some good?

while we sit and nod our heads, nick anderson and ana slavin did something about it. they did a lot about it.

i can remember the fundraisers and charity causes at high school and maybe sometimes we combined with other local schools. but to coordinate such a large-scale effort as they did is amazing. also, considering it is supporting a cause most high school students probably knew little to nothing about. they were successful because they connected to their audience through accepted mediums, and also mobilized them. or, basically every marketers dream. i doubt either of them will have trouble rounding out their college applications in the next year or two.

with any technology there's benefits and drawbacks. you love to see this, but i can only shake my head in disbelief of the stupidity of those who use the technology for things such as flash mobs.

in any case, i admire those who use the web to amass fortunes, look down upon those who use it for stupidity, and respect those who can simply create solely for the benefit of others.

picking a winner

in the day and age of entrepreneurship and development, new jobs are created all the time. these jobs are not the kind you talked about with guidance counselors back in high school or the kind that show up in generic job-type surveys. so how can you know if you're a potential fit, and if so, how can a company find you?

the answer is social networking and its convergence with recruiting.

it's one thing to solicit resumes from those actively seeking jobs, but often times it is the people who are in another job currently that are most desirable. this is the attraction to these sites. recruiters get a look at a variety of people and those same people are at a no-loss position by merely putting their resume on display...if they hear something fine, if not they'll stay where they are. it's a good situation for both parties.

i like that the article mentions using discretion when looking for prospects and realizing a subtle tie may not be the most viable option. it's important to realize the potential of these types of sites but also to recognize their limitations.

as this sector further develops, recuriters will become more savvy in employing these techniques and job seekers will also refine their methods of use to maximize exposure and attractiveness. these can certainly be a valuable tool for students at a school like AU where there are not a ton of recruiters coming to campus. certain fields also lend themselves to this more than others. for example, extremely technical fields where concrete, black and white skills are the primary requirement are the best fit. a recruiter can see what a person knows (or says they know) and more or less make a decision. something in a more personal field will require more face-to-face analysis.

all in all, these can be a great tool for people looking to make a career move and those looking to employ them. i'd still take a generous, well-positioned alumni base with hiring power over all the expertise in the world on these sites though.

drawing the line

networking is all the rage these days. it seems like it doesn't really matter what you can do on your own, as long as you have a powerful "network," you' re all set. of course this isn't entirely true, but there is some merit behind the thought.

as the networking movement has become so strong, companies are now looking to leverage the networks of their employees to help the organization as a whole. previously the most valuable feature of a network outside your own company was the ability to find another job, but now it is more of an internal business asset. companies are relying on these networks to generate sales leads and suddenly everyone from r&d to accounting is a part of the sales force.

in a small organization where there is a lot of interaction between co-workers, these networks may be easily exposed, but in large companies, co-workers sometime have no idea about their resources. my favorite comparison was the needle in a haystack. the sales lead was obviously the needle and all the other employees were the haystack.

now technology has been developed to find the needle. the biggest obstacle is whether or not employees are willing to submit to this technology. do they want to share their network of resources? the overriding theme is that, sooner or later, they won't really have much of a choice and corporations will milk them for every ounce of their worth beyond their actual job functions.

as a leader, i think it is necessary to be able to use the resources of your employees. it can obviously make the difference between negotiating a successful deal or coming up just short. as the subordinate, however, i would be more reluctant to share in some cases. these are connections that you made and if you are cut out as the kind of middle man in the whole process, your value to the business has decreased greatly.

i guess the key is to continue making connections and show that your network is large enough that you will always be an asset to the business.

it all comes down to...

everybody is on a team these days. everything is accomplished with collaboration. those sound like great ideas. and they really can be.
anyways, now the debate shifts not on whether or not to work on teams, but how to work on teams.

business has demanded collaborative online technology. it can make existing processes more efficient and highlight new collaborations that were cost prohibitive before. how can we make these virtual teams a winner? the answer is by making them as technologically advanced as possible, but at the same time, trying to keep as many elements of a real life team meeting as possible.

to win over those reluctant to go virtual, they need to be convinced there are many positives and few drawbacks. that is--virtual teams are cheaper and can lead to better ideas by exploiting new relationships. these are a new type of relationships though. they are all business. it is an environment where only the most productive will thrive and only the most efficient methods of communication are embraced.

and to those concerned about less face-to-face time, you can meet some co-workers outside of work at a nice restaurant because you will have saved time and increased the bottom line. oh, you say you won't because you didn't actually like those people in the first place? exactly.
change can be tough, but it must be embraced. those who are the most successful are simply the most adaptable.

digg this

so this post is a little late, and honestly, i wasn't even going to write it until last night something really got me thinking.
i am a huge sports fan. i'm a lot more interested in the score of some obscure football or basketball game than some new website technology. as i was reading through things about digg and other sites like it, i felt really taken aback. i had heard of digg, but i had no idea how to use it or no idea there were so many even more advanced sites similar to it. i felt like i really was missing out on something big. then, last night i sat down to watch my beloved buffalo bills take on the cowboys for our first home monday night football game in 13 years.
the bills lost the game 25-24. sure anyone could see those numbers posted on one of a million websites this morning. they could use RSS readers and all kinds of other things to check out articles and blog posts about the game from around the world. but for those three plus hours that the game was on, people like me watching were taken on an unmatched emotional rollercoaster ride. there was jubilation, disappointment, shock, awe, sadness and elation. the range of human emotion was stretched to the limit and then pulled a few more inches.
no matter how much you read about it or how many highlights you watched, there is no substitute for being a part of that experience while it happened. i guess it's almost hypocritical for me to say that because i only watched the game on TV. the 74,000+ actually at the game got the true feeling. you do forge some powerful connections with those watching the game with you so i must say. i always feel connected to everyone watching actually. but anyways, the point is, the most exciting parts of life are things that can be felt. raw emotion. it can be awesome, it can be heartbreaking. often times it's a bit of both. this is what makes us human. those numb to this are really missing out. so, in conclusion, technology is great. it makes the impossible possible so many times it seems, but the bottom line is, there is simply so substitute for the human experience and connecting with others in a head-on collision of feelings and emotion.

my mentor is 3-D dog...

first off, i applaud those who made real fortunes playing second life. obviously these are the minority and most people just tossed in some money for the chance to feel like real estate moguls. or i guess fake estate moguls. anyways, i think it's a great idea and i totally support people playing the game. i like the entrepreneurial spirit it promotes and the constant quest to find new ways to make money. the chance to earn actual money on a lower-risk basis because of the exchange rate also makes it more appealing and more accessible.

that being said, i think it is best-suited for individuals. companies get involved because of the obvious profit and promotion opportunities, but i don't see the involvement having large-scale effectiveness. sure, the 'islands' or online stores could work for some, but most just are not the right fit for SL (as evidenced by abandonment of several corporate SL ventures).
this is because i don't think many people would want to spend real money on something that they could realistically purchase in the physical world...like American Apparel clothes for instance. the real appeal is in building houses or trying to work interesting jobs...escapes from reality.

finally, the idea of using secondlife as a learning tool makes me sick. maybe it's because IBM is a technology company and things are run a little different than I may be accustomed to, but if upon getting a job i was told to create a secondlife account to learn about the way the company works I would not handle it well. like I said, i have no problem with secondlife as a competitve, money-making game, but it should not be a substitute for real life experience. come on guys.

blogs=pet rocks? hahah i love it

The title is in reference to this article.

To a technology laggard like myself, it's almost hard to believe something like this was written over two years ago. I have to believe, however, that I am still ahead of a decent amount of the general population in terms of technology use and maybe average at best in comparison to my immediate peer group. Regardless, I've come to accept that blogs really seem to be the way of the future.

I never liked the word blog. To me it sounds like some kind of growth you'd find on a rotting tree or a skin disease that strikes someone who doesn't get enough exercise. After developing all your links and tags and readers you couldn't have at least named it something cool? Now I have to read and hear about BLOGGGGGGGGS all the time.
Anyways, it's kind of ironic blog brings some kind of sedentary, lazy connotation to mind because blogs really are the exact opposite. Blogs are alive. They're here, they're there....they are everywhere. All at once.

Blogs are the new undeniable force in society and business. You get news about celebrities, voice complaints, and even launch careers. Who would have imagined a goofy looking wise ass who draws on pictures of celebrities or Mr. Free Meals and a Playground for an Office isn't Good Enough for Me would become stars in the blog era? Who knew we would be in a blog era?

I guess it all makes sense. After reading through these blogs, you realize anyone can do it. Although, from my point of view, I find it kind of difficult to match the stupidity or mundanity of most of them. So, anyways, the point is, blogs lead to more blogs. When the secret is out on how popular they are, more become interested in the profit side of the equation. At this point, anyone who says companies need to be cognizant of blogs and how they are perceived in the blog community is beating a dead horse.

In closing, I understand how important these ill-titled creations have become. After all, I'm being forced to write and read them to get a degree and even enter the business world. I've come to realize that, no matter what I decide to call them, this is only the beginning of my experience with, well, you know what.

check out the work of one of my classmates

amateur night

I'm not quite sure what to think about this. Everyone has used wikipedia for something and its value is inherent. But can you imagine a whole newspaper or magazing written like that?
I guess it's a sign of the times. People prefer reality shows on TV and YouTube videos to movies or plays done by professional actors so who wants a newspaper article written by an actual writer? Well, for one, I do.
I might choose to look at an article written en masse out of curiousity to see how it comes together, but I would rather read something crafted by a person who makes a living covering the news. It's one thing to visit forums or chats or whatever you might call them to a subject that is most interesting, but I don't think mass random collaboration should become the norm. Those who clamor that it brings diversity or a new forum for opinions need to understand the editors or team of editors have the ultimate power to spin things however they want. Honestly, I think they have more leeway for something of this regard. If a reporter writes a questionable column or story, they will have to answer to their editor, the public, etc. Whose to say an editor or anyone won't write posts under aliases and skew the whole presentation? Just as interviews often miscontrue quotations or "take things out of context" what makes anyone think an editor won't cut and paste the hardwork of others to get their own personal message across and further their own personal agenda? Overall, I think the biggest liability to these
crowd sourcing projects is that they are going to attract extremist points of view on any given topic because it will draw those willing to work for free to get their wacked-out messages across.
Further, if this is the future of intellectual exploration and research, it makes me wonder what the future of education is. On this track it seems like no one should have to write any sort of paper. Following the logic behind citizen journalism...why should I try to write anything when everyone else knows more and can do a better job?

so thats why i have no friends in papua new guinea

im glad charles kadushin has his name and copyright symbol emblazoned on every page of his earth-shattering report. maybe soon he can trademark sleeping or breathing and give them names much harder to pronounce or understand. the things he mentions are pretty basic concepts. my favorite part is the citation of feld and carter that quotes "individuals are more likely to be friends if they are geographically close."

wow.

but no conversation about propinquity can be totally complete without homophily. this jargon explains why i am more likely to be friends with someone who grew up next to me and shares similar interests than a tribal bushmen in the south pacific. others in certain intellectual circles refer to this occurrence as "common sense".

all kidding aside, i think some of this study can be useful, but the key, as stated in the Harvard Business Review article, is putting it all to use. networking to network is a waste of time. when departments, people, processes, etc. don't stand to gain anything by being connected they should remain independent. just as a surgeon makes minimal incisions, orgranizations should make minimal connections....just enough to get the job done would be the most accurate way to put it.

focusing on the type of network used is also a valid idea. just having a general clue about the flow of information and the roles of people is enough to sense the way things are done. extensive drawings of nodes, lines, arrows, etc. are more often than not unncecessary. the bottom line of this is yea, networks are important, but, they should be used properly, and it needs to be understood that a network is created in the first place because of something else...it should not become the sole focues of those involved in it.

initial look at social networks

The readings bring up some interesting ideas...I remembered the article about Lois Weisberg from The Tipping Point. It really is amazing how some people develop such vast networks. When I read about someone like that, it makes me think of people on the other end of the spectrum, too...those who are scarcely known outside of their immediate circles. The other articles touch upon working both of these types of people into the framework of a successful business. After all, we can talk about knowing people or not knowing people all day, but in the end it comes back to how effectively this proverbial web of relationships can be managed.

I never really thought about the bottleneck aspect as much and how it could actually be negative for someone to be so heavily relied on. In the Weisberg article, it brings up the idea that most of a person's friends can be attributed to his/her relationship with a particular person. This is similar to an organization where multiple groups have one common link. For that bottleneck person it's probably good to know so many people (although it could get stressful or too burgeoning) but the overall organization may suffer. This is where good management can make its mark and shift some of this emphasis to balance the load more effectively. The MIT Sloan review is spot on in mentioning those who think they know most are usually wrong. The point about less communication is sometimes more also strikes a chord after being bombarded with email at work this summer. I do have to say, though, my organization (a large global bank) did a pretty job of embodying many of the ideas outlined in the readings.

Overall, dealing with people is a dynamic activity. People's attitudes change, they change locations...seldom is the same from one day to the next. No matter what this change is, however, they interact with others is still necessary. Insight into this process and how communication is developed and subsequently dispersed can be very valuable when managing an organization.

the prelude

This blog is created as part of a class at American University where I am a student. On my honor, all posts on this blog are my own.