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.