Aidan Henry

• 

  • Aidan Henry  Yeah, I agree. It's hard to point a finger at one party. If it was the crowd's fault, the model is broken. If it was the company's fault, then poor execution can be blamed. I can't imagine it being easy to maintain the focus of a crowd with such a short attention span though... -Aidan
  • • 2 months ago
    •   Cambrian House: Failure or evolution?
    •   Mathew's comments
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • Aidan Henry  So basically Michael is saying that the model failed rather than the execution? That was the main thing I wanted to find out... Cheers, Aidan
  • • 2 months ago
    •   Cambrian House: Failure or evolution?
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   mathewi  I think he's actually saying a bit of both, in a way. That coming up with ideas wasn't a problem, but crowdsourcing people to follow through on them was a lot harder to do -- whether that's a failure of the model or the execution of the model is open to interpretation, I suppose.
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply

  

  • Aidan Henry  Haha... that's great. I never worry about stuff like this. If we're all gonna go, we're all gonna go... Cheers, Aidan
  • • 2 months ago
    •   Particle Accelerator Complete With Doomsday Theorists
    •   How To Split An Atom
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • Aidan Henry  I think you hit the nail on the head with: "I'm starting to wonder if they might be in danger of rolling out some sort of revenue model "too late." Twitter's profile is very high right now, so they don't have the luxury of tinkering (as much) as they may have had a year ago or even the beginning of the year." Cheers, Aidan
  • • 2 months ago
    •   How will Twitter ever make money?
    •   Online Media Cultist
  •   Eric Berlin  That's why I think my very first thought about this today was: why don't they just throw up some banners already!? :-)
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply

  

  • Aidan Henry  Hey Eric, Thanks for the kind words :) I definitely think that Twitter needs to capitalize on its user base fairly soon, but it must be done in a very succinct manner. I acknowledge your idea of traditional advertising, although I think they can drive much higher CPMs and provide interesting, relevant ads if they leverage the context. It definitely is a potentially dangerous move, but I think it can be effective if done properly. And, at some point, Twitter needs to do something... Cheers, Aidan
  • • 2 months ago
    •   How will Twitter ever make money?
    •   Online Media Cultist
  •   Eric Berlin  I'm starting to wonder if they might be in danger of rolling out some sort of revenue model "too late." Twitter's profile is very high right now, so they don't have the luxury of tinkering (as much) as they may have had a year ago or even the beginning of the year. That said, a commenter over on your piece at RWW made an interesting suggestion about "tacking on" ads to existing tweets in the "free space." I wonder how much space there is to work with there? That said, I still think that unless the ads were very occasional, they would annoy people (and me) as the ads would be grouped into what people assume is a content space, as opposed to an ad space. Will be very curious to see what they come up with! Or who knows, maybe Google will simply drop $400 million on them or something and that will be that. ;-)
  • • 2 points
    • 1 reply

  

  • Aidan Henry  I can't pinpoint one reason... I use Social Tools to learn, network, build relationships, stay up-to-date, etc... I'd imagine others do the same. Although different people have different needs, I would find it a bit short-sighted to think that Social Tools may be used to accomplish only a single task... Cheers, Aidan
  • • 2 months ago
    •   Poll: Why Do You Use Social Tools?
    •   How To Split An Atom
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • Aidan Henry  The potential cost of launching a new web venture nowadays can be close to 0, if you discount human labour and leverage free software/tools/platforms. For this reason, I don't see an Internet bubble in sight. I wrote about it all here: http://www.mappingtheweb.com/2008/03/20/there-is-no-internet-bubble-and-there-wont-ever-be/ Cheers, Aidan
  • • 2 months ago
    •   Web 2.0 in limbo? Let’s get a grip
    •   Mathew's comments
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • Aidan Henry  Great article Greg. I think that aggregation tools are needed to filter out the clutter. The theory is that aggregation saves time and hassle, ultimately revealing the most pertinent content. In the end, we are left with more time to focus on innovation and more important projects. The big problem is when people let news and aggregation consume their attention. Productivity and focus are lost... Cheers, Aidan
  • • 2 months ago
    •   Aggregation Obsession
    •   How To Split An Atom
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • Aidan Henry  Great post Steve. I love your posts on web issues and concepts. Keep them coming... With respect to the article itself, I don't think there is a clear answer. Both algorithms and humans have their advantages and disadvantages, and this will never change. I wrote a similar article last year called "Humans vs. Computers: The Editorial Debate" - http://www.mappingtheweb.com/2007/05/14/humans-vs-computers-the-editorial-debate/ Has any company explored the possible combination of algorithm + human-edited? Cheers, Aidan
  • • 2 months ago
    •   The Algorithm And The Crowd
    •   How To Split An Atom
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • Aidan Henry  News is time-sensitive. Knowledge isn't. -Aidan
  • • 3 months ago
    •   “If the news is important, it will find me”
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   mathewi  Thanks, Aidan. That's an excellent way of putting it. On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Disqus
  • • 2 points
    • 1 reply

  

  • Aidan Henry  I would have to agree. I can use my IM client to chat with contacts. Chatting with random visitors who just happen to be on the same website at the same time as me is likely to provide very little value. Cheers, Aidan www.MappingTheWeb.com
  • • 5 months ago
    •   Meebo: Chat rooms are so 1998
    •   Mathew's comments
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • Aidan Henry  I think the people that are pissed off are the people who "used to" regularly make the front page. I saw to heck with them. In theory, nobody should be making the front page on a consistent basis if the system is true. Only the best content should rise to the top, and I doubt a few given individuals are submitting all the best content. Therefore I'm totally FOR algorithm changes that level the playing field and only allow for the best content to reach the top. These little groups and cliques that have prospered for so long are now in turmoil and they're in a pissy mood. Do you really think that a few top blogs and news sites produce the best content all the time? Think again. I'm not a conspiracy theorist here, but there Digg "rings" and "circles" out there. These groups pledge together and vote items to the top. My guess is the new algorithm recognizes voting patterns and a LACK of voting diversity, hence the reason some submissions aren't making the front page... Just my two bits on a lovely Friday :) Cheers, Aidan www.MappingTheWeb.com
  • • 6 months ago
    •   Digg: A social media Petri dish
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   mathewi  I agree completely, Aidan.
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply

  

  • Aidan Henry  Seriously though... $29.5 million to build out the server network and add new features? That's one helluva B round... It seems to me that the company was able to operate pretty lean up until now. I can understand taking on some money to boost the growth curve, but $29.5 million? Wouldn't $10 or $15 million be enough? I also wondering what kind of valuation they got? Cheers, Aidan www.MappingTheWeb.com
  • • 6 months ago
    •   Wordpress lands a whopper
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   mathewi  Yeah, I'm wondering that too, Aidan. They reportedly turned down a $200-million acquisition offer, so I assume it's higher than that.
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply

  

  • Aidan Henry  Wow... some great predictions. I think that they're all spot on, especially with the acquisitions. I posted my predictions here: http://www.mappingtheweb.com/2007/12/31/2008-web-predictions/ Let me know your thoughts... Cheers, Aidan
  • • 6 months ago
    •   Predictions ‘08
    •   Rev2 Backhaul
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • Aidan Henry  I'm with Rob on this one... I think it is important because it's the first time we're seeing this type of behaviour. If everyone just accepts it and goes along with it, who knows what they may want to do next? It may be a doorway to widespread acceptance. If there is an outcry right off the bat, then it will be a lot tougher to make any inroads. Cheers, Aidan www.MappingTheWeb.com
  • • 7 months ago
    •   News flash: I agree with Seth Finkelstein
    •   Mathew's comments
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • Aidan Henry  I'm going to provide the most ambiguous answer ever, yet I think it does provide some value and insight... We need both mediums. Traditional media (books, magazines, newspapers) provides a unique, professional, well-researched, all-encompassing voice. What social media (and blogs) provides is the ability to challenge ideas and thoughts via comments and trackbacks, further solidifying arguments or completely disproving them. Previously, we were at the mercy of the given publisher. Mathew... I always enjoy your perspective on a topic such as this, as you dangle a foot on each side of the fence... Cheers, Aidan www.MappingTheWeb.com
  • • 7 months ago
    •   It’s a good thing you can’t burn blogs
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   mathewi  Thanks, Aidan. I think you are right -- and I'm glad you enjoy my fence-sitting :-)
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply

  

  • Aidan Henry  That's gold... haha... PS. How do I get in on this venture? Cheers, Aidan www.MappingTheWeb.com
  • • 7 months ago
    •   It’s a good thing you can’t burn blogs
    •   Mathew's comments
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • Aidan Henry  This sounds like the argument that anti-social media critics use. They use the term "mediocrity of the amateur" and argue that a small number of unique, knowledgeable voices are better than a whole bunch of semi-knowledgeable, amateur voices. I think the argument has some merit, but ignores a lot of the advantages of social media as well... Cheers, Aidan www.MappingTheWeb.com
  • • 7 months ago
    •   Too much UGC can be a bad thing
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   mathewi  I agree that it's a common argument made by anti-UGC types, Aidan -- and I recently wrote a post taking BusinessWeek to task for doing just that. But I think Steve's point is slightly different -- not so much that all UGC is crap, but that you still need editors of some shape or form to sift through things a bit and weed out some of the clutter.
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply