DISQUS

Tim, here's my problem. Bob wrote that "My boss at this point told me to stop what I was doing and to not further engage with them anymore." There's no ambiguity there and Bob apparently understood it since this is HIS side of the story.

I have no problem with Bob advocating for a change of policy -- even vociferously. But there's a huge difference between arguing for change and making a unilateral decision.

Tim, no matter how ignorant, stupid, spiteful, or short-sighted the manager's instruction may have been, it was Bob's obligation to obey it. Argue against it, sure. Try to change it, of course. But to simply ignore it is wrong.

I would not want Bob as an employee. As an employee, you don't have the right to obey only those orders that you feel make sense. If someone higher up the food chain tells you to do something, you do it or you quit. Willful disobedience demands a serious response.

I'm all for companies engaging customers online. But not all companies agree -- and that's their prerogative.

This seems to be another case of those of us inside the bubble taking ourselves way too seriously. It's like the inside baseball talk of a bunch of Bill James acolytes debating the nuance of statistical prediction in our favorite pastime.

Unsolicited email should not automatically be labeled spam, no matter how many people may have received it. If I see a sincere email from someone to me -- even if I don't know them and they sent it to 5000 other people -- that's fine by me.

The spam we should all be concerned about is that which comes from hijacked computers, overseas email mills, con artists, and other lowlife operations. Unsolicited email from colleagues, acquaintances, legitimate marketers, and others shouldn't be something to fret about.

Imagine how boring your life would be if you only heard from people you specifically requested to talk to you. Look back at your past and try to figure out who you would not have a relationship with today if you had to ignore anyone with whom you did not initiate the original contact.

Serendipity matters. Marketing matters. If you don't want unsolicited email of any kind at any time, don't use email at all.

What you're doing now is hard, but you will be rewarded for it. Many entrepreneurial people have a tendency to say yes to too many things (myself included). It eventually comes back to bite you if you don't periodically reassess.

A number of years ago I started doing a Think Week every 6 months where I unplug and reassess everything I'm doing. It's important to take that 30,000 foot view from time to time, while stepping back from the day-to-day. Some people may not need (or have the luxury of) a week, but even a day can be a powerful opportunity to reset.

In short, you're doing the right thing and while it disappoints some in the short term, it will reward all in the long term.

Agreed with one clarification needed, I think. I have seen some blog posts so dense with links that they can become hard to read. For instance, in this post you mention Twitter and don't link to it -- and I agree with that choice. Links should be saved for when you are adding value. If I refer to a series of companies in a post but am not focusing on them, I often will not link because it clutters the post and distracts from my message. But I if I were focused on Twitter or LinkedIn or those sites added real value to my discussion, I would link. Make sense?

Vergel, you're right, but it is amazing how often companies these days rely on "Web 2.0" services for their own company products. Even some of the big hits out there -- like Amazon S3 -- come with few guarantees and no long-term commitment. Or how about companies developing Facebook apps? What happens if Facebook decides to change the rules ... it could kill a company on the spot if they are too deeply invested in it.

Or what about companies using Yahoo Pipes behind the scenes. Are they ready when/if Yahoo decides to either monetize it or end it since it is an R&D project?

We should run away and create beautiful companies together. :)

I agree. Up to a point. There are cases where existing widgets and services may not accomplish precisely what you're trying to do. If the gap is important enough, it may be worth starting fresh.

Of course, I also believe (and advise anyone who will listen) that one must be careful about building an essential part of one's business or web site in such a way that it is dependent on one provider. Now, in the case of maps, you're likely to be able to find alternate providers down the road should Google or Yahoo pull the plug.

But if I were offering a service highly dependent on mapping, I'd be loathe to outsource it -- especially to someone with whom I have no contract (and thus no fixed terms and known duration).

In short, do what you do best and outsource the rest. But make sure whatever you outsource you can live without or replace easily.

The estimable Mr. Penn is, of course, correct.

But... I would argue that you should accept paid advertising only if you accept that your blog is a business (or at least part of one). In your case, I would argue that your personal brand and media "empire" is indeed a business, and it makes sense to treat it as such. Effectively, you are an entrepreneur on the side, even if you don't necessarily categorize yourself that way at the moment.

What do I mean exactly? Well, if you are going to operate as a business and generate revenue, have a plan. It need not be detailed or etched it stone, but have a revenue goal. Set content objectives. Seek to maximize revenue. Track revenue and expenses clearly so you understand the cost/benefit of what you are doing. Because it your enterprise is focused on personal branding, you will also need to factor in "soft" benefits like reputation.

Consider setting yourself up as a company. It will provide only modest liability protection since your greatest risk is likely slander/libel, but it also isn't very expensive or difficult and it underscores your seriousness.

I don't mean to make this sound involved because it need not be. I set up companies all the time. Indeed, I just set the process in motion to create about a half dozen new ones this morning.

Why do I suggest this course of action? Because a half-hearted willingness to accept advertising does a disservice to you, your sponsors, and your audience. Treating it like a business will maximize the value you provide and get.

My wife feels just as squeamish about my social media friends as your kids apparently do. Yet the connections I have made through social media represent some very powerful personal and business connections for me. Of course, until I meet someone in person, I don't feel like the bond has really solidified because I still believe there is no substitute for that personal interaction in assessing the totality of the person. While I agree that my judgments from social media interaction usually match my in-person feelings, you learn a lot about a person from that casual one-on-one in-person conversation that is still missing from most online interaction.

Thanks for the mention, sir. You are a good man, no matter what my photos may say about you! :)

Social networks are in reality specialized niches. We each create our own niche, or join one that already exists. What you are really speaking to is the proliferation of platforms on which this interaction can occur.

If you look at Facebook or MySpace as a monolith, then you are making a strategic mistake. People don't join any of these large social networking sites to interact with a huge number of people, but rather a narrow social network of friends, colleagues, or others with whom they share some tie.

Ultimately, people must choose to participate in the social network(s) that have the most appeal and value to them, regardless of whether they exist on one of the broad platforms or on a more narrowly tailored one.

Also, keep in mind that social networking need not consume a lot of time in the aggregate. Some social networks may encourage constant participation with lots of updates, but others may be used on a much more infrequent basis while still providing value. Think of it as the difference between Twitter (which is frequent and ongoing) versus LinkedIn (which is sporadic and targeted).

http://twitter.com/chipgriffin

Google certainly is doing a nice job of capturing our attention and our time. A lot of this is still the domain of early adopters, however, and I remain skeptical that Google Docs, Calendar, and other tools will go mainstream, which they must for them to replicate the success of Search.

I think one concept your zeroing in on here a bit though is that the notion of social networking is a bit different than what most people initially mean. As a perpetually cynical and contrarian individual, I continue to believe that social networking platforms that present themselves as such are not viable over the long term.

Ultimately, we all have our own social networks and communicate with them using the tools that we find most appropriate, often more generic ones rather than ones design explicitly for networking. If you think about it, email probably remains the most powerful online networking tool.

Think about each time some new service pops up in the "social networking" space. What's the first thing most of us do? We add our existing contacts. If you look at my Facebook friends and Twitter followers, there's a lot of overlap. LinkedIn looks a lot like my email address book.

We must all be careful to understand that social networking is a concept, not a platform or web site.

Thanks as always for the thought-provoking commentary.

I have had the Sony Reader since the day it came out. I love having a portable electronic reader. Why?

First, I travel a lot. I used to lug around a stack of books with me to read on the plane and at my destination. The Sony Reader solved that problem for me. I toss it in my briefcase and all of a sudden I have removed strain from my back and found room for more useful things.

Second, I'm getting older. Not old by any means, but years of staring at the computer and reading books have started to make my eyes tire more easily. The Sony Reader lets me adjust the size of the text, especially late at night when I want a larger font to give my eyes a break.

Is the Sony Reader perfect? Not at all. I am especially intrigued by the wireless purchasing ability of the Kindle. It might even be enough to make me switch, since it appears to answer my biggest objection to the Sony Reader: that books are too easy to buy and load onto it.

I admit it isn't for everyone, and I still enjoy reading the "real thing," but electronic book readers do provide an enjoyable and useful experience.

Thanks, Chris. Appreciate the compliments. The detailed "show notes" are intended to stand on their own for anyone who can't/won't listen to the full interview. You still get more from the audio, but the text still provides value. That's part of my New Media Cocktail philosophy that silos should be abolished and content types should be blended to better serve the audience.

I am a huge fan of automation and run a company based largely on that very premise. At the same time, I see real value in human editing. I would love to see sites like TechMeme and Digg have an "editor's version" or something similar that would take advantage of all the AI and user voting and such, but would layer on the human judgment.

This would have the benefit of reducing the domination of either site by one story/topic, as well as to ensure that the sources linked to provide the best representation of the ongoing discussion.

For me, TechMeme serves a great purpose in identifying the most important TOPICS each day, not necessarily the best POSTS/STORIES.

RICHARD: "Steve, your secret is out. You really do drink Smart Water!"

STEVE: "Give me a break, Richard. The bottle was so cool I thought at first it was from Apple, but I still drink it anyway. By the way, what's up with the evidence bag in front of you?"

CONSTANTIN: "Are you both crazy? And why is Luke sneaking up behind Richard?"

Glad to hear you'll be joining me on the panel. I'm looking forward to it as well.

TechCrunch has now picked up this topic http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/12...

I have had the same temptation with Facebook. It would be nice to see the options expanded a bit since it is no longer a student-focused service.

Keep in mind that the photographs in question contain images of individuals (and cats) only incidentally. They add no value to the photographs, in fact it could be argued that they detract from the value.

The goal apparently is to take pictures of inanimate objects like buildings, which is expressly permitted by law. If pictures of buildings are expressly permitted, it would seem unreasonable to expect that people might not be included incidentally as clearing streets, especially in cities, of all people in order to take a photograph is nearly impossible.

Like most things in U.S. law it probably isn't cut and dried and you can likely find a judge somewhere who will agree with any argument you make if you look hard enough. But let's be reasonable here. In this case, Google doesn't seem to be out with the intent to violate anyone's privacy.

I feel your pain. I'm a Platinum member of USAir (100 or so flights a year). This year alone they have lost my reservation once and also forgot to record me as having flown on a segment thus automatically causing my return flight to be canceled. Fortunately, in both cases I was able to get on the plane -- largely because of my Platinum status.

Just this week my flight from DC to NH was canceled (9 hours in advance, so obviously not weather) and I ended up having to fly to Boston instead.

If I didn't fly every week and thus get special treatment and separate email addresses and phone numbers to use, I'd have even less hair than I do!

PS, if you're interested in travel horror stories, check out Shel Holtz's Road Weary blog.

Personally, I liked the "about 100 bucks in cash" bit. They weren't commiting to a specific number? Were they trying to do it Middle Eastern market style where they expected the journalists to haggle? This qualifies for not only stupid, but "PR News of the Weird."