<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for Vera Bass</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/b6b2a86c309abf5ad482883d95e46805/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:00:52 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Celebrate failure</title><link>http://davidcrow.disqus.com/celebrate_failure/#comment-21173840</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;amp;#8220;The value of failure isn&amp;amp;#39;t the failure itself. It&amp;amp;#39;s a culture that allows you to fail, and requires you to reflect and investigate the causes of the failure and to make the changes necessary to not repeat them.&amp;amp;#8221;&lt;/p&gt;    	&lt;p&gt;True. I&amp;amp;#8217;d add that, for me, the changes we see in ourselves as a direct result of accepting and then getting right back up to try again, can be the most valuable thing of all.&lt;/p&gt;    	&lt;p&gt;Vera&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2007 09:01:27 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viral is great &amp;#8212; but does the infection last?</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/viral_is_great_8212_but_does_the_infection_last/#comment-1300507</link><description>That's  the right question. With all the writing recently about hesitant advertisers wanting more real data about clicks and traffic, it's amusing that no one's mentioned that eyeballs, and ratings for that matter, are just as ephemeral. It's even easier to surf through 50 tv channels with your remote than the equivalent on your computer. At least with the latter there is a real possibility of converting attention into immediate action. &lt;br&gt;Vera</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:24:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Can shopping work with social networks?</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/can_shopping_work_with_social_networks/#comment-1304227</link><description>Hi Mathew,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;On the personal recommendation casual or impulse shopping side of things, I believe that some of these shopping ideas have the potential to work on a small scale and in a grass roots way.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;As to growth of serious shopping on the web, beyond the scope of established specialty retailers, I believe that the missing piece  is the information architecture that underlies a good search function. If you know exactly what you're looking for, you just go to Google or your fav maven site in the category. If you're browsing for yourself or gifts, however, with just a general idea, there isn't a single network yet that'll return many if any results, other than eBay.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I do believe that this is an area with massive growth potential, but have not seen anyone come close to executing in it yet.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Vera</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:17:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Can shopping work with social networks?</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/can_shopping_work_with_social_networks/#comment-1304231</link><description>This CNN article on recommendation engines relates to the topic as well:&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/27/8394347/index.htm?postversion=2006112010" rel="nofollow"&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Aggregation (as opposed to linking/webbing) of individual recommendation and reputation, applied to products, is the interesting question (imo).&lt;/a&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:37:04 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Can shopping work with social networks?</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/can_shopping_work_with_social_networks/#comment-1304234</link><description>Hi Philip,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;imo the key word in your comment is community. A community is more than a congregation of people. I checked out Crowdstorm and was impressed by the fact that, despite all the product recommenders being anonymous, they give a good impression of being real and reputable. Tough thing to pull off. It often hinges on what I term micro authority (as well as communication skills, of course), and is most widely evidenced online for things tech related.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;On the question of bringing in wider selection of products, here's the first idea that comes to mind. You could deliver a broad pool in any category that you have (an) active respected member(s) advising in and offer them as not yet commented on. When one gets recommended it moves into that primary category/area. Maybe also handpick through personal relationships a few maven types in categories you'd like to see the selection broadened to.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Vera</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:43:41 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Verizon: Stupid, stupid, stupid</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/verizon_stupid_stupid_stupid/#comment-1304652</link><description>Love this post, Mathew.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The telephone companies have an advantage to exploit in terms of delivery systems. Why are they futzing around with content models???&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Vera</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:12:32 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Verizon: Stupid, stupid, stupid</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/verizon_stupid_stupid_stupid/#comment-1304658</link><description>Mathew ...ya think?&lt;br&gt;The phone company doesn't know from free?&lt;br&gt;:)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:41:09 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Huffington Post takes on the media</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/huffington_post_takes_on_the_media/#comment-1304863</link><description>Increasing the resources devoted to original reporting and journalism online is, on the face of it, a good thing.&lt;br&gt;Relevant to /pd's comment, though, is the agenda issue. Money may be just a tool, but those who wield it almost always have political agendas, and those of main stream media are mostly left, not right. Those agendas in particular have greatly influenced general opinion for several generations now. It is that mute, subversive, and unacknowledged steering of opinion that endangers the individual voice the most. Call me a hopeless optimist, /pd, but I also believe that the individual voice hasn't drowned here, and won't in future.&lt;br&gt;Vera</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:36:52 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Andy Rutledge thinks you&amp;#8217;re a moron</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/andy_rutledge_thinks_you8217re_a_moron/#comment-1304810</link><description>That's a pretty unpleasant read. The saddest thing is that there are nuggets of truth in there. Speaking for myself, though, I'm awfully tired of reading posts on what sucks and why things don't work well, and wish that the people who specialize in them, if they're so smart, would spend more of those 'superior' brain cells on coming up with some positive contributions.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I hardly think that sites such as Digg offer the first clue to the potential benefits (and individual opportunity) of crowdsourcing. Global 'open calls' which generate hundreds or thousands of ideas and contributions from people whose input would otherwise never be tapped, with the cream rising to the top, is not the creation of a mob, for heaven's sake. Whoever taps into methods to fully enable millions of individuals.will be discovering an aggregation of value and power where the sum is greater than the parts. The point here is in the 'aggregation of individuals' concept ...not the same thing as massing a lot of sheep into a single entity.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Vera</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:03:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Cool gizmo&amp;#63; Yes. Fun&amp;#63; Yes. Business&amp;#63; No.</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/cool_gizmo63_yes_fun63_yes_business63_no/#comment-1309092</link><description>Cool and fun vs boring, profitable, and useful?&lt;br&gt;Instant gratification vs long term viability?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I haven't met many developers or web entrepreneurs yet that won't jump at sex appeal rather than getting down to serious business.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;This bodes well only for big established entities working at getting bigger, and that's usually where the best talent ends up.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;One of the missing links, in my opinion, is long term investors and real merchant bankers, a breed that doesn't really exist any longer. Such parties &lt;i&gt;could&lt;/i&gt; reappear, but not unless serious developers do.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Vera</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 20:24:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Microsoft&amp;#8217;s search a lot better than it used to be</title><link>http://scobleizer.disqus.com/microsoft8217s_search_a_lot_better_than_it_used_to_be/#comment-9656279</link><description>Still not as good for most business and tech things, but now my top search tool as a collector and sometimes as a shopper.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Try something like "Georg Jensen" or even a more generic term such as vintage or antique silver. Google has improved the results on that so that it's no longer a dozen pages of eBay that don't even lead to the search item, but Live gives me what I know are many of the top sites and usually in descending order.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;On the gazillion collector and shopper searches done regularly, eBay corrupted Google searches a lot.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Vera</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:05:45 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Meet Plazes &amp;#8220;where are you&amp;#8221; founder</title><link>http://scobleizer.disqus.com/meet_plazes_8220where_are_you8221_founder/#comment-9687264</link><description>Sam, they're working fine here, using Firefox.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:02:51 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: I&amp;#8217;m testing out CoComment</title><link>http://scobleizer.disqus.com/i8217m_testing_out_cocomment/#comment-9687641</link><description>After reading through your &lt;a href="http://tinyurl.com/2hjwez" rel="nofollow"&gt;'calcanis asks deep questions' post&lt;/a&gt;, I came to your link to coComments, and headed right over to install it. It seems a bit hairy over there, but I'm really hoping that it flies.&lt;br&gt;I was going to post a link to your post today, and now I just did. :)&lt;br&gt;Discovering that one's 'comment &amp;amp; conversation following' were an actual blog/location was something that makes me both optimistic and wary, because of the potential of just too much more clutter, but we won't know until we try it. Let's hope that clutter potential, if it takes off, is dealt with as well (if not as narrowly) as it is on Technorati.&lt;br&gt;I'll also add here that it didn't occur to me, until I saw your RSS link above, to add a feed address, even after I saw my coComment blog appear on Technorati. (My excuse is ...that it was late at night.)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Vera</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:38:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Why I love what I do</title><link>http://scobleizer.disqus.com/why_i_love_what_i_do/#comment-9688375</link><description>Great content.&lt;br&gt;The heart of this interview, for me, was the emphasis on visual communication and interaction added to written/verbal, as well as the identification of social behavior that is so ingrained and natural that we don't typically bother describing or even noticing it. Those elements, as I hear it, are essential underpinnings to the business and social modelling that will enable the paradigm shifts for most people. Whether they're applied by IBM or anyone else doesn't, I believe, effect the validity of the concepts.&lt;br&gt;Vera</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:21:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Hanging out with the other 99%</title><link>http://scobleizer.disqus.com/hanging_out_with_the_other_99/#comment-9691936</link><description>I've been discovering lately that 'older' people (60-90) are far more interested in how open source works, how blogging enables free speech and disrupts traditional media, and other such concepts that are more real to them than tech toys. They actually stop and think and keep asking relevant questions.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Vera</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:00:52 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: State Of Canadian Broadcasting: New Media&amp;#39;s Significant Impact 10 Years Away?</title><link>http://paidcontent.disqus.com/state_of_canadian_broadcasting_new_media39s_significant_impact_10_years_away/#comment-18817351</link><description>I&amp;#39;d say that quasi regulated is an understatement. As to private TV companies, the stock in them might be privately owned but evaluating them as private when the market they operate in is not a true free market is, imo, misleading.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;One of Canada&amp;#39;s penetration problems, including as compared to European countries, is attributable to the sheer physical size of this underpopulated place.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2006 03:42:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Parents Calling The Police On Their Children</title><link>http://sayanything.disqus.com/parents_calling_the_police_on_their_children/#comment-19006354</link><description>Hear hear.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;hmmm ...I guess this means that I shouldn't call the police about the screaming and out of control neighborhood children whose parents are standing right there watching them...&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Vera</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vera Bass</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:21:40 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>