Disqus - Latest Comments for Mathew Ingram

Re: Innovation Commons

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 17 May 2006 01:24:59 -0000

That's great, David-a terrific idea. And thanks again for all your help with mesh.

Re: Wikinomics – A spark of openness

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:27:38 -0000

Heheh. I knew about something cool and Webby before David did :-)

Re: Issues this Morning: What, Why, and What-now

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:33:43 -0000

Thanks, Daniel.

Re: Leaderboards

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:31:51 -0000

Hey Fred -- don't feel bad. If you give me a few bucks, I'll link to you and help you move up :-)

Re: Are you a user or a slave?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 08:27:58 -0000

Thanks, David. I've looked at istockphoto -- not a bad idea.

Mathew

Re: The search for Web filters

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:13:42 -0000

Thanks, Ian -- I will definitely do that. I just finished posting a comment over at TechCrunch about how I thought Gritwire was pretty good -- and that's coming from an Ajax-lover :-)

Re: Content creator or slave?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:27:20 -0000

Actually, his name has always reminded me of the word "blodger," which is the demented leather ball that tries to attack a Quidditch player in the Harry Potter books (that's what comes of having teenage girls, I suppose) :-)

Re: Google Music — what’s the big deal?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:56:26 -0000

That's a good point, Michael -- thanks for making the distinction. I'm going to change my post to reflect that. It's not really fair to lump all music publishers in with the RIAA. And I totally agree about Google -- I can hardly wait for them to introduce Google Kitchen, where you type in ingredients and they find recipes for you, and then we'll hear how that's the best thing since sliced bread was invented :-)

Re: Hey Google — You’ve got AOL!

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:33:50 -0000

Is it really that serious, Stuart? I admit, if Google starts providing AOL links high up on the page mixed in with the rest of a search, that's a big problem -- but it sounds like they're planning to have them listed separately in a box on the lower right-hand side (below the AdWords ads, I assume), and clearly marked as AOL -- is that really so bad?

Re: Drinking the Web 2.0 kool-aid

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 20:50:21 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Rick. I've used Avvenu and Orb too, as well as LogMeIn (and another Canadian one called I'm In Touch, which I highly recommend). And I've tried out Box.net as well as another online storage app called Mozy, and one called Carbonite -- still evaluating them though.

ThinkFree is quite good -- I wrote about them for my day job at globeandmail.com/technology.

Mathew

Re: mesh approaches the finish line

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 17 May 2006 17:55:32 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Netanel. I'm glad to hear that the business is going well, and that you are cash positive. I must admit that I agreed with Paul that the financing seemed odd for a browser that essentially piggy-backs on another browser, particularly IE -- but Paul has since commented on his blog post about mesh that he finds it interesting, which I assume means he thinks there may be something there. Is Maxthon working on something that will revolutionize the browser somehow or make it more than a front-end for IE?

Mathew

Re: Tired — but a good kind of tired

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 17 May 2006 17:57:43 -0000

Thanks a lot, Ian. We had a great time -- thanks for coming.

Re: Tired — but a good kind of tired

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 18 May 2006 14:35:38 -0000

Thanks a lot Kareem. It was great to meet you too -- thanks for coming to mesh.

Re: BlogHer starts an ad network

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 19 May 2006 13:28:35 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Rita -- and Busy Mom too. Best of luck with the ad network.

Mathew

Re: Seth Godin likes the megaphone better

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:20:25 -0000

That's a fair point, Al. I agree that some creative types might see it as their place to create and not converse. And if Seth hadn't made being part of the conversation a key theme in his work, I would probably be inclined to give him a pass on the comments thing.

Re: The Devil and Daniel Blogger

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:56:27 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Ted. You've certainly had a trial by fire. Just out of curiosity, have you thought about changing the terms of PayPerPost's model so that bloggers are required to say that they've been compensated? That might alleviate some of the criticisms. On the other hand, perhaps it should be up to the blogger and their conscience.

And Scott, I see your point -- but I don't think anyone would suspect BusinessWeek of taking money for something. Why? Because it has a reputation for quality, which it has developed over time. And I think blogs will do the same, regardless of PayPerPost.

Re: Watching Rocketboom go boom

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 21:19:07 -0000

That's a good point about the need for care and the fact that a board wouldn't necessarily help, Rob. Although in one of her responses to a comment on her blog, Amanda says that she has a aigned contract in a safety deposit box somewhere. What it has in it, of course, is impossible to say.

Re: More from Andrew Baron of Rocketboom

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 17:44:12 -0000

Damn. I was afraid of that. Should have saved a copy when I had the chance.

Re: Get ready for Google Laundry

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:17:32 -0000

Thanks, Jeff. I see you passed my little test :-)

Re: Bill Gross, the man who created Google

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 23:25:16 -0000

Thanks, Jim. That's why I thought it was kind of odd that John didn't mention it in his intro to the interview. Maybe he figures everyone has read the book :-)

Re: Does FOO Camp matter?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 09:50:32 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Brian. It's good to get an insider's view of how FOO Camp started.

Re: Please, let’s not call it GooTube

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:38:07 -0000

I think you're right, George. I hope this is the start of a new approach by content owners to new media ventures like YouTube. Time will tell whether it is or not.

Re: I think Mark Cuban is losing it

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:17:38 -0000

Sorry to disappoint you, Randy. To tell you the truth, I'm unclear as to why you subscribed too. If it's not working for you, feel free to take your clicks elsewhere. I have a feeling we'll both be better off.

Re: Jobs’ reality-distortion field still intact

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:56:38 -0000

I apologize if I misrepresented your argument, Rob. And you are quite right that backdating is not illegal -- although as you also noted, I am against it on principle regardless of whether it is properly structured, legally disclosed, etc. etc.

And you are also correct in saying that many of the crucial facts about the Apple case in particular are missing. My only real point is that no one -- including the WSJ -- seems all that interested in the details of what occurred, and I would argue that's because it involves Apple and Steve Jobs. If it involved Bill Gates and Microsoft it would be on the front page for weeks.

Re: Jobs’ reality-distortion field still intact

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:21:03 -0000

Thanks for adding your perspective, Richard. I would agree that the board's report seems like a bit of a whitewash.

Re: Is it a “real blog”? Wrong question

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 23:49:57 -0000

I agree, Gary. Thanks for the comment.

Re: How to handle getting buried on Digg

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:05:11 -0000

That is interesting, isn't it Stephen? I have a theory that the most buried links and comments actually attract readers -- I know I check them out now and then, just to find out what everyone thought was so bad. That's why I like this site: http://duggtrends.com/buried.aspx

Re: How to handle getting buried on Digg

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:06:06 -0000

Glad to hear that, HMTKSteve -- that kind of stuff is just not on.

Re: Tony Hung fills in at Problogger

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:13:03 -0000

I saw that, Eric -- and I thought it was quite a good one.

Re: Yahoo buys MyBlogLog — but why?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:11:14 -0000

I know you're right in a way, Eric -- and I think MyBlogLog is great, and definitely worth buying. And I suppose there's always the chance that Yahoo could try to integrate it with other things and fail miserably. But from a strictly business-oriented point of view, most companies buy things in order to do things with them, to leverage them, to integrate them, to gain efficiencies, etc. If Yahoo just buys things and then does nothing with them then it winds up being a kind of Web 2.0 mutual fund.

Re: Yahoo buys MyBlogLog — but why?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:13:21 -0000

Good point, Vanessa. And Jake, buying things and just letting them be may have a feel-good aspect to it, but in the long run it tends not to make for a good business, unless you happen to be Warren Buffett.

Thanks for the comment, Scott. My skepticism about Yahoo aside, I'm looking looking forward to seeing what you guys can do with MyBlogLog going forward. Best of luck.

Re: A Web 2.0 revolt against Yahoo management

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:20:07 -0000

Thanks, Sramana. You make some good points, particularly about Yahoo's need to focus its offerings.

Re: Vene, vidi, Venice — the TV killer

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:42:01 -0000

You might be right, Tony -- there might be plenty of bandwidth around. But that doesn't mean Rogers has to let us have any without charging us an arm and a leg for it :-)

Re: Vene, vidi, Venice — the TV killer

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:07:27 -0000

Not yet, but from what I've heard bandwidth caps are likely coming, and it wouldn't surprise me if bandwidth "shaping" likely is too.

Re: Vene, vidi, Venice — the TV killer

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:12:33 -0000

That's a good point, Matt -- I hadn't thought of the streams as a Venice metaphor. Good one :-)

And Haydn, you are quite right about the social aspect, which is something I neglected to mention -- how TVP makes it easy to IM or chat with friends about the content you're watching, with transparent windows that sit right on top of the video. Something that takes it out of the realm of regular TV and makes it TV 2.0

Re: Thanks be to Steve for locking us in

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 00:08:52 -0000

So Apple fans are idiots who don't deserve or can't handle openness? Thanks, Howard, you're making my case for me :-)

Re: Thanks be to Steve for locking us in

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:17:28 -0000

Sorry to disappoint you, Victor -- I only brought up the "Apples never break or get viruses" idea because I continue to hear it from people I know who are enticed into buying Apple computers for that very reason.

I'm willing to take your word for the fact that Apples are generally more reliable than Windows machines (although I have had three Windows machines for more than three years and have had virtually no serious issues, either hardware or virus-related).

But I would argue that it's also true that when something does go wrong with a Mac, it takes a lot longer to fix and is more expensive, which is something many people don't realize when they buy one.

Re: Thanks be to Steve for locking us in

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:48:28 -0000

You had me right up until the end there, Victor. Much as I hate to get into a geek pissing match (aw, who am I kidding -- I love geek pissing matches) I have a six-year-old Acer that runs XP just fine, and is connected to the Internet 24/7, and apart from running Spybot now and then I have had no issues with it whatsoever.

Re: Thanks be to Steve for locking us in

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 16:31:32 -0000

I would agree about the a**hole thing, Victor. And the only reason Steve gets away with it and Bill doesn't is that Steve only has 5 per cent of the market and Bill has 95.

But back to the pissing match: You said that XP was "unusable on a PC of that vintage," but I proved you wrong -- and now you're arguing that it wouldn't run Vista. That's called moving the goalposts :-)

Re: Who needs a TV network?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:17:10 -0000

A Hail Mary pass it may be, but at the same time I don't really see what choice a small station (or any station) really has. It has to experiment, in the same way that newspapers have to experiment.

Your argument that this amounts to giving away their content -- in the hope that it will either drive traffic to their TV programming or generate ad sales on the Internet, but at lower rates -- is identical to the argument that newspapers have been having about putting their content online for free.

The rationale is a) that they have to, because that's where the people are and b) because they might be able to generate additional brand awareness and traffic that they can then (theoretically) monetize.

Re: To vote for Mr. Obama, click here

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:08:19 -0000

That's a fair point, Seth.

Re: Scoble says he’s biased — does it matter?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:30:04 -0000

I would agree, Karl. And I would point out -- not specifically to do with Scoble or anyone else, but just in general -- that once it is lost, trust can be very difficult (in some cases impossible) to regain.

Re: Flickr faithful foam over faulty feature

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:13:41 -0000

Thanks, Amyloo -- I absolutely agree about the attractiveness of alliteration :-)

Re: Where does community end and “gaming” start?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:05:03 -0000

Thanks, Tony -- just wait until I get it all loaded up with widgets :-)

Re: Where does community end and “gaming” start?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:08:12 -0000

I agree, Jason. I think that kind of thing is probably inevitable -- and not just inevitable but arguably desirable as well. I don't know if Kevin and the Digg team believe that though.

Re: Where does community end and “gaming” start?

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:32:26 -0000

I think you\'re right, HMTKSteve -- Digg may be getting more than it bargained for.

Re: Robert: Disclose that bag of pretzels too

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 00:37:11 -0000

I agree, Dominic. People seem to be expecting things of Scoble that they never did when he was a flack for Microsoft -- I'm not sure why.

And Jason, the recent comments plugin is a sidebar widget that came as part of the Wordpress widget plugin.

Re: All hail the Google anti-Office

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:10:29 -0000

As far as I know, Ionut Alex. Chitu is a programmer, blogger and Google code-watcher from Romania. If you're asking about the unusual name (which I assume you are), best to ask him directly.

Re: Where does community end and “gaming” start?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:15:01 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Svetlana. And I hope you are wrong about Digg losing members, but I think that is a very real risk with the changes they are making.

Re: What’s good for Steve is good for you

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:59:29 -0000

Thanks for the comments, Mark (and Steven). And HMTKSteve, I'm not aware of Jobs saying anything like that -- although it's possible that he did. I looked around in Google for a bit this morning and couldn't find anything, although I did come across the quote that Mark mentions a few times.

Re: DemoCamp 12 — a packed house

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:24:16 -0000

Thanks, Mike. I have a great time at the DemoCamp events -- and who knows where some of those "little" companies that present will wind up in the future :-)

Re: DemoCamp 12 — a packed house

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:49:30 -0000

Thanks, Leila -- and yes, you definitely missed all the fun :-)

Re: Yahoo’s Pipes goes down the tubes

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:57:10 -0000

I agree, Jason -- but how many people are going to want to put together their own flow chart of RSS feeds to build a site? Very few, I would imagine.

To me it looks more like a toy for a small handful of geeks (not that there's anything wrong with that, of course).

And thanks for saying that, Steven. I thought I was the only one who wasn't getting it.

Re: Bridezilla — good or bad marketing?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:09:59 -0000

Yeah, I just don't think playing tricks on your intended audience is a great way to build loyalty or warm feelings for a product.

Re: Bridezilla — good or bad marketing?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:05:57 -0000

Not a problem, Pema -- happy to be confused with someone as smart and attractive as Rob :-)

And JK, I think you are sadly mistaken.

Re: Yahoo’s Pipes goes down the tubes

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:03:22 -0000

I think you are probably right, Anne. And I hope someone puts together some that I can use, because I wandered around in Pipes for awhile this morning trying to figure out how to do it and it made my head hurt, so I stopped :-)

Re: Everyone wants a “Google killer”

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:14:31 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Anuvinder. I would agree. And it may be that Powerset doesn't really want all this publicity -- but I kind of doubt that :-)

Re: Who needs a TV network?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:30:33 -0000

Thanks for the comment, John. I appreciate you providing some background -- and good luck.

Re: Everyone wants a “Google killer”

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:13:18 -0000

Me too, Engtech -- that guy is clearly a genius :-)

Re: Yahoo’s Pipes goes down the tubes

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:28:25 -0000

My feelings exactly, Dominic.

Re: Bridezilla — good or bad marketing?

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:50:59 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Tony. And there's no question that the tension between whether it was real or fake gave it a lot of energy -- and I suppose in some ways it isn't that different from any "teaser" campaign.

At the same time, however, I think that effectively disguising it as a "real" YouTube clip is a little sneaky, wouldn't you agree? And I'm not sure that tricking someone is a great way to start off a marketing relationship. Did you get lots of free publicity? Sure. But I'm not convinced that it was worth it.

To me, this is a little like the "buzz" campaigns where someone comes up to you in a bar and you think you're really hitting it off, only to discover that a company has paid them to talk to you because they're trying to sell you something.

Re: Yahoo’s Pipes goes down the tubes

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:46:40 -0000

Glad to hear you say that about Second Life too, Jason. That one makes my head hurt too :-)

Re: Is Wikipedia really in danger?

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:48:28 -0000

Thanks, Mark -- your redesign inspired me :-)

And I agree, Ms. Devouard's comments did sound a little like Goldie on a PBS pledge drive.

Re: Is Wikipedia really in danger?

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:22:54 -0000

Thanks for the link, Seth -- but I don't see how what you posted "debunks" anything that Ms. Devouard (who presumably knows what she's talking about) said in her comments, assuming they have been reported properly.

The figures you quote from Wikipedia say that it raised $1.3-million, but also notes that expenses for hosting more than quadrupled -- and says that operating expenses (for which we don't get an actual number) tripled in 2006.

That could easily put Wikipedia in a position where its costs are escalating and no money is coming in, which I assumed was the point Ms. Devouard was trying to make.

Re: Is Wikipedia really in danger?

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:03:20 -0000

Thanks for that, Seth. I must admit, those numbers don't seem to come anywhere near the $5-million mark.

Re: Is Wikipedia really in danger?

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:28:14 -0000

I agree, Doug -- although there's no question that's a bit of an ethical quagmire. What if Microsoft wanted to put an ad on the page about Linux -- or vice versa?

Re: Craig Newmark likes newspapers, really

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:09:08 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Shel. I would have a tendency to agree -- I think bloggers and the average rank-and-file journalist might have more in common than either one would with the executives who run media conglomerates.

Re: Is “crowdsourcing” just cost-cutting 2.0?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:08:48 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Bronwen. That's a very revealing quote.

Re: Video: skydiver survives 12,000-foot fall

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:42:45 -0000

There's another one here.

But it will likely disappear as well, since the video is copyrighted by Associated Newspapers, which owns the Mail on Sunday.

They have embedded the video here.

Re: Is “crowdsourcing” just cost-cutting 2.0?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:57:24 -0000

That's a great idea. Thanks for the comment, Rich.

Re: Yahoo team is teh l33t haxx0rs

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:38:20 -0000

I agree that the "look and feel" is hardly unique, Steven, nor is the idea of rating things (see Slashdot, etc.). As for the "flash crowds" that come from Digg, their long term value is definitely questionable -- although I am a fan of the site.

Re: Yahoo team is teh l33t haxx0rs

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:01:52 -0000

Totally, dude.

I was going to say "Chillin' like a villain" but I decided against it :-)

Re: Yahoo team is teh l33t haxx0rs

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:19:59 -0000

Word :-)

Re: Yahoo team is teh l33t haxx0rs

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:41:44 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Mike. I think you missed a joke somewhere along the line there. Oh, and "slack grammar" doesn't take a hyphen, you left out the apostrophe in "didn't," and your last sentence should have ended in a question mark. But thanks for stopping by.

Re: Google heard Aaron — so now what?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:47:34 -0000

I thought the same thing, Jason -- and I'm sure that occurred to Aaron too.

Re: Lonelygirl15, the sequel — or one of them

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:25:48 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Trex. I think sometimes people just like a mystery -- who doesn't? And as for jumping on the sensationalist bandwagon, I don't think I was doing that. I just thought it was interesting. If I wanted to be sensationalist I wouldn't have mentioned that Huff changed his tune and believes MaryAnne is for real.

And MaryAnne, thanks for dropping by. If that's really you, of course :-) You have a lovely voice.

Re: Vene, vidi, Venice — the TV killer

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:05:55 -0000

Charlie, I have tried the Democracy player and the TVU player, but that was a while ago and they were in early beta so they may have improved. I would say Joost is much better than either one -- at least as far as useability goes.

Re: MyBlogLog goes after spammers

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:10:53 -0000

Yeah, I agree Ryan -- not a huge deal to click the little X to get rid of those icons, but still a pain in the ass. And the co-author thing is also a potential hazard -- hopefully the MyBlogLog team will get that one taken care of soon.

Re: MyBlogLog goes after spammers

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:13:38 -0000

I bet it was, Robyn :-)

And Engtech, I would agree -- from the sounds of it they are working hard on it.

Re: MyBlogLog goes after spammers

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:14:30 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Bradford. Your move certainly got a lot of attention. Just out of curiosity, did you get any negative feedback from the people you chose to use as an example?

Re: Google’s early video deals crumble

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:31:45 -0000

Jury is still out :-)

Re: Me media: a podcast with Maggie

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:41:11 -0000

Thanks, Maggie -- and thanks for all the effort you put into doing it.

Re: Dude, blogging is just so over

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:45:55 -0000

Agreed.

Re: Dude, blogging is just so over

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:54:30 -0000

I know what you mean, Jim. But sometimes the harsh glare of attention is a good thing. Plus I'm hoping that at least one of the poor journalism and PR students at Auburn might read my post and get an antidote to the relentless pessimism of the one I'm responding to. Hope springs eternal :-)

Re: Dude, blogging is just so over

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:06:51 -0000

Good point, Sulemaan. You get extra points for that one :-)

Re: Dude, blogging is just so over

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:02:32 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Dee.

I did read what the students said on your blog post, and perhaps you meant it as an anecdote to the blog evangelism they get from other instructors -- in which case, I hope they consider mine an antidote to yours.

But you didn't really respond to any of the points I raised about the value of blogs. If you do, I promise to give you your very own smiley face.

Re: Who, us? An Office suite? Never.

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:04:04 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Vanessa. I still think the answer is apps and services that blend online and offline, the way that Zoho is trying to. That's where I expect Google to go next -- and perhaps Microsoft as well. I certainly would be if I were them.

Re: Dude, blogging is just so over

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:07:50 -0000

I agree, Laura -- I started blogging in 2001, not that it matters.

And I would agree that things seem to be getting awfully commercialized. It's a shame.

Thanks for the comment.

Re: Dude, blogging is just so over

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:28:57 -0000

Well, okay :-)

Re: Dude, blogging is just so over

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:29:26 -0000

Thanks for the clarification, Robert. I did look at the "about" page of your blog, and thought I had described it properly. I apologize if I failed to do that. And thanks for providing more info about what it is you teach your students. It sounds like a very worthwhile program.

As for your offer, I'm flattered, but I'm afraid I'm pretty swamped at the moment. If any of your students have any questions or want some input though, please tell them to drop me a note or post a comment.

Re: Newspaper software: pretty but dumb

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:37:44 -0000

I sort of feel the same way, Dominic. The Microsoft readers just feel like something that's neither fish nor fowl to me.

Re: Newspaper software: pretty but dumb

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:41:45 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Eric. Those are both good examples.

Re: Dude, blogging is just so over

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:46:30 -0000

Excellent point, Jason.

Re: Dude, blogging is just so over

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:11:08 -0000

I'm not sure it is a semantic difference, Dee. Yes, it would be better if companies had websites that provided information and served their customers, but there is also something extra that a blog adds (a good one at least).

I think Dell is a good example -- admittedly, they started one in part because they were getting beaten up for service failings and so on, but I think the blog provides a sense of openness and a more personal approach that just a regular website wouldn't.

Re: Newspaper software: pretty but dumb

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:39:13 -0000

Don, I would agree that it makes business sense for Microsoft to do this, because customers asked for it and the software does make the content look quite good.

I guess I would disagree about whether it makes business sense for the newspapers and magazines involved, however. It might sound like the kind of thing that makes sense, but in the longer term I think it is pretty dumb.

Why doesn't the New York Times or Associated Newspapers create an open-platform reader that any publication can use to make their content look nice? Sell ads in it and distribute it for free. That at least makes a little sense.

Trying to close the barn door and then paint a nice picture on it makes no sense to me.

Re: Google wins — because it doesn’t suck

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:51:03 -0000

Ajay, as you can see I have the Sphere widget on my blog, because Tony approached me and asked if I would try it out and help them make it better. But there was no mention of any kind of exclusivity.

If Mark Cuban offered me a similar Icerocket blog-search plugin, I would be happy to include it as well.

Re: Cleaning up the mess over at MyBlogLog

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:22:08 -0000

I don't think they should be rewarded either, Andy, but it was obvious that Shoemoney was trying to point out a vulnerability -- you could argue that they should have thanked him, not blocked him.

Re: Google wins — because it doesn’t suck

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:25:03 -0000

All I can say is that Sphere isn't paying me -- I agreed to host the widget because I wanted to see how it worked, and because they asked me to.

As for lumping the other services together, I'm not sure what you mean -- del.icio.us and digg and the rest are for saving or sharing a link. Sphere is for finding related links. They're two completely different functions.

Re: Google wins — because it doesn’t suck

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:11:34 -0000

Ajay, just to be clear -- I know you didn't bring up the Sphere link in reference to me. I only brought my involvement up because it seemed relevant to your comment about whether they paid bloggers or not, that's all -- which I think Tony has since clarified. I appreciate your comments.

Re: Newspaper software: pretty but dumb

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:12:37 -0000

Thanks for the comment, JMason. I will definitely take a look at those.

Re: Cleaning up the mess over at MyBlogLog

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:40:03 -0000

Is that a hint of sarcasm I detect in your comment, Peter?

Re: Dude, blogging is just so over

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:28:16 -0000

That's a great point, Yvonne.

Re: Dude, blogging is just so over

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:33:31 -0000

Sorry about that, Relk. You are totally right. My comments were offside :-)

Re: For media, disruption is the new order

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:53:00 -0000

I see your point, Rob -- and I think you are right that micro-publishers (thanks to Wordpress etc.) can be both creator and distributor. But that means Wordpress scales, not you the content creator, so I think it's a slightly different business than "traditional" media -- since you don't "work" for Wordpress.

But I would agree that the disruption we're seeing does allow micro-content to scale pretty easily, although at some point there does have to be an aggregator of some kind, even if it's just Technorati or Techmeme.

In any case, I think we agree more than we disagree.

Re: For media, disruption is the new order

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:21:38 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Craig. And I did notice those comments from Jim about how the business impact has been overstated -- I guess for newspapers it's always nice to have someone else to blame for the ways in which your business isn't going well :-)

Re: BitTorrent service is built to fail

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:47:27 -0000

That's a good point, Jim. The studios could actually have benefited far more from the P2P structure if they had kept the files the same.

And Anonymous, I think you are right to be outraged at the prices (and it sounds like Bram is too). In effect, the studios are using you and others like you as a distribution system, and charging you full price at the same time.

Re: For media, disruption is the new order

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:35:14 -0000

Thanks, Maureen. I would agree -- definitely an interesting time.

Re: BitTorrent service is built to fail

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:38:26 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Allen.

I think what Bram meant by "user interface" (although I obviously can't say for sure) is just the overall appeal -- or lack of appeal -- that such a service with DRM is likely to have for users, as opposed to the technical UI design.

I would agree with your central point though. In effect, DRM is trying to change the way that people have thought about content for decades, and that is darn near impossible -- or at the very least pretty stupid.

Re: mesh 2007 is a go for launch!

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:49:23 -0000

Thanks, Craig -- hope to see you there.

Re: mesh 2007 is a go for launch!

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:18:10 -0000

Thanks, Anuvinder.

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 14:08:36 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Esquire. I agree. If anything, Essjay's comments since the facts came out make it obvious that he sees nothing wrong with what happened -- which is part of the problem.

And Jimmy Wales appointing him to the arbitration committee compounds the problem.

Re: Wired’s Digg slam is offside

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:12:46 -0000

Dominic, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying Wired shouldn't write about Digg, nor am I saying that the magazine shouldn't write about how the site can be gamed. But I think deliberately hiring someone to try and game the site crosses a line. You obviously disagree, and that's fine.

And Anonymous, I don't think either Jay or Kevin have "denied that the issue exists." All the comments I've read, including the ones in the Wired piece, acknowledge that people try to game the site. But Jay and Kevin argue that they never really succeed -- although I guess that depends on your definition of success.

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:18:25 -0000

David, I'm familiar with the difference between Wikia and Wikipedia. But I disagree that "whether Wikia fires this person has absolutely no relationship with Wikipedia." Both are run by Jimmy Wales, and one is very much dependent on the goodwill and reputation of the other. But I would agree that at the very least, Essjay should not have been appointed to the arbitration committee.

Esquire and Daniel, thanks for pointing out that Essjay did in fact suggest that his profile details were correct.

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:45:16 -0000

I agree, Rogers. It does kind of make you wonder what was going through his head.

Re: Wired’s Digg slam is offside

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:33:56 -0000

I suppose that's a fair comparison, Dominic -- although I have to say that I think the relationship between Reddit and Wired is a lot closer than between the Globe and Bell Canada.

And I still think cooking up that kind of story isn't the type of thing a media outlet should do if it wants to remain as conflict-free as possible. I'm not saying the Globe wouldn't do a story like that, but if asked I would argue against it.

Re: Wired’s Digg slam is offside

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:37:30 -0000

Karl, I'm not sure it's that simple. Yes, Wired declared its conflict of interest -- but I'm not sure that's enough.

Like I said, I'm not saying Wired can't write about Digg, or even criticize Digg -- I think they should go ahead and do that as much as they want. It's the fact that they are making up the news, if you will, rather than just reporting it.

And rather than holding the traditional media to lower standards, why not hold ourselves to higher standards?

Re: Wired’s Digg slam is offside

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:17:04 -0000

HMTKSteve, are you suggesting that my blog doesn't compete with the New York Times? :-)

And Karl, I will take you up on your wager -- but you can keep the cheese steak, thanks.

Re: Viacom goes one way, BBC the other

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:06:51 -0000

I'm not sure, Rob. That's a good question.

Re: Viacom goes one way, BBC the other

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:42:21 -0000

That's a good point, Mark. As far as I know, YouTube's penetration outside of the U.S. is relatively small, but I don't know about the UK specifically.

I think you are right about the BBC deal. It seems to me they are giving up very little, and potentially gaining a lot. Sounds like a no-brainer to me -- which is why I find it odd that Ben Metcalfe doesn't like the idea.

Re: Social networking attracts the Big Iron boys

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:39:03 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Joe. I agree (but you probably knew that already :-))

Re: Can a newspaper be a social network?

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:21:17 -0000

No offence taken, Rob :-)

And Tony, without going into too much detail (or I would have to kill you) adding comments and other social elements has definitely increased traffic, and since that in turn affects our online revenue I think it qualifies as a win-win.

Thanks for the comment, Joe.

And Mary, I think your point is a good one. People who are used to Digg-style voting are used it behaving in a certain way. Papers like USA Today will have to be aware of that if they want to incorporate similar social features.

Re: Can a newspaper be a social network?

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:36:13 -0000

Thanks for that, Mark -- glad to hear others are on the social networking train as well.

And Tony, I don't know that anyone has actually published details about traffic or revenue as far as the impact of social features goes. I've come across some comments by editors at the Guardian and the BBC, but they were pretty general.

Re: Can a newspaper be a social network?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:12:49 -0000

Gzino, you are right -- features don't create communities.

And Karl, I think you are also right and that good local newspapers are already at the hub of a social network or community.

As for the question about whether engagement and traffic can boost advertising levels enough to make up for losses on the paper side, I think that is the billion-dollar question everyone would like an answer to :-)

Thanks to all for their comments.

Re: Yer patents are teh SuXx0r!

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:02:34 -0000

Thanks, Joe. I think you are probably right. Which raises the question: Is there anyone out there interested in examining patents for paint thinners and food additives? :-)

Re: Microsoft takes a cheap shot at Google

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:33:29 -0000

I agree that's undoubtedly part of their motivation, Rohan. And it's obvious they're kind of liking the fact that someone else is the bad guy now :-)

Re: Bloggers are parasites — so what?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:58:58 -0000

I agree, Tony.

Re: Can a newspaper be a social network?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 20:00:01 -0000

Thanks, Rohan -- I guess you and Rob disagree on that point :-)

Re: Can Sony get anything right?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:16:42 -0000

Ed, I wasn't referring to the game play on the PS3 as underwhelming -- more the sales.

And Michael, I did watch the keynote and have no intention of editing the blog entry. Thanks for stopping by.

Re: Can Sony get anything right?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:29:52 -0000

I would agree, Ryan -- but one of the things I think doomed Sims was that it was too closed a system, and it sounds like Sony's will be much the same (even if you can share music, etc.). For their sake, I hope not. And meanwhile, Second Life is becoming more and more open.

Re: Is Digg the future or just a feature?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:57:21 -0000

I think you're probably right, Engtech. And Jules, I share your pain -- I have struggled with Digg as well. I definitely still get value out of it, but it seems as though the signal to noise ratio continues to get lower instead of higher.

Re: Ning: the social-networking engine

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:39:37 -0000

I agree, Mark -- a beer is a great idea.

Re: Twitter to live, but don’t live to Twitter

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:01:10 -0000

Thanks, Kathy -- I would definitely agree. And thanks for stopping by to comment.

Re: Print may be dying, but the news is not

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:43:39 -0000

I think you are quite right, Rob. It is about more than just news -- or rather, the definition of what is news is becoming broader, and the format is ceasing to matter as much, as you point out.

And it's worth wondering what newspapers can or will become in that kind of world -- but I think there is still a place for a smart aggregator or filter or some such thing.

Whether any of the existing media entities fill that role remains to be seen, I guess :-)

Re: Feeling the need for speed

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:07:01 -0000

You're welcome, Phil -- and the line forms behind me :-)

Re: All’s fair in love, war and journalism

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:16:30 -0000

Thanks, Sameer. That's very kind of you.

Re: My favourite story today

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:20:57 -0000

Good one, Stan. :-)

Re: Thanks to all who meshed

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:54:50 -0000

Thanks for coming, Neil. It was nice to meet you.

Re: Good or bad? Wrong question

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:41:56 -0000

I think you're probably right, Webomatica -- that's a good way to look at it. Or there's always the crack analogy, which Mark clearly prefers :-)

And Karoli, I expect that you and I are probably very similar -- I'm tempted by Twitter and other tools as well, because of what they make possible. And I'm a big fan of del.icio.us as well, and likely couldn't live without it.

Re: Cut the power cords that bind you

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:40:13 -0000

Consider it done :-)

Re: Techmeme cleans up your language

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 14:18:41 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Gabe. I appreciate you taking the time to describe your thinking on this.

Re: Is Facebook overtaking MySpace?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:36:01 -0000

Thanks, Jules -- more evidence that helps prove my point :-)

Re: Today’s interesting link: the Mundaneum

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:33:43 -0000

Good one, Engtech :-)

Re: Technorati and the blog search wars

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:12:57 -0000

I would have a tendency to agree, Paddy. I don't see what Technorati brings to it that Google couldn't duplicate, if they wanted to. I guess the only question is whether they want to.

Re: Thanks for nothing, Viacom

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:23:09 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Jason. I did point out that sampling only removed videos distorts the results somewhat. And I have read Shelly Palmer's piece on YouTube -- but I think that he is overstating the case somewhat, as I think you are with the bootleg DVD analogy.

In any case, thanks for commenting.

Re: YouTube’s two success “secrets”

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:27:32 -0000

That's definitely true, Rob -- timing is important too. But I don't think it's any more important than those other two factors. If they had gotten the timing right but not had the embedding -- which made sharing easy -- or the scalability, I think they would have disappeared just like the rest.

Re: YouTube’s two success “secrets”

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:57:57 -0000

Did Jim Clark help them get money, Seth? I don't see why just being his son-in-law means Chad would be guaranteed to have success with YouTube -- it's not like everything Jim Clark has touched has turned to gold. If he was the one who told them to allow embedding, then maybe I'd be willing to give him some of the credit.

Re: YouTube’s two success “secrets”

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:39:15 -0000

Webomatica, I would agree that Flash was an important factor -- that's a good point. It definitely made embedding easier, because it avoided a lot of the "you don't have this plugin" frustration -- not to mention getting around a lot of the craptacular qualities of RealPlayer and Windows Media.

And Seth, I'm willing to admit that having Jim Clark as a father-in-law probably helped -- I'm just not sure it qualifies as one of the top three secret ingredients in YouTube's success. Of course, you're entitled to your own list.

Re: Me on a panel at U of T tonight

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:40:36 -0000

It was quite a bit better, actually. Better questions, lots of good discussion about journalism issues, etc. Too bad you couldn't come.

Re: Me on a panel at U of T tonight

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:38:04 -0000

That`s a good point, Tony. I`m not sure if the Journalism Foundation has that kind of mailing list or not, but someone should definitely put one together if there isn`t one already.

Re: Conflict of interest, Web 2.0-style

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:33:50 -0000

Thanks for the comment, David -- I'm aware of that from Matt's post and others. If anything though, that makes the conflict worse.

Re: Conflict of interest, Web 2.0-style

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:57:17 -0000

Well, Randy, I can think of a few things that make it different -- one is that Mike has said he doesn't take shares in companies, as he mentioned in the ZDNet story, and he declares his conflicts openly. As far as I can tell, Bambi has done the former and not done the latter.

Re: Conflict of interest, Web 2.0-style

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:26:10 -0000

I realize Mike has had some issues in the past with disclosure of conflicts, but I get the impression he has gotten better at disclosing them -- certainly a lot better than Bambi was at disclosing hers. You're free to disagree, of course.

Re: Hey, I’m on Techmeme — cha-ching!

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:31:43 -0000

Yeah, I wonder the same thing, Tony. Thank God John Dvorak doesn't get paid on the same basis, or he'd be a multi-millionaire :-)

Re: Hey Google — stop linking to us

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:41:57 -0000

I would agree, Tony.

And in any case, removing your paper from the Google News index assumes that people will then find it directly instead -- rather than assuming that they will just never come to your site at all, which I think is probably a lot closer to the truth.

Re: Hey Google — stop linking to us

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 20:47:01 -0000

It doesn't make any sense to me either, Markus.

And Rob, if it wasn't about the money then why did Zell specifically mention the money?

I realize he and other owners are concerned about competition, and about others getting in between them and their readers, but that particular train has already left the station. All the wishing and lawsuits in the world aren't going to make it come back.

Re: Hey Google — stop linking to us

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:32:55 -0000

Lucas, with all due respect your argument is filled with holes. How is a newspaper's brand eroded just because someone goes to Google News to find a link? That's ridiculous. In fact, a link in Google News is a chance for a newspaper to *extend* its brand, not reduce it.

And if the clicks that come through are "worthless" page views, then whose fault is that? Google's? And if all people want is a headline and two sentences of a story, are they going to be any more worthwhile a page view if they come to a newspaper's site directly?

As for Google getting the credit for being a reliable source instead of the newspaper, that's similarly absurd -- Google gets credit for being a reliable *source of links,* not a reliable source of information.

Re: Hey Google — stop linking to us

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 22:22:07 -0000

Lucas, I understand branding and I understand your argument. I just think you're wrong. Google wants to be known as the brand name for search, and that means providing links to things. It doesn't want to be known as content provider. If it becomes known as one, then newspapers are to blame, not the other way around.

Re: Hey Google — stop linking to us

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 09:36:10 -0000

Seth, why would you assume that you were the one who didn't get it? Just because Sam Zell is rich? And I didn't say he was a blithering moron -- I left open the possibility that he was being deliberately provocative, which I think is quite likely the case.

And Rob, I think you are totally right about the situation Zell and other papers are in. But I don't think the brand is dying unless he lets it die -- and I think trying to build walls around content, or trying to pull a King Canute and roll back the tide, is a recipe for disaster.

Re: Hey, I’m on Techmeme — cha-ching!

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 09:36:48 -0000

That sounds like a great idea, Mark :-)

Re: Hey, I’m on Techmeme — cha-ching!

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:17:34 -0000

No way, Rich. Has to be cash.

Re: Hey Google — stop linking to us

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:13:13 -0000

Tom, that's a good point -- and Adam, likewise about the RIAA and MPAA.

Juha, I don't think that's the logical extension of Google News at all. Google News is a search engine, just like the regular Google search is. Does that make all of the websites that it links to nothing but a raw feed of text and images for Google to index? Maybe -- but it doesn't have to be that way.

Content is king, and good content will always draw readers. Google News is a way to find more of them -- provided Sam and his newspaper do their jobs properly.

Re: You are your own code of conduct

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:14:59 -0000

Good one, Jim.

And Alec, thanks for pointing that out -- I think the one I had was the Rosetta Stone. My bad. I blame Google's image search. :-)

Re: You are your own code of conduct

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:02:16 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Tish -- that's a good point. And Joey, that's a great badge :-)

As for the "bogosphere," Juha, knowing Seth I'm not even sure that was a slip. Bogosphere pretty much sums it up, I think.

Re: You are your own code of conduct

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:31:50 -0000

I knew it!

Re: Kareem — a big company’s nightmare

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:09:05 -0000

That's a good point, Tony. I guess I wasn't knocking big companies as much as I was trying to point out that not everyone is motivated by the big title and the money. I think companies that realize that, and can either make room in their corporate culture for someone or have them leave on good terms like Matt did, will benefit in the long run -- whether they are big or small.

Re: Maxthon — much ado about nothing

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:56:31 -0000

Not sure what you mean, Ian. They aren't really using a different browser -- it's still just Internet Explorer under the hood, so it shouldn't matter to any media sites that are trying to reach the Chinese audience.

Re: Maxthon — much ado about nothing

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:27:13 -0000

Good point, Ian.

Re: mesh social — for political junkies

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:35:33 -0000

Maybe we'll have to have a mesh Ottawa, Ian :-)

Re: Kareem — a big company’s nightmare

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:37:11 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Kareem. Best of luck with the new venture.

Re: Kurt Vonnegut — so it goes

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:17:11 -0000

I think we need them both now more than ever :-)

Re: Rolling Stone: old magazine, new ambitions

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:10:29 -0000

Good one, Amy :-)

Re: Twitter, Ustream — how much is too much?

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:49:18 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Chris. It certainly will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

Adam and Juha, I feel much the same as you do.

Re: Twitter, Ustream — how much is too much?

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:15:43 -0000

I agree, Ryan.

Re: A very Canuck PC case-mod

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:04:13 -0000

:-)

Re: Twitter, Ustream — how much is too much?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:39:47 -0000

Chris: Why don't you ping me offline.

Re: Rubel vs. PC Mag — bizarre

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:28:35 -0000

Glad I'm not the only one, Ed.

Re: Rubel vs. PC Mag — bizarre

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:48:47 -0000

Cheap is right, Tony.

Re: Rubel vs. PC Mag — bizarre

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:24:30 -0000

Thanks, Amanda -- or whatever your real name is -- but I didn't mean "inexpensive." As for the third rail thing, I'll take your word for it.

Re: Rubel vs. PC Mag — bizarre

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:57:16 -0000

I think you missed my point, Jeremy -- or maybe I wasn't clear. I didn't say that it didn't matter, and I agreed that Steve probably shouldn't have said what he said -- what I don't get is why a guy like Louderback would respond the way he did. It's just unprofessional and seems to have been done for cheap theatrics more than anything else.

Re: Rubel vs. PC Mag — bizarre

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:15:11 -0000

Amanda: I guess that's why I hate the theatre.

Re: DoubleClick chose Google despite the money

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:35:05 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Jeremy -- and I take your point in the spirit in which you offered it.

At the same time, though, I did qualify the headline by saying this is John Batelle's version of events (although I do think he is a fairly credible source, as those things go).

If you were to accuse me of using a salacious headline in order to try and draw readers, I suppose I would have to plead guilty -- with an explanation :-)

Re: Gaia Online — a virtual gold mine

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:29:47 -0000

Thanks Jeremy. I will take a look.

Re: Interviews: phone, email — which is best?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:12:16 -0000

I agree, Ken -- and good points from Eric and Steve as well. Thanks for the comments.

Re: Social networking: not even close to dead

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:38:18 -0000

George, I think you could probably call it whatever you like -- it's your site :-)

Re: Social networking: not even close to dead

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:52:45 -0000

That's a fair point. I guess it's the "networking" part, which means stuffing your business card in people's faces or whatever. That's why I like to call it "social media."

Re: Interviews: phone, email — which is best?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:28:57 -0000

Thanks for pointing that out, Pete -- I'm famous!

Re: Interviews: phone, email — which is best?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:10:21 -0000

Thanks, Joe -- and thanks (I think) Trish. I'm available for autographs between 3 and 5, and personal audiences, baby-kissing etc. in the evening for a small fee.

Re: Joost gets more and more like TV

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:07:24 -0000

I agree, Matt -- I think the way Brightcove does it is much better than a mid-roll, but it will be interesting to see what the reaction is from Joost users.

And Mike, I share your thoughts about the content, but I haven't had any issues with freezing or geo-fencing so far.

Re: Users — take back the media!

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:48:52 -0000

No, no Seth -- he means bad hierarchy. The blogosphere is good hierarchy :-)

Re: I’m not sick, but I’m not well

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:01:30 -0000

They said they did it after work :-)

Re: Users — take back the media!

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:26:27 -0000

You're right, Rohan. Almost forgot there for a second :-)

Re: Blogs that make me think

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:31:03 -0000

Let's put it this way -- it didn't hurt :-)

Re: Digg vs HD-DVD: a social network revolts — updated

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 02 May 2007 13:55:49 -0000

That's a good point, Neil. I'm pretty sure they were using some kind of filtering, but it may have gotten too much for either their automated filters or their human ones, I don't know.

The point about links is a good one too -- it's my understanding that sites can't be held (or haven't been held) responsible for content posted in comments or chat forums, etc., at least not in the U.S. anyway. But that may be just for the purposes of libel -- not sure about the DMCA.

Re: Where are the cliffs of insanity?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 02 May 2007 14:04:32 -0000

I think my favourite is Qwghlm :-)

Re: Where are the cliffs of insanity?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 02 May 2007 15:54:11 -0000

Good point, Vaspers. Slashdot should totally be in there. Blogger? meh :-)

Re: Pandora puts Internet radio back in the box

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 03 May 2007 17:18:17 -0000

I share your bafflement, Nav. Doesn't make much sense to me either.

Re: Warren Kinsella and the Scarecrow

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 06 May 2007 21:29:36 -0000

Thanks, Warren.

That's what I like -- a guy who can come out and admit when I'm right :-)

Hey, at least I gave you props for the band name.

Re: Is the Web half full or half empty?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 08 May 2007 13:42:24 -0000

Jakob, I did say that 37 per cent had tried one or more of those things, so I don't think I was overstating the study. Did they do them once and give up, or 10 times, or 100? We don't know.

And Stu, I like Kool-Aid as much as the next guy, but I do try to limit my consumption. And I think assuming that the 37 per cent tried such things once and then gave up is just as unfair as assuming that all of them do all of them all of the time.

Re: Studios sing chorus of “Blame Canada”

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 08 May 2007 16:46:37 -0000

That's a good point, Engtech. Warner and the other studios may actually be making it worse by focusing on camcorded movies.

Re: Are we ready for Natalie.tv?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:03:45 -0000

Thanks for that, SJ.

Re: Are we ready for Natalie.tv?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 09 May 2007 12:41:32 -0000

Er, that was a joke, DBT.

Re: TechCrunch20 and Hammer: Can’t touch this

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 11 May 2007 16:25:56 -0000

No sweat, Ben. I hope you do the same for me someday -- that's what bloggers are for :-)

Re: Covering Pasadena from 9,000 miles away

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 11 May 2007 17:03:04 -0000

I agree, Pete -- outsourcing is outsourcing, whether to India or to Toronto. It makes you think though, doesn't it?

And that is kind of funny, Eric -- I guess now I'm competing with Pasadena Now :-)

Re: It’s the social part that is the killer

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 11 May 2007 21:05:31 -0000

I'm sure they're just as excited as can be :-)

Re: TechCrunch20 and Hammer: Can’t touch this

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 12 May 2007 08:45:27 -0000

Sorry, Karoli -- not sure what happened to it either. Might have been eaten by the spam filter.

As for your point about users, that's a fair point -- except that Mike and Jason are calling it an "experts panel." There's kind of a disconnect there I think.

Re: TechCrunch20 and Hammer: Can’t touch this

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 12 May 2007 22:10:17 -0000

Well, maybe I've been too hard on the guy then. It wouldn't be the first time :-)

Re: Gabe “Techmeme” Rivera speaks

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 14 May 2007 07:59:14 -0000

Yes :-)

Re: Finding a balance in social media

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 14 May 2007 11:48:24 -0000

Good one.

Re: Smartest media quote of the year

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 15 May 2007 18:11:35 -0000

That's true, Rob -- but I think Quincy was talking about assuming that viewers will want to go to a site like Innertube to get content, as opposed to wanting to get it in other ways.

Re: Can Amazon take a bite out of Apple?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 17 May 2007 12:54:55 -0000

The confusion may have started with me, Rod. I know that the term "ecosystem" has been used to mean the accessories and other add-ons that have developed around the iPod, but I meant it much more the way Nav describes it -- as a way of getting across how closely a person's experience of music and all aspects of it are tied to the iPod and iTunes (in a good way, of course :-))

Re: Online ad business drowning in cash

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 18 May 2007 12:49:56 -0000

Believe it, JayDawg.

Re: Online ad business drowning in cash

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 18 May 2007 12:51:43 -0000

It looks like I'm not the only one either.

Re: CBS buys Howard Lindzon’s brain

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 22 May 2007 14:54:55 -0000

My apologies, Thord -- thanks for letting me know. And thanks to Minic and Jeremy too. That's what I get for posting so soon after a long weekend :-)

Honest, Thord, I do know who you are, I swear.

Re: CBS buys Howard Lindzon’s brain

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:39:33 -0000

See? Even when I make a mistake, I can't help but be helpful :-)

Re: Legless chihuahuas and social media

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 23 May 2007 10:23:14 -0000

I think the whole "us vs. them/big media vs. social media" dichotomy is facile and ultimately uninteresting, from either side of the fence. There is no fence. One is not going to "replace" the other. But there's no question that the way the audience (or whatever you want to call it) behaves is evolving.

Re: What’s so bad about a car crash video?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 25 May 2007 10:45:00 -0000

Did you watch it, Stu?

Re: Could Facebook eat Yahoo’s lunch?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 25 May 2007 12:27:02 -0000

Good question, Eric. That will be interesting to watch. And I also wonder what effect it will have on companies that essentially tie all (or most) of their growth and revenue to being a widget inside Facebook. Will they regret it?

Re: Doc Searls is dead wrong on newspapers

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 25 May 2007 14:20:41 -0000

Thanks, Rob. Finally got around to it :-)

And Steven, I agree (I remember that episode too). But I think for newspapers, we're a lot closer to the "collecting 78's" end of the spectrum than we are to the "thriving business" end.

Re: What’s so bad about a car crash video?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 25 May 2007 14:43:40 -0000

That's a fair point, Nav -- and I don't want to appear callous or unfeeling. But with a couple of exceptions, most of the sites the video was on mentioned that someone had died (which I think was relatively obvious). So I'm not sure how the video differs from watching the aftermath of a car accident or other crime on the news.

Re: What’s so bad about a car crash video?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 25 May 2007 19:11:12 -0000

Fair enough, Stu. I didn't get any "gratification" out of watching it, nor did I find it titillating in any way. It's simple human curiosity.

Re: Doc Searls is dead wrong on newspapers

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 25 May 2007 19:12:36 -0000

I think you're right, Tony. And Jason (Webomatica), I agree that books are different in many ways -- and newspapers are being squeezed in the middle ground between time sensitive and the in-depth read.

Re: Doc Searls is dead wrong on newspapers

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 25 May 2007 19:32:20 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Doc. Not everyone would be as quick to admit they were wrong -- and yes, you are right about newspapers still being multibillion-dollar businesses.

In any case, good on ya. And thanks again for those sunset shots.

Re: Kawasaki: How I wasted $12,107 on Truemors

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:56:12 -0000

Just for the record, I think it's great that you can get your ideas onto the Web cheaply -- and if that's all Guy meant to say, then I agree.

But it seems to me he was saying something more -- i.e., that he was able to create a *business* for only $12,107. The only problem is that I don't see any sign of Truemors being a business (which I guess you could say about lots of other Web 2.0 sites too).

In that context, it's hardly surprising there's no business plan -- there's no business. A fun experiment? Fine. But that's not what I took from Guy's post.

Re: Yahoo and Google can save newspapers

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:38:24 -0000

Oops. Thanks for pointing that out, Paul.

Re: As Homer said: “Stupid like a fox”

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:15:42 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Tony. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one :-) I think you're right that a couple of ads here or there wouldn't look all that out of place -- but it's a slippery slope once you go down that road, and craigslist is already making lots of money. What's wrong with that?

And Bjorn, thanks for letting me know the real quote. That's what's so great about the blogosphere.

Re: As Homer said: “Stupid like a fox”

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:19:45 -0000

Newmark admitted as much during his conversation with Weinberger that he's not a visionary and that Craigslist's now is not rocket science. Sure, he was in the right place at the right time but you could say that about a lot of entrepreneurial success stories.

Re: Andrew Keen Q & A: still hates the Internet

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:20:14 -0000

I know you're right, Kent -- sometimes I just can't help myself. It's like a moth to the flame :-)

Re: Andrew Keen Q & A: still hates the Internet

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:20:32 -0000

Seth, your comment was unfortunately pretty typical -- straw men everywhere, it seems.

And Mat, I am a big fan of high-quality writing and high-quality thought -- but I'm at least willing to admit that it can be found in other places than just newspapers and magazines.

And unlike Andrew, I don't see it as being a binary question -- either we have trained journalists or a sea of hobbyist bloggers. I think one can complement the other.

Re: Andrew Keen Q & A: still hates the Internet

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:12:15 -0000

Well said, Leigh -- thanks for that. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Re: Hey, CEOs can steal too! Neener, neener!

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:39:26 -0000

Thanks for pointing that out, Jonathan. I think my central point still holds though -- that physically taking property is legally different than infringing copyright, for a host of very good reasons.

Re: Google and eBay — catfight, 90210-style

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:42:05 -0000

That's a great idea, Mark. I may just do that.

Re: Barack Obama gets a groupie video

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:52:28 -0000

Thanks, Alex.

I certainly wouldn't imply that the video is newsworthy -- but I did think it was funny, and I also thought it said a lot about the Internet is making things complicated for political candidates of all kinds.

Re: Newspapers need to work with aggregators

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:35:29 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Mat -- but I wasn't so much talking about using that type of strategy for individuals (although I think it can work for some, as you point out). I think the point was that newspapers as a whole should be doing this.

Re: Something smells funny in videogame-land

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:20:18 -0000

I think the main reason games are different is because they're games, Kent.

Re: BlogTv is cool — except for the bars on the door

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:24:17 -0000

But Alliance Atlantis doesn't have anything to do with BlogTv.com. It's controlled by the team behind Tapuz, the Israeli company that licensed the platform to Alliance for Canadian use only.

Re: BlogTv is cool — except for the bars on the door

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:47:15 -0000

Claude, I think it's ironic that you're criticizing me for not being open, when it's BlogTv.ca that is closed. I may be ideological, but at least the ideology I favour is one of openness.

I don't see how creating a Canadian ghetto helps anyone, really -- nor is it competing with the Americans, as you suggest. In fact, it's opting out of the competition.

And even if having BlogTv.ca restricted to Canadians is a positive (which it isn't), why does that mean that I and other Canadians are restricted from seeing BlogTv.com content as well? The whole model is flawed.

Re: BlogTv is cool — except for the bars on the door

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:50:10 -0000

I'm glad you like the photo, Claude -- it changes every time you load the page, so the next time you come it will be something completely different.

As for BlogTv.ca "competing" with the U.S. by using the same geo-blocking techniques, you're comparing apples and oranges (not to mention twisting the meaning of the word "competing").

The U.S. blocks Canadians from watching CBS and NBC programming because Canadian broadcasters haven't bought the online rights for that content. Blocking user-generated content to which the owner has the rights makes no sense whatsoever, IMO.

Re: BlogTv is cool — except for the bars on the door

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:26:32 -0000

As far as I'm aware, Brad, Canadian broadcasters buy the rights to regular TV and broadcast distribution of U.S. content -- and so they do have an interest in not letting Canadian Web viewers watch or listen online, but they are not required to block that content.

My understanding is that they have not seen fit to pay the licensing fees required by U.S. content creators to allow them to do Canadian Web broadcasting of that content -- whether that's because the fees are too high or because they are afraid Web viewing will cut into their existing business, I don't know. I suspect a little bit of both.

Re: BlogTv is cool — except for the bars on the door

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:32:54 -0000

I've tried those, Mike -- and they work for the usual websites, but not for things like video streaming. Too much lag.

Re: BlogTv is cool — except for the bars on the door

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:04:20 -0000

Yes, I can see Ustream and Justin.tv and everyone else that does streaming, Shel -- it's only BlogTv that does geo-blocking.

My understanding is that BlogTv.ca licensed the platform from Tapuz (which runs BlogTv.com), and one of the conditions of the licence was that it covered Canada only.

I assume part of the deal was that BlogTv.com would redirect any Canadian visitors it gets to the Canadian version.

Re: A free and open market in credibility

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:34:42 -0000

Thanks, Frank. There's no question that blurring the line between editorial and advertising is something that has been going on since print was invented.

What I find interesting (and different) about the phenomenon when it comes to blogs is that it is a personal brand or credibility that is at stake, rather than one that adheres to an institution or media outlet.

Re: Is Google getting serious about mobile?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:22:43 -0000

Or, that's a fair point. Thanks for making it.

Re: Last.fm’s non-silence speaks volumes

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:58:38 -0000

That's a good point, Stan. And Franky, it's interesting that Russ would make a comment like that -- it seems obvious that they are unwilling to poke the elephant while they are trying to negotiate licensing deals. Which I suppose is a business reality that Last.fm has to face.

Re: A new Web icon: Islamic Rage Boy

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:51:38 -0000

Thanks, Sulemaan. And for what it's worth, I have nothing against "Rage Boy," whoever he might be. He may very well have good reasons for protesting the things he protests -- but it's interesting how his picture has become a kind of visual shorthand.

Re: A new Web icon: Islamic Rage Boy

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:40:52 -0000

That's funny, Savio -- that hadn't even occurred to me until a friend of mine posted a similar comment on the Facebook post :-)

Re: Murdoch shoots from the lip on WSJ

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:32:03 -0000

Too high even for Rupert, I'm afraid :-)

Re: Paint peeling, weeds growing at Backfence

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:41:10 -0000

That's a good point, K.G. -- and it's one that I keep making over and over: a person's "community" can be anyone, from anywhere. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with physical location.

Re: MSFT: Hey, we can do p2p video too

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:42:49 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Stu. I did say that coming up with compelling content was a problem for Joost as well.

Re: One social network to rule them all?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:49:53 -0000

It does, Zack -- but it doesn't yet have the kinds of social features that it sounds like SocialSystem is working on, where you can create relationships around the content from different places.

Re: Ning wants to be the "Intel inside"

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:38:02 -0000

Thanks, Umair. I agree that the valuation for Ning does seem a little on the steep side, and without a lot of evidence to support it.

On the other hand, many people (including me) thought MySpace was wildly overvalued when News Corp. bought it, and that Yahoo was crazy to offer $1-billion for Facebook, but I think they have been proven wrong.

Re: Do blog comments still matter?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:49:05 -0000

That's a good point, Joe. I agree.

Re: Is Zillow building a ghost town?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:03:56 -0000

Thanks, Eric -- if I ever set up MathewIngramWorld, you will be the first person on the invite list :-)

And Joe, I agree that there is great potential for hyperlocal blogging and other community-type things -- I'm just not sure anyone is going to want to hold that kind of party at a real-estate website.

Re: Is Zillow building a ghost town?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:38:49 -0000

Rod, I think you might be right -- we may instinctively believe that people want a way to interact with their physical neighbours, but it could be that they already have plenty of ways of doing that (if they want to, which many may not) and therefore don't necessarily need an online version.

Before the Internet, physical proximity was pretty well the only way you *could* form a community, but now it's possible to form a virtual community based on just about anything, with people from just about anywhere.

Fred and Rex, thanks for your comments too.

Re: Facebook is worth (fill in the blank)

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:27:45 -0000

A fair point, er... Startup :-)

Re: Facebook is worth (fill in the blank)

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:06:56 -0000

I'll let it go this time, Colin :-)

Re: Google heard Aaron — so now what?

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:04:42 -0000

Thanks for pointing that out, Aaron.

Re: Another "blogging will be light" announcement

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:29:03 -0000

Thanks a lot, Leigh -- that's more than a little disturbing :-)

Re: Not learning from Dave Winer

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:57:52 -0000

Thanks, Karoli.

And Joe, if you go back and read what I actually wrote -- instead of what you think I wrote -- you'll notice that I didn't say blogs without comments aren't blogs, or that I'm trying to define what is or isn't a blog. I simply said that blogs without comments are missing something -- in my opinion. You're entitled to your own opinion, obviously.

As for my comments being hypocritical, the medium I write for primarily is the Globe's website, which has comments on every news story (with very few exceptions) for the same reasons I referred to in my post above.

Re: I’ll sing Arcade Fire while you paint

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:55:37 -0000

Thank you for that, habile...

Re: Shatner says he’s not mad

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:43:50 -0000

Me too, Jason.

Re: Exclusive: NowPublic turns down takeover bids

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:27:02 -0000

Thanks, Aidan. I tried to get Leonard to tell me who the entities were, but no luck I'm afraid :-)

Re: Does hyper-local make sense online?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:51:31 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Karl -- I think you're right.

In many ways, I don't think actual physical communities matter as much as we think they do -- shared interests (which may have to do with physical location or may not) are much more powerful.

Re: Hollywood still looking for online video hits

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:42:06 -0000

Thanks, Rob.

And Marshall, I think you are right. There is a higher test that has to be met with comedy, and as a result there's also a much stronger reaction when it doesn't work.

Re: Drudge the king-maker for online news

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:47:44 -0000

That's a good point, Martin.

Re: Jay Rosen’s thoughts on NowPublic

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:17:06 -0000

That's a fair point, K.G.

Re: Creating a top blog: So easy a kid can do it

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:29:04 -0000

Thanks, Rehan -- that's fascinating.

And Joe, I'm using the Cutline theme just the way it came -- any markup issues are Chris Pearson's fault :-)

Re: Has the NYT seen the light on the pay wall?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:47:54 -0000

I wish I could say that I had enough pull to bring down the wall singlehandedly, Mat, but I don't :-)

Let's just say I've made my feelings known, and the idea is under consideration -- and has been for some time now.

Re: Google wants newsmakers to write the news

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:51:02 -0000

Tish, I'm not sure it's a ploy -- I think Google might actually believe it's a valuable thing to do (although it's impossible to know for sure, of course).

I recognize that there are lots of problems with the idea, which I think you and others have laid out. But I still think it has value -- if it is done properly.

But then I guess you could say that about a lot of things :-)

Re: Partial Freakonomics feed = bad idea

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:37:05 -0000

Yes, we do Ed -- and I don't like it when we do it either :-)

Re: Days of Our Lives, the blogosphere edition

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:32:41 -0000

Thanks for the explanation, Jason -- and to Amy for the link. And Karoli, I think you might be right about the linkbait angle.

And thanks to all who liked my headline :-)

Re: Days of Our Lives, the blogosphere edition

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:09:39 -0000

Game on, Allen :-)

Re: Facebook opening up — a little bit

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:21:57 -0000

Thanks, Dave -- duly noted :-)

Re: Facebook opening up — a little bit

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:47:50 -0000

Tomato, Tomahto.

Re: Who does Kara Swisher work for?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:36:46 -0000

From what I've read, Kara has actually been pretty hard on Zuckerberg and Facebook -- a lot tougher than some other mainstream journalists I could name.

And while you may find her annoying, she definitely gets in peoples' faces and says what's on her mind, which is part of what I like about her.

As for people in the Valley being afraid to say they don't like her just because she's a lesbian, I find that very difficult to believe.

Re: Can you say "Facebook bubble"?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:43:54 -0000

Good points, Stuart. Have you ever thought of getting into the online travel business? :-)

Re: Can you say "Facebook bubble"?

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:46:36 -0000

Is that true, Markus? I wasn't aware that there were widgets that were that profitable. How do they make that much?

Re: Newspapers ignore Google at their peril

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:45:47 -0000

I agree Tish.

And Steven, I still haven't seen a story with comments on it -- I looked for one of the ones that appeared in screenshots when the feature was first announced but couldn't find it.

Re: Zoho offline: Is being first enough?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:02:03 -0000

Thanks, Sridhar -- that's a fair point.

Re: Google and the wires torpedo newspapers

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 09:18:31 -0000

I agree, Rob -- and Edward, I think you are right as well.

Re: Google and the wires torpedo newspapers

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:48:48 -0000

Not sure of the answer to that one, John. And Rex, I think that's a good point.

Re: Google and the wires torpedo newspapers

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:02:03 -0000

Thanks, Danny -- sorry about the name thing.

And David, I used to have trackbacks, but found that I was getting flooded with trackback spam, so I disabled them. I may turn them back on at some point.

Re: Bring back the “Star Wars Kid”

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:07:20 -0000

Yes -- I totally agree, Mike. I'd forgotten about him. That video was hysterical :-)

Re: Journalism as a process, not an end

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:00:03 -0000

I think that's a good point, Troy. Editorial oversight is a key part of journalism -- and how that works when a story is taking shape moment by moment is difficult to answer exactly, although wire services seem to do it. And I think allowing intelligent readers to be part of the process makes sense as well.

Re: Musical interlude: Cadbury gorilla

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:40:33 -0000

I don't get why it's funny either really -- but I still can't help laughing :-)

Re: Google: Don’t cross the "activity streams"

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:27:07 -0000

Thanks, Philipp.

Re: Real-life experience with the new Google News

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:06:06 -0000

That's a good idea, Philipp -- maybe someone at Google will read this :-)

And Drew, I agree -- I find it odd that AP is supposed to be a collective and yet it is clearly acting in its own interests and not those of its members.

Re: Were Techmeme and Sphere too greedy?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:18:25 -0000

Good one, Gabe :-)

Re: Fair use costs/makes money — discuss

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:00:13 -0000

That's true, Joe -- although "fair dealing," which exists legally in Canada and many other countries, is fundamentally the same thing, although it is somewhat more restrictive than the U.S. version.

Re: Were Techmeme and Sphere too greedy?

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:50:11 -0000

Thanks, Scott. I turned off trackbacks because I was getting way too much spam.

Re: What’s in a name? In Web 2.0, confusion

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:22:28 -0000

Okay, Victor -- I guess I'll give you a pass too :-)

Re: Can I vote my friends up or down?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:30:37 -0000

I agree, John.

Re: Google gets into the social swing

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:31:34 -0000

Yeah, I use that extension too Mark.

And Jake, I agree -- that would be a nice feature.

Re: Techmeme and Google Shared Stuff: WTF?

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:34:43 -0000

Thanks, Gabe -- as I think someone in Spinal Tap said: "It's a fine line between clever and stupid." :-)

Re: Randy Pausch: Grace under pressure

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:01:43 -0000

I think it's all of those things, Christine -- and just the open and honest (and funny) way this guy is dealing with the fact that he is going to die in a matter of weeks. Incredible.

Re: Will MSFT push Yahoo to buy Facebook?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:29:43 -0000

I don't know, Jason. I don't think 10 billion would really be that big a deal for Yahoo. Of course, it's easy for me to say that :-)

Re: Will MSFT push Yahoo to buy Facebook?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:02:46 -0000

Leigh, my Aunt Sally claims she invented Facebook.

And Joe, I realize Yahoo's market cap is only about $35-billion, but as apetrelli points out, using stock and/or debt I think Yahoo could easily afford a $10-billion deal.

Whether it actually makes any sense to pay that much for a company with $50-million in revenue is another question :-)

Re: Seymour Hersh on blogs and journalism

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:21:48 -0000

Thanks, Martin -- as if it wasn't complicated enough already :-)

Re: BudTV gets a reprieve — and maybe that’s good

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:31:21 -0000

Indeed. Nice job, Chris :-)

Re: Why does Apple get a free ride?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:54:09 -0000

Right you are, Matt :-)

Re: Google Earth changes our perceptions

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:10:51 -0000

Thanks a lot, Larry -- you really know how to rain on a guy's parade :-)

Re: Why does Apple get a free ride?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:45:22 -0000

I'd just like to point out that this is nothing like uploading the entire source code for OS X to a public website -- what Martyn was doing (as I understand it) was uploading to a secure server some of the code that was stored in the flash memory on the device, which is not even close to being the entire source code for the operation of the iTouch.

Re: Yahoo: Somebody set us up the bomb!

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:06:00 -0000

Thanks, Eric :-)

Re: Mobile Web sucks — or maybe it doesn’t

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:40:55 -0000

Yeah, the fact that you can't log in using Alex's plugin is definitely a pain -- but if I go to my blog on my mobile, I just click "view full HTML" or whatever it is at the bottom of the page and then log in. I mostly have the plugin for others who might want to view the blog on their phones.

Re: Joost launches — will anyone care?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:01:37 -0000

Thanks, Dan.

Re: Joost launches — will anyone care?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:11:20 -0000

I agree, Nav. I thought the same thing.

Re: Joost launches — will anyone care?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:03:38 -0000

I agree that content is the issue, MG -- and I don't want to rule Joost out by any means. Maybe it's just natural to have a bit of a reality check after all the hype. Thanks for the comment.

Re: Want some of that Skype cash? Call Atomico

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:44:47 -0000

Thanks, Mathew -- likewise :-)

Re: Want some of that Skype cash? Call Atomico

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:14:46 -0000

You're a lucky guy, Matt (boy, there's a lot of Mathews and Matthews in here). Thanks for the comment.

Re: Want some of that Skype cash? Call Atomico

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:00:53 -0000

Welcome to the party of Mathews, Matt -- I guess maybe I haven't been paying attention :-)

Re: Microsoft fiddles while Facebook burns

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:46:22 -0000

That's a good point, Leigh -- as usual :-)

Re: CNET to buy TechCrunch — why not?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:13:25 -0000

I would have a tendency to agree, Louis.

Re: Microsoft fiddles while Facebook burns

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:33:47 -0000

Good one, Jim :-)

Re: CNET to buy TechCrunch — why not?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:42:54 -0000

Well, Joe, there are some big "ifs" in there :-)

Still, using CNET's uniques and revenues as a model, it's not out of the realm of possibility. Of course, CNET might well be wildly overvalued as well.

Re: CNET to buy TechCrunch — why not?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:25:12 -0000

I think you are probably right, Aidan.

Re: Calacanis: Web 3.0 is whatever I say it is

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:20:41 -0000

Jason, if there's a top 100 list of linkbait artists out there, you would definitely be in the top 5 :-)

Re: Calacanis: Web 3.0 is whatever I say it is

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:32:04 -0000

Eric, I don't think there's anything wrong with Jason's description -- it sounds like something worthwhile. And maybe it's silly to get all caught up in what's the "official" definition of Web 3.0.

But at the same time, I think if we're going to talk about something, we should be clear about what it is we're trying to talk about.

As for the term "semantic web," Craig, you are right that it is a buzz word, and may only be used by geeks and academics. I certainly don't expect my mother to use it, or even understand it -- the same way I don't expect her to know what HTML is. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use those terms at all.

Re: Mobile Web sucks — or maybe it doesn’t

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:33:48 -0000

May C, that's the mobile blog-conversion plugin from Alex King -- the king of Wordpress plugins. It detects a mobile device and serves up a stripped-down version of the blog, but with a link to the full version for those who might prefer it.

Re: Will the real Dave Winer please stand up?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:04:56 -0000

Dave, I think your points might be more likely to be taken seriously if you didn't call Jason an "idiot who says idiotic things just to get attention." Just a hunch. But I will take your word on the tinyURL thing.

And Tish, I think you are right -- anything that involves human beings can be "gamed" in some way.

Re: Please support our dying business model

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:02:58 -0000

Thanks, Stu. Glad you enjoyed it.

Re: Newsvine brings the social to MSNBC

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:21:32 -0000

Not sure what it might mean for NowPublic, David. I'm a fan of NP, but it is somewhat different from Newsvine, in that NowPublic is just about "citizen journalism" or whatever you want to call it, and Newsvine includes mainstream media content as well.

Re: Google: Why Jaiku and not Twitter?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:37:18 -0000

That's a good point, Nav.

Re: Google: Why Jaiku and not Twitter?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:12:22 -0000

I hope you're right, Adam -- it would be a pity to see Jaiku wither on the vine like Dodgeball did.

Re: Google: Why Jaiku and not Twitter?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:16:07 -0000

Those are all good points, Allen.

Re: It’s not the eyeballs, it’s the brains

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:57:43 -0000

A fair point, Bobbie. I wouldn't claim to have the answer to your question about what Techmeme achieves exactly. Maybe Loren is right and it is just a big circle jerk. But if it works the way I think it does, good content filters out from Techmeme to other places -- such as your blog, for example -- and from there into the broader mainstream media and the world at large. Theoretically, of course :-)

Re: eBay: Won’t you be my neighbour

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:08:18 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Jeff -- I picked you because your feedback score was nice and high :-)

I'd be interested to hear what you think about the eBay neighbourhood idea though...

Re: Let me know what you think

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:37:32 -0000

Thanks, er... Dead :-) I think it looks newspapery too -- on the other hand, given the state of the industry, maybe that's not such a good thing.

And thanks for the props, Leigh. I'm glad someone likes the baby photo :-)

Just to be clear though, we're only talking about the blog theme -- the baby photo on the homepage is non-negotiable.

Re: Let me know what you think

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:12:33 -0000

Thanks, Mike -- that's what I thought too.

And thanks to everyone for all the helpful comments. I'm going to add a "theme switcher" to the sidebar so everyone can choose whichever theme they like :-)

Re: Me on CBC’s The Current show

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:56:12 -0000

Yeah, it seems to be the consensus that EA buying Bioware is a VBT (very bad thing). Is EA really that bad?

Re: Me on CBC’s The Current show

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:02:41 -0000

Well I guess it's a good thing you're not the producer of the show then, Joe.

Re: Should comments be part of the news?

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 08:42:52 -0000

Thanks, Karoli. I agree. And I will have to make that comment link more obvious -- to me, comments are one of the best things about blogging.

Re: Should comments be part of the news?

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:42:46 -0000

It seems to be the kind of thing that the NYT only does for big news stories or special events, Mich.

Re: Facebook: Dave Winer brings the hate

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:00:22 -0000

True enough, Eric. I guess that makes me an enabler :-)

Re: Facebook: Dave Winer brings the hate

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:01:16 -0000

That's fine, Kevin -- although the case he used to justify his opinion is wrong, and he lashed out at Stowe Boyd with an ad hominem attack for no reason. Oh, and "irregardless" isn't a word.

Re: Facebook: Dave Winer brings the hate

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:04:03 -0000

Dammit, Stuart -- I see you have caught on to my dastardly plan :-)

Re: The Techmeme pile-on — good or bad?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:55:32 -0000

Steve, I think that's why it's incumbent on all of us to find the new and different voices -- and then pile onto them and drive them up the leaderboard :-)

Re: Amazon patent foiled by lone gunman

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:57:51 -0000

So why didn't you get to work and crack their patent, Leigh? :-)

Re: Nick comes to the defence of TimesSelect

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:39:28 -0000

An overstatement it might be, Nick, but not much of one I don't think -- and certainly no more of an overstatement than Gentzkow's assertion that 27,000 people would suddenly start buying newspapers if a particular website were closed off to them.

As for the fungible part, I give my colleagues plenty of credit -- in the fungibility sweepstakes, they stack up with the best of them -- but wishing that news content wasn't fungible won't make it so.

Re: Nick comes to the defence of TimesSelect

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:49:28 -0000

A fair point, Joe.

Re: Why Comcast is right to jam BitTorrent

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:30:41 -0000

I agree, Rob -- a more efficient pricing structure, with more choice based on your downloading (or uploading) usage would make a lot of sense, and would likely solve a lot of these problems.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of providers use the one-size-fits-all bucket because they can charge noobs more for something they will never use, and that seems like a good business model to them.

Re: Is StumbleUpon better than Google?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:36:54 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Jason -- you have a point there. I keep forgetting that I am not the average Web user, nor are most of my friends :-)

Re: Is StumbleUpon better than Google?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:52:58 -0000

That's true, MG -- and didn't Google also launch a sort of randomization-type feature earlier this year that was kind of a Stumble knock-off? I haven't seen much about that since it was announced.

Re: How the Web is reporting the news

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:02:42 -0000

That's a good point, Deadrobot -- I thought of that too, and the Google Earth images of before and after.

Re: Video: Never pictured Dylan in an Escalade

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:03:28 -0000

Thanks, Sivende -- I'm not sure driving an Escalade is all that daring, I guess is my point.

Re: MediaPost: Is print doomed or not?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:04:22 -0000

Batteries won't be a problem once we get those solar-panel implants in our heads, Engtech :-)

Re: Google uses the PageRank hammer

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:33:09 -0000

We may or may not like it, Jim, but I think it's pretty true.

Re: Facebook: Conference call notes

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:06:50 -0000

Thanks, Adam :-)

Re: How the Web is reporting the news

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:08:45 -0000

Thanks for that, Holly.

I kind of like "crowdsourcing," which my friend Jeff Howe at Wired magazine came up with, but Jeff Jarvis's "networked journalism" works pretty well too I think.

Re: Hey Canadians: No Daily Show for you

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:33:31 -0000

I agree, Nav. It seems like a pretty major opportunity that is being missed.

Re: Hey Canadians: No Daily Show for you

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:53:29 -0000

Thanks for that, Luke. I guess that might be because Britain doesn't have anyone who has licensed the show for re-broadcast, the way Canada does.

The crashing thing is a whole different story :-)

Re: Microsoft: Still a fair bit of juice left

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:22:35 -0000

I know that, Zoli -- that's why I mentioned it in the post. But there were other growth drivers as well.

Re: Mozilla Prism: Don’t really get it

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:22:49 -0000

That's a good point, Engtech. It would be kind of handy for that -- but then, I'm almost always surfing the Web :-)

Re: iPhone in Canada for Christmas?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:36:22 -0000

I agree, Tod. There are just too many little flaws in the ad for it to be real.

Re: It’s Hulu vs. Brightcove, not YouTube

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:54:59 -0000

I hope that's the case, John.

And blah (nice name) -- I'm discussing the idea, not reviewing the website. I guess that's a subtlety you probably missed in your haste to post a nasty comment. Or maybe you work at Hulu?

Re: Markus Frind: The Craig Newmark of dating

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:24:12 -0000

Fair enough, Webprofessor -- but he's not even close to being as famous as Craig Newmark or Craigslist, which he arguably should be.

Re: Google wants one ring to bind them

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:03:44 -0000

Here's the secret, Mukund -- I've actually taught myself how to blog in my sleep :-)

Re: Google wants one ring to bind them

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:58:43 -0000

I think you're right, Joe -- can Google's attempt really work if it doesn't include two of the world's largest social networks?

Re: News flash: Apple computers can crash

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:46:54 -0000

You are probably right, Britonius. I guess being an early adopter has its pitfalls :-)

Re: Does “social search” make any sense?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:10:32 -0000

I would agree, Bobbie -- that kind of social search actually makes sense to me. Using a search as a springboard for online chat doesn't really... although I could see it being useful maybe if you were searching for a disease and found other sufferers to talk to, etc.

Re: Does “social search” make any sense?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:36:30 -0000

Fair enough, Mukund. But will anyone actually do that through Hakia? Or rather, will enough people do it to make it worthwhile? It seems to me you'd be more likely to do that through an already existing community such as Slashdot or something dedicated to the subject you're interested in.

Re: Visualizing the social-media “starfish”

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 08:03:23 -0000

That's amazing, Darren -- I didn't know that. Apparently the eleven-armed sea star can have as many as 14 arms.

I stand corrected :-)

Re: Study: Music downloads don’t affect sales

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:36:15 -0000

Good one, Rob :-)

Re: Yochai Benkler: An antidote to Andrew Keen

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:17:26 -0000

Thanks for keeping it short, Seth :-)

Re: Kleiner: Web 2.0 is so over, dude

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:28:10 -0000

Hey -- I haven't used the word "dude" in a headline since February!

Re: Why do we need a YouTube Canada?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:18:23 -0000

That's a good point, Nav. And don't get me wrong -- I think Canada is great, and I am all in favour of Canadian artists and content creators getting all the recognition they can get from wherever they can get it. But I still don't get the YouTube thing somehow -- maybe it just feels like sitting at the kids' table :-)

And Joe, your point is a good one as well. Where's the Quebecois version?

Re: Radiohead: comScore totally inaccurate

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:03:06 -0000

That's a great idea.

Re: Blogcosm: Techmeme can rest easy

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:46:09 -0000

Am I one of the good guys of the blogosphere, Scott? That's nice to know -- I should get a white hat :-)

Seriously though, that comment about being around since before Dave invented blogging was actually meant to be a joke (and more at Dave's expense than yours). Sorry if it didn't come off that way.

Maybe I over-reacted to the "taking on Techmeme" tone of Marshall's post -- and you are quite right that I have been on the receiving end of misinterpreted headlines more than once, so I know what that is like.

In any case, I apologize if my post came off as snotty. I think competition is good, and I wish you the best of luck with Blogcosm. I will be watching with interest.

Re: YouTube boosts file size limits

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:50:48 -0000

That's a good point, Richard.

Re: Of media and software design

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:38:12 -0000

Thanks, Rohan. I think you are right about the shift in mindset required. I see it on an almost daily basis :-)

Re: Would you pay for no Facebook ads?

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:30:16 -0000

I don't think I would pay, Brian, but I suppose it's possible that there are people who might. The guy who wrote the blog post I linked to certainly suggested that he would.

And thanks for the note about the posting time. I guess Wordpress doesn't automatically adjust for daylight saving time :-)

Re: Of media and software design

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:27:14 -0000

I think you're right, Alex -- journalism may never be moved over completely to that model, at least while print is still around. But for the Web part of the process, it makes perfect sense -- and then at some point you take a "snapshot" of the facts as they are known, and print that.

This isn't really all that revolutionary -- wire services have effectively been doing "agile" journalism for decades, with multiple updates, corrections, additions, etc. And newspapers have had the benefit of that -- but now they have to think about doing it themselves.

As someone who worked at Washingtonpost.com told me, all that's really required is to move from the traditional "write, edit, publish" media mindset to one that's more like "write, edit, publish, edit, publish, edit, publish."

Re: Reminder: Think before you blog

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:38:55 -0000

You're welcome, Rick. I think your post was an excellent lesson in how to take responsibility for something.

Re: Would you pay for no Facebook ads?

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:31:40 -0000

I'm all for that, Jason :-)

Re: Reminder: Think before you blog

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:09:43 -0000

Fair enough, Andy. I just think you were awfully quick to accuse Mike of doing all this for links without having a whole lot of evidence.

Re: Amazon’s S3: Almost free storage

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:41:25 -0000

Somewhere between 500 megabytes and a gigabyte, Joe.

Re: Can getting social make email better?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:30:17 -0000

Well, Jake, all I can go by is my 18-year-old daughter and most of her friends -- and a number of twentysomethings I've spoken to as well.

For them, email is a last resort that barely ever gets checked or responded to -- preferred methods of communication start with cellphone, then text message, then IM, then Facebook.

Email is way down at the bottom -- right next to "write a letter" :-)

Re: Jay Rosen launches Beatblogging.com

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:17:09 -0000

Damn. Rookie mistake :-)

Thanks for letting me know, Cynthia.

Re: Andrew Baron has a hate-on for Mahalo

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:34:14 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Drew -- those are fair points. And thanks for taking my comments in the spirit in which they were meant.

I just thought it was odd that you were so worked up about Mahalo, because you seemed like such a nice guy when we met. But then Jason does seem to have that effect on people :-)

Re: Meet your new owners: the fans

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:09:58 -0000

Thanks for that comment, er... weenie. :-)

Re: Disqus and the comment-o-sphere

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:54:05 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Fred -- maybe I overstated that a bit, or put it badly.

I just meant that comment systems such as Disqus are better the more people use them and the more comments that are aggregated by them. As I think you're suggesting, that could be accomplished in a number of different ways.

Meanwhile, in some kind of bizarre coincidence, for some reason Disqus didn't get activated on this post.

Re: Disqus and the comment-o-sphere

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:34:19 -0000

Thanks, Daniel.

Re: Of blogs, accuracy and editors

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:49:44 -0000

Was it a news story, Nate -- or was it a just blog post? What's the difference? Your blog post about it didn't require fact-checking or spellchecking. Why did Duncan's? I'm not yanking your chain -- I'm interested in how we define the differences.

Re: Of blogs, accuracy and editors

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:16:52 -0000

I'm not sure it's true to say that right and wrong don't matter, Allen -- even for Duncan :-) I think it's probably fair to say that being right is only *one* of the things that matter. And frankly, when it comes right down to it, it's only part of the equation with traditional media as well.

Re: Of blogs, accuracy and editors

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:02:13 -0000

@Matt: well, obviously he needs to sleep -- but he's not the only one who works at TechCrunch, is he? And the post still hasn't been updated. I assume he's woken up by now.

@knackered: I'm not suggesting that wire services shoot first and ask questions later. I'm just saying that getting things onto the wire first is more important than just about anything, and if you have worked at a wire service or know someone who has, you know what I'm talking about.

The fact is that mistakes happen all the time -- not the "I made up a story" kind of mistakes, but spelling errors, mis-attributions, etc., and in some cases misunderstandings. It's a factor of trying to be first. I'm not saying blogs and wire services are identical, I'm just saying there are similarities.

Re: Deals: @Twitter finally buys @Summize

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:16:36 -0000

And Twitter Karma, and Twistori, and... :-)

Re: Am I a two-dollar whore?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:54:26 -0000

Hey Drumsnwhistles -- just for the record, I don't think you're a two-dollar whore :-) And I have no problem with your PayPerPost posts, because you disclosed the fact that you were being paid. That's what I was hoping PayPerPost would get all their bloggers to do, but they haven't.

Mathew

Re: Do I have your attention yet?

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:07:09 -0000

Well, okay -- but just one :-)

Re: Google, Mobile and Phones: It’s all about the 700mhz, baby

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:56:33 -0000

Thanks, Karoli :-)

Re: When the "A-List" stops being "The A-List"

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:32:59 -0000

Great post, Rick -- and some good advice.

Re: Bungle continued: Gmail down

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:38:38 -0000

Was out for me too.

Re: Geeks make their mark at Burning Man

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:00:21 -0000

That's a fantastic roundup, Christine. Thanks for doing that.

Re: Why I hate Evite

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:55:43 -0000

Matt:

Maybe a disclaimer about Auren's relationship with Socializr should be a little higher up? Just a thought.

Re: Why I hate Evite

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:35:29 -0000

Auren, I think it's stretching things a bit to say you "prominently" disclosed your relationship, when it's in the second-last paragraph and is in parentheses. In J-school, that's called "burying the lede."

Re: Why I hate Evite

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:07:08 -0000

Glad you made the change, Matt.

Re: Cookie tracking: How Facebook could be worth $100 billion?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:37:04 -0000

Eric, I think your point is a good one -- but the $100-billion figure is so ridiculous that it undermines your entire argument. Even if you took a zero off it would still be pretty unbelievable, but $100-billion is out in La-La Land somewhere.

Re: Meme: Blogs That Make Me Think

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:02:11 -0000

Thanks a lot, Jason.

Re: Twitter’s impact on my 2008

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:35:20 -0000

Great to meet you as well, John -- even if only virtually so far. Here's to meeting in person before 2009 is over :-)

Re: Bloglife Crisis: Different Visitors. Different Value.

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:03:40 -0000

Great post, Fraser. Just one thing though -- it's Kent Newsome, not Kevin.

Mathew

Re: What Web 2.0 Can Learn From The Wonder Years

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:07:53 -0000

And of course Winnie -- Danica McKellar -- is a math genius (although I'm not sure that's relevant to your theme).

http://www.danicamckellar.com/

Re: Housecleaning Cont’d

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:28:17 -0000

Fraser: I've been approached by the same blog-syndication outfit, but don't have any experiences with it to share as of yet -- if you get some, maybe you could illuminate me and I will try and do likewise :-)

As for the three-column widgetified template, I'm a big fan of RinTinTin, which is what I've been using for the past year or so at mathewingram.com/work.

Mathew

Re: Wikinomics » Blog Archive » What movie speaks for your generation?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:32:21 -0000

Some great suggestions for all generations.

I guess I've always felt kind of in-between generations (born in 1962) -- not really a Boomer, but not really Gen-X either. So I really liked the Big Chill, but it didn't feel like watching my friends and I -- Breakfast Club was closer, and Ferris Bueller's Day Off. But the one I identified with the most was probably Repo Man, for whatever reason.

Re: Wikipedia != Jimmy Wales

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:36:16 -0000

Thanks for the support, Tim -- nice to know I'm not the only one :-)

Re: 2006/07/05/amanda-congdon-gets-ditched-by-rocketboom/

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:49:58 -0000

Pete:

I've got a response from Andrew here:

http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/07/05/and...

Re: 2006/07/09/confirmed-joanne-colan-is-rocketbooms-new-host/

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:01:56 -0000

Pete:

In case anyone is still interested, Iâ€™ve got a link to a video clip of Andrew explaining things a bit at Casecamp in Toronto (a clip Bryce Johnson put up). Link is in this post:
http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/07/08/mor...

Re: 2008/06/07/google-favicon/

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:02:12 -0000

I wonder if Google wanted to move away from the capital G to a lower-case one simply because lower-case looks "friendlier" than capitalized.

Re: 2008/09/22/eyemobile-for-iphone/

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:49:46 -0000

With CNN having grabbed iReport, and Fox having uReport, I can't believe CBS didn't go for the obvious: WeReport.

Re: Too Bad Gizmodo / Gawker Media is Not Public

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:56:08 -0000

Zoli, I admitted that it was sophomoric, and that interrupting the Motorola guy was definitely offside; but at the same time, I thought popping some of the CES hype machine bubble was a valuable -- and yes, funny -- thing. I just think we need to keep the whole thing in perspective, that's all.

Re: Too Bad Gizmodo / Gawker Media is Not Public

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:56:08 -0000

Re: Steve Jobs Panic – the Anatomy of Fake News on Twitter

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:10:51 -0000

Zoli, I disagree that citizen journalism "failed" in this case. Yes, the report was untrue, and lots of people (including me) spread the report -- but at the same time, it was debunked relatively quickly.

I think that's actually a pretty good example of how social media (I hate the term "citizen journalism") can work. It's a process, not a single event.

Re: Steve Jobs Panic – the Anatomy of Fake News on Twitter

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:10:51 -0000

Re: I don’t just “use” the Internet, so why am I a user?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:14:05 -0000

I guess whether you're being used or not depends on what you intended when you created the "user generated content," whatever that might be. If you have a blog, presumably you're doing it because you want people to read it, and if a service like Blogger or MSN Spaces or even Google helps get more people to read it, then they're doing you a favour -- so why shouldn't they get something out of it too? Same thing with Flickr. Presumably you put your pictures there so that people can see them. Flickr helps more people see them, and you help them by letting them run ads next to your content. The word partnership comes pretty close, I would think. If you don't want them to make money from your content, don't use their service.

Re: Google domains going after Outlook? MSN did that months ago…

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:29:22 -0000

I'm with Rob -- it's fine to be upset that not everyone mentioned Microsoft and its program (which I didn't even know about until now) but dragging the whole conflict of interest bogeyman into the mix is a little over the top. Methinks thou dost protest too much, Robert -- and it demeans your argument. Just for the record, I think I've made a total of $0.07 so far from my Google ads.

Re: Megite working on personal memetracker

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:05:37 -0000

Jaseone, you just put your finger on a much larger question that the whole blogosphere is wrestling with (or should be at least). If all anyone does is read the top links on memeorandum or digg or megite or tailrank or whatever, then doesn't that just amplify the echo-chamber effect?

Re: Better mail than jail…

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:48:04 -0000

Hey, I finally got Scoble to link to me! :-)

Re: Marc wonders why I’m speaking at Supernova

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 23:25:00 -0000

That's a good point, Robert. Guys like Marc have been to hundreds of these things, and know everybody and what they're going to say about everything. But people who are just getting their feet wet in this whole Web 2.0 thing -- like a lot of the people we expect at our conference in Toronto in May, which Jeremy alluded to (more details at meshconference.com) -- don't know who most of these people are, nor are they as bored as Marc seems to be with the whole thing. There are still lots of people looking for a clue, and we hope to help them find one.

Re: New AskCity doesn’t find Amsterdam

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 10:40:31 -0000

Typing in Toronto (a pretty major city, I like to think) gets you some listings in Toronto, Kansas.

Re: TechMeme list heralds death of blogging?

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:40:25 -0000

Just a quick note that I don't have an editor (not even an internal one sometimes), and therefore I think I qualify as a "real" blogger :-)

Re: How many Google Reader subscribers do you have?

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:46:41 -0000

Those numbers are pretty whack. You've got 18 through Google Reader, but Feedburner says that I've got almost 500 through Google Reader and iGoogle. And Feedburner says 1,600.

Re: Introducing Publish2: Networked News

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:47:44 -0000

I had a feeling you were up to something, Scott :-) Best of luck with the new venture.

Re: Publish2 Gets Funded By Velocity Interactive Group

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:23:48 -0000

Congrats, Scott -- looking forward to seeing Publish2 really take off.

Re: Who Are the New Media Gatekeepers?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:11:40 -0000

Scott:

Just wanted to let you know that I linked to your post -- but not just because you mentioned me after using the term "great bloggers" :-) And incidentally, your post got you back as a key link on memorandum.

Anyway, I think the questions you're asking are good ones -- for more of my thoughts, see the post I just put up at my blog.

Mathew

Re: Blogging to a Higher Standard

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:22:10 -0000

Scott, I wanted to second what Amy said -- I don't think the problems you are describing are particular to blogging, it's just that the immediacy and interactivity make it more obvious. I also wondered whether you aren't trying to impose arbitrary limits on a medium that (I think) is admirable in part because of the freedom and openness that it allows.

I'm all for pressure-testing opinions and supporting an argument, and the other noble goals that you've outlined, and I support your efforts to improve the quality of thought in the blogosphere. But at the same time, if everyone spent the kind of time you're talking about and subjected each post or comment to that sort of rigorous analysis, it wouldn't really be much of a conversation, would it?

I've always thought of the blogosphere as more like a debate over beer at the pub than a presentation of scholarly papers at a symposium of some kind. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think that's part of the attraction. Yes, people are going to make ill-informed and possibly inane arguments, and fail to back them up -- they might even disagree with you while doing so. And people will post comments that miss the point (as I am possibly doing now). You could always just ignore them -- or challenge them.

Re: Blogging to a Higher Standard

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:10:40 -0000

Scott, I wouldn't deny that I enjoy being contrary -- but not just for the sake of being contrary. I posted my comment because I think your recommendations risk squeezing the life and energy out of a medium that depends on them -- the bar analogy was not just chosen to be glib. I would also argue that you dismissed my argument in much the same way you are criticizing others for doing -- by either not reading it fully or deliberately misrespresenting it.

I didn't say bloggers (or commenters) shouldn't think about what they post -- in fact, I specifically said that I agreed with many of the points you made. I just think the kind of rigorous pressure-testing and so on you seem to be recommending is antithetical in many ways to what makes blogging what it is, and there's a tension there that I don't think you're recognizing.

Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a pissing match, so I will end it there. And for what it's worth I think it is a debate that is definitely worth having, and I appreciate your bringing it up.

Re: A Challenge to Citizen Journalism

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:19:15 -0000

Scott:

With all due respect, I think you're creating a false dichotomy in the setup for your argument -- a "straw man" I believe it's called :-)

I don't think Jeff Jarvis or anyone else who supports the idea of "citizen journalism" would argue that it should replace traditional journalism, or if they are saying that then I haven't been reading them closely enough. I think they are saying that it can help reinvigorate and extend traditional journalism. And I think they are saying this in particular about local reporting, not so much about reporting on a war, which as you point out takes considerable resources.

I don't think Jeff is saying that bloggers can replace that sort of thing, and for what it's worth I don't think that you really think he's saying that either. I guess I'm saying that it seemed like a bit of a cheap shot, especially since the rest of your post makes a lot of worthwhile points (many of which I think Jeff would agree with).

Re: Focus on the User, Not the Technology

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:21:14 -0000

You know, Scott, I think this is an area where "old" media like newspapers (or their websites) can play a role -- like the bridge that Gary has in mind -- when they are combined with an easy RSS reader like My Yahoo or Google's reader or IE7. If a newspaper has feeds for everything under the sun, or even feeds for stories with particular tags, then someone could click "send me all the stuff about New Zealand" or "send me all the sudokus and anything by that columnist who uses all the big words" or whatever, and then build their own collection of news and other things, instead of having to wade through the newspaper or its website looking for what they want.

Re: Google Orwellian

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:53:58 -0000

Come on, Scott -- talking about Google and Orwell in the same sentence is just a little over the top, isn't it? We're talking about a search engine, not the technology arm of a police state, or a boot stamping on a human face. If George Bush had persuaded Google to remove webpages chronicling his cocaine use during college, then I could see the point. Of course, BMW didn't get to "confront its accuser" as Alex said -- because it wasn't a trial. Google provides searches, and it has terms for inclusion in its index; break the rules and you are out. If you don't like it, get yourself indexed by a different search engine. Are people somehow unable to find BMW's website without the use of Google? No. As Michal points out, there are other engines, even if everyone is currently obsessed with Google's dominance. As for Alex being concerned that Google would "zap" his page-rank for even writing about it, that's so farcical it doesn't even really deserve a response.

Re: Rebooting My Brain

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:25:29 -0000

It's a powerful drug, though, isn't it Scott? How long between your initial post and when you fell off the wagon -- 10 minutes? An hour?

Re: In Media, Only Ideas Matter

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:00:05 -0000

Wow, Scott -- simplistic and facile. That hurts, buddy. But I'm happy to have my post function as a kind of verbal pylon for you to skate around. Oh, and by the way, that "amorality of Web 2.0" thing of Nick's was a load of bollocks too.

Cheers,

Mathew

Re: Blogs Will NOT Save Old Media

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:24:20 -0000

I couldn't agree more, Scott. TechCrunch would be a lot better if it looked at things with a somewhat more critical eye -- I for one would find it more useful. But then, maybe that's not what it's for. I find it interesting that on tech.memeorandum right now, the posts about Mike's party and how great it was are mixed in with posts about Edgeio and how great it is (an "eBay killer," one site calls it). Is one affecting the other? Undoubtedly.

Re: Think Before You Blog

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:15:03 -0000

A fair point as usual, Scott. Too bad you had to go and rely on Michael Wolff to help make your point for you, since he is a pompous moron. "The quicker the things that you read are written, the more you should be distrustful of them," he says. Not always the case, I would argue. Sometimes the things that are written the fastest are the most true --- and the things that people take a long time to write often turn out to be ponderous, turgid pieces of shite like Michael Wolff regularly writes for Vanity Fair.

Re: What You NEED vs. What You WANT

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:20:12 -0000

I think that's a good question, Scott. It's one of the things that newspapers and other traditional media wrestle with too, to some extent: How much of what you print should be what people want to know, and how much should it be what you think they need to know.

In other words, how many articles about celebrities and their failed relationships should you run, or pictures of traffic accidents, and how many pieces about politics and other things that are BBI (boring but important).

I think part of what makes "new" or participatory media so difficult to handle is that it allows readers much more control over what they read or pay attention to, to the point where maybe they're not even going to see the things they might "need" to know. How do we deal with that -- or should we even try? Tough question.

Re: Do We Need Professionalism In Media?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:39:28 -0000

Nice try, Scott :-) And I know that you're recommending balance, which is good -- and I think there is a place for old media warhorses like yourself (and myself, for that matter) to help with the whole participatory media thing, whatever we choose to call it -- although I wish you wouldn't keep dragging the whole communism comparison into it.

Anyway, that's not my main point -- my main point is that your comparisons are flawed. Aside from the fact that I think all three of your suggested "open source" advice ideas might actually make some sense (even though you intended them as satire), you can't really compare professional journalists to doctors or lawyers -- although I know a lot of my colleagues would like to believe otherwise.

Why? Because doctors and lawyers are professions, with actual qualifications, and a governing body that ensures that they adhere to those specifications. What sort of professional qualifications do journalists have to have in order to get a job? None whatsoever. You don't have to pass a test, get called to the bar, show that you can operate without killing someone, or get a license. You just get a job and start writing. And no one can take away your right to call yourself a journalist no matter how many bad stories or lies you write.

Re: It’s All About the FILTER

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 23:40:01 -0000

Oh sure, Scott -- I tell you you're wrong and I'm an idiot, but Umair says you're wrong and you change your mind just like that. :)

Re: Does Blog Marketing Work for B2B?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:47:22 -0000

It's not that surprising, Scott. Blogs are a way of increasing interactivity between people, not between companies. Companies don't read blogs. Blogs are not a hammer that will work with every advertising nail.

Re: Corporate Blogging Reality Check

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:07:19 -0000

You make some good points, Scott. It is hard for companies to "get" what is required in order for blogging to work, in part because it means changing so much about how they do things -- and even more than that, how they think and react. But as you said, just because it's difficult doesn't make it any less worthwhile.

Re: Digital Editions of Print Pubs Are Publisher-Centric

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:57:50 -0000

Couldn't agree more, Scott. Digital editions have been around for years, and this really isn't any different. And it won't succeed for the same reason none of the others have succeeded -- because it's a bad format for readers and it's clearly designed to serve other purposes, i.e. advertising. I think readers can sense that, and so they turn away from it.

Re: Yahoo Tech Is Tech For the Rest of Us

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 02 May 2006 10:32:10 -0000

"Shit-ergy." Good one, Sally.

Scott, I think you have a point about it approaching the average user on a non-geek level, which has some merit to it -- but my big problem isn't the lack of experts, it's the fact that the thing looks like brochure-ware, with clip-art style layouts and photos. Cheesy.

Granted, CNET is no beauty queen either, but it makes me wonder whether Yahoo's site wasn't designed primarily for advertisers rather than users. I think users will sense that. Sometimes ugly but functional (a la craigslist.org) is better.

Re: Will Search Advertising Be Winner Take All?

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 09 May 2006 17:16:15 -0000

I think that's a great point, Scott -- about how much better search advertising looks when compared with the smoke-and-mirror show that advertisers have traditionally gotten from the media.

Re: The Unbearable Lightness of 2.0 Business Strategy

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 22 May 2006 18:53:31 -0000

Excellent use of the word "ontological," Scott -- and you could probably have thrown "epistemological" in there too, just for fun :-)

Seriously though, you continue to raise an interesting point about who is going to pay for all this new media, and how. Will it all be AdSense-driven or some similar pay-per-click model? Micro-payments? If we could just come up with some believable answer to that question, I suspect we could become very rich. Perhaps we will all have to find wealthy patrons, the same way most of the early poets and playrights did.

Mathew

Re: Has the MySpace Downturn Begun?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 26 May 2006 10:10:48 -0000

Dude -- you got called "dorkness." That's harsh. I happen to think you're totally right though, as I wrote in a recent piece about MySpace and social networks for globeandmail.com. MySpace is hot now, but teen audiences are the most fickle market ever invented. Already places like Bebo and Nexopia are growing, in part because MySpace has gone (or is becoming) mainstream, and mainstream is the kiss of death. Rupert had better hurry up and find a way of monetizing that thing before it joins Friendster in the dustbin of history.

Re: The Democratic Web Has Always Been An Illusion

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 29 May 2006 16:32:52 -0000

I think your point is a good one, Scott -- although I think the swimming pool metaphor leaves a little to be desired :-) I liked the electricity one better.

Still, your first commenter has a point too, I think. The telcos in the U.S. got all kinds of favourable deals from government, in part because they promised that everyone would soon have a super-fast connection they could use for phone calls and TV-style content and lots of other stuff -- and now they are asking to be able to charge more for something they were already supposed to be providing.

There are also reports that a substantial amount of the fiber-optic cable out there is still "dark," or unused, which would seem to refute the telecom argument that they need to charge more because the Internet is "full." I think you are right that we should be clear about what we're talking about, but that goes for opponents of "net neutrality" as well as its proponents.

Re: The Long Tail of Revenue 2.0

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 29 May 2006 16:53:44 -0000

But Scott, isn't one of the benefits of Web-based media that the costs (and of course the barriers to entry too) are so low? Therefore it should be possible to make a decent living even from a relatively puny long-tail payback sort of equation. No?

Re: MySpace is YOUR Space, Not THEIR Space

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 10:28:37 -0000

Meant to send congrats on the NYT appearance, Scott -- although as you know I would never suggest that appearing in the "old" media somehow validates what you're doing in the "new" :-) Still, nice props nonetheless. And at least people can read what you have to say in the NYT piece, unlike all the columnists at the paper who exist only behind the stupid pay wall.

Re: The Ideological Polarization of 2.0

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:56:12 -0000

Wise counsel, Scott -- although I couldn't resist beating up on Lee a little bit, since I think he was trolling the extreme end of the meme pool.

But you are quite right, reading different points of view does help in many cases, which is why I think techmeme and other meme-trackers can actually help the debate (provided we all don't just read the stuff we already agree with).

I think it was Andre Gide who said "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

Re: The Ideological Polarization of 2.0

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:42:12 -0000

I'd have to disagree with both you and Paul on the trolling thing, Scott (since I'm pretty sure it was me you were referring to with that trolling crack). Or maybe there are degrees of trolling. If that's the case, Nick is a ninth-degree black belt and Lee was verging on Carr-like territory with his column.

No disagreement on the Mentos video though -- it's hilarious.

Re: The Ideological Polarization of 2.0

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 21:52:01 -0000

Glad to know that you would feel free to single me out if necessary, Scott :-)

As for trolling, I will take a serious stab at the question, since you asked. I think you and Paul are right to a certain extent, in that bloggers (like newspaper columnists, of which I am one) inevitably overstate their case a little, or exaggerate for the sake of emphasis, and use other rhetorical tools in order to a) make their posts (or columns) more interesting to read and b) get people fired up so that they either tell others, or blog their own response, or post a comment or preferably all three.

That said, however, it's easy to crank up the rhetorical engine a little too high, and then you run the risk of detracting from your argument (assuming you have one in the first place). Setting up straw men, logical fallacies, ad hominem arguments, etc. are all examples of that. To the extent that you actually want to convince people of something, overdoing the rhetoric is a bad thing, and that's what I mean by trolling.

No doubt I have been guilty of some or all of those things myself. And no doubt some of that was driven by a desire to get links, or to get on techmeme.com or whatever. And maybe I just like to poke Dave now and then just to get a reaction (although I admit it's like shooting fish in a barrel). I don't think of that as trolling.

I apologize for the long-winded answer.

Re: Dell’s Corporate Blogging and the Problem of Risk Management

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:30:38 -0000

Well said, Scott.

Re: Does MySpace Matter in Google’s Deal with News Corp?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:05:25 -0000

I made a similar point (I think) in this post:

Re: Blogging Is the New Novel/Screenplay Writing

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:33:27 -0000

I notice that Nick has answered other questions posed in his comments section, but not mine, in which I asked him why he blogged. I'd love to know the answer.

Re: The Upside and Downside of Google’s Newspaper Deal

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:21:36 -0000

Good points, Scott -- especially the part about how the project will likely "hasten the realization that the Web is much more efficient than print at driving action and response." So Google pretends to help newspapers, but in reality it is speeding up their inevitable demise. Fiendishly clever :-)

Re: A Lot of User-Generated Content Is Really User-Appropriated Content

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:50:52 -0000

Good points as usual, Scott. The flip side of the "user-appropriated content" equation, however, is that much of what companies like UMG are complaining about -- and pressuring Google and MySpace to cough up money for -- is content that appears as part of another piece of content. For example, a music video made by someone lip-synching to a song, or a skateboarding exploit with a homemade soundtrack. UMG would like to charge for any appearance of any part of a song in any format for any purpose, even if it's your grandmother singing along with Celine Dion. Is that a fair exercise of copyright? I would argue it isn't.

Re: New York Times Dominates The Tech Blogosphere

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:46:25 -0000

Still some power in the old brand yet, it seems :-)

Re: Five Things You Probably Don’t Know About Me

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:38:05 -0000

I think this must mean something in a "six degrees of separation" kind of way, but I've already been tagged by the Five Things virus... er, meme -- and wrote my entry here on Thursday.

And for what it's worth, Scott, you don't look like anyone I know :-)

Re: Transparent Ads Are Better Than Fake “Conversations”

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:25:24 -0000

Totally right, Scott. Dealing with some of these fake conversational-marketing gimmicks is like thinking you're doing really well with a hot girl and then finding out she's a professional. The really stupid part is that it actually winds up doing the opposite of what the marketer in question originally intended.

Re: Platforms Vs. Experiences

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:40:56 -0000

As a matter of fact, you can change the look of my blog, Scott. On the left-hand side of the blog, down near the bottom, is a list of themes -- just click on any of them and you'll get the same great Ingram content in a different package. There's even a Mac-looking one :-)

And I do get the point about how Apple focuses on closed systems because it allows them to control the experience as much as possible. But as I said before, I don't think it has to be a binary thing -- all control, or none. I just wish Steve would loosen up a bit.

Re: What Is The Check On Wikipedia’s Power?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:31:46 -0000

Scott, I must admit I don't see Wikipedia's approach as being a huge deal. While it's true that Doug Mahugh seems to have had the best of intentions, he still tried to get around the process by paying someone to edit a Wikipedia entry -- and I don't think "but I meant well" is really an effective defence in a case like that. There may be problems with Wikipedia and gate-keeping, but if you want to debate the way an article is presented there are ways of doing so that don't involve astroturfing.

Re: What Is The Check On Wikipedia’s Power?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:27:04 -0000

I'm not saying the Wikipedia process is completely without flaws, and it is definitely subject to all the interpersonal cruft that other "social media" involve, but there is a process for changing an entry -- and Michael Rubin's comment contains no persuasive evidence to the contrary, nor does the Metafilter page he links to.

Factual edits can be made if evidence is presented, and the discussion pages are the place to debate whether something needs to be changed. Paying people to change things is just no way to run something that is (allegedly) supposed to be an unbiased resource, whatever Mr. Mahugh's intentions were.

As for astro-turfing, I will bow to Wikipedia on that one -- I thought the term referred to any attempt to generate "fake" grassroots support for something.

Re: What Is The Check On Wikipedia’s Power?

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:14:31 -0000

Just to be clear, I didn't say he was stupid, or didn't get it, or was acting irrationally. I think he may have been acting completely rationally -- and thought what he was doing was the right thing. That's irrelevant. The fact is that he tried to get someone to detour around the process for changing an entry, and he was going to *pay him to do so.*

I find it interesting that everyone -- you included, Scott -- gets upset at the idea of PayPerPost paying bloggers for their opinion (positive or negative) but paying someone to change a Wikipedia entry is somehow justified because Wikipedia is "broken."

Re: What Is The Check On Wikipedia’s Power?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:35:02 -0000

I didn't say Mahugh was stupid -- the point of my post was that Microsoft looks stupid as a result of what he did.

Re: What Is The Check On Wikipedia’s Power?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:16:26 -0000

Damn you, Karp :-)

Re: What If Google Never Succeeds With Offline Advertising?

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:31:57 -0000

Just one quibble, Scott -- according to recent reports, Google's newspaper program is actually going better than expected and is likely to be expanded.

Re: What If Google Never Succeeds With Offline Advertising?

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:03:15 -0000

Sorry, Scott -- I tried to create a link but somehow screwed it up (I'm not that bright). I wrote about it here: http://mathewingram.com/media/2006/12/28/google...

Re: Google Apps’ Achilles’ Heel

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:09:01 -0000

I couldn't agree more, Scott. I had the same issue that Drew had with Gmail -- out of comission or ridiculously slow all day, messages coming in all out of order -- and have had them with Google Docs as well. I think Google has to offer caching like Zoho or some form of it, or they are just not going to get anyone taking their apps seriously.

Re: Identity In A Digital World

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:40:58 -0000

Funny post, Scott -- I just had a flashback to the post I wrote about you way back when, the one where I "outed" you as working at Atlantic. Man, you were mad. Glad that's all behind us now :-)

Re: Online Video Needs Distribution But What It REALLY Needs Is Discovery

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:22:51 -0000

Have you seen the post Scoble just did on a company called Nexidia, Scott? I don't know anything about it, but it apparently does contextual search within video clips, then dynamically serves Google ads (or any other keyword-related content) beside the video.

Post is here

Re: Online Video Needs Distribution But What It REALLY Needs Is Discovery

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:39:48 -0000

Good point.

Re: Every Newspaper Journalist Should Start A Blog

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 22 May 2007 13:45:34 -0000

Thanks for including me on that list, Scott -- and I think your post is dead on.

Re: We’re All #1 On Technorati

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:10:34 -0000

Damn :-)

Re: The Huffington Post Allows Top Commenters To Become Bloggers

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:00:55 -0000

I think it's a great idea. The Telegraph in the UK did the same thing back in April, which I wrote about here

Re: Email Is NOT Dead

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:47:31 -0000

True -- but everyone also HATES EMAIL :-)

Re: Apple Shuts Down Think Secret: Do Journalists Have the Right to Reveal Corporate Trade Secrets?

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:26:50 -0000

You've put your finger on the central question, Scott. My answer would be yes -- depending on how they do it. I'm pretty sure Chiquita sued a journalist for breaking into its private voice mail network, which is clearly a crime.

On the other hand, the courts have also ruled that simply printing what a source from within a company tells you is not a crime. This case hinged on what the definition of a "trade secret" is. As your first commenter points out, that's a shifting target, especially with Apple.

Was the iPhone a trade secret? Hundreds of outlets wrote about it, and many got some of the details right -- and that business is a huge moneymaker for Apple. And yet, no lawsuits.

Re: The Evolution From Linear Thought To Networked Thought

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:35:14 -0000

I think you're on to something there, Scott -- but I'm not sure what, because I never made it to the end of your post :-)

Sorry about that -- I couldn't help myself.

Re: Connecting The Dots Of The Web Revolution

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:37:43 -0000

Great post, Scott. That's one of the reasons why I find the media business so fascinating right now -- no one really knows what the right answers are. Some are still struggling to find the right questions :-)

Re: False Steve Jobs Heart Attack Report on CNN’s iReport Is a Failure of Open Systems

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:37:28 -0000

Those are all good points as usual, Scott. But as I noted in the blog post I wrote about it, I don't think the process failed in this case. A fake report was posted by dozens of people (including me, on Twitter) and briefly affected the stock, but it was widely debunked and corrected in half a dozen places within half an hour of its first appearance. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see that as a success of an open system (or citizen journalism, or whatever you want to call it) rather than a failure.

Re: False Steve Jobs Heart Attack Report on CNN’s iReport Is a Failure of Open Systems

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 00:14:08 -0000

You are quite right that people rarely talk about the risks -- and I agree that a better way for existing media to handle "citizen journalism" or whatever we're calling it is to link to the credible stuff wherever it appears.

Re: Why Podcasting Is a Good Business To Be In

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:16:57 -0000

Thanks for saying I'm not crazy :-)

Re: Mesh & the Sense of Belonging

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:14:40 -0000

Thanks a lot, Leesa. Your comments are very kind. Now we are all blushing :-)

Re: My Wordpress Needs a Brand New Bag

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:34:26 -0000

Okay, Leesa -- I'm going to let that whole "middle-aged dude" thing slide, because I like you :-)

If you really want to go wild with the widgets, I would recommend a 3-column theme, just because you get a lot more space for sidebar bling. I use Rin Tin Tin, but there's a k2 version that's 3 column that is quite good too.

And I also use Ultimate Tag Warrior, which I find great, and Podpress is also really good.

Best of luck.

Re: Mesh Quickly for Your Mesh Tickets

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:25:37 -0000

Thanks, Leesa. Wicked mint -- I like it :-)

Re: Soft Launch: Welcome To Our Newly Redesigned Sites

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 01:21:13 -0000

Looks great, Rafat. Glad to hear most (if not all) of the hiccups and speed-bumps are behind you now :-)

Re: Why Podcasting Is a Good Business To Be In

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:16:57 -0000

Thanks for saying I'm not crazy :-)

Re: Mesh & the Sense of Belonging

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:14:40 -0000

Thanks a lot, Leesa. Your comments are very kind. Now we are all blushing :-)

Re: My Wordpress Needs a Brand New Bag

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:34:26 -0000

Re: Mesh Quickly for Your Mesh Tickets

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:25:37 -0000

Thanks, Leesa. Wicked mint -- I like it :-)

Re: Day 73: The (Sleepy) Attack of the Yahoo Vice Presidents

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:37:55 -0000

Well put, Kara. And the photo you used (is that a House subcommittee meeting?) is probably a pretty good representation of the incredible energy and fervor that will no doubt be present at Yahoo HQ :-)