Enough Mainstream Silliness, Please: The Social Web Works

By | November 22, 2011

I’m a big fan of mainstream media — course I am, I work for them — but I’m also a big fan of the other stuff. Like Wikipedia. It’s usually the first place I start if I’m trying to familiarize myself with a new subject, even a new one.

Which is why I get uppity when mainstream media disses Wikipedia with the kind of broad-brush strokes it usually accuses the online world of making. Like this one from The Boston Globe, in a story (not a column) about social finance sites:

The wisdom of the crowd may be a fine way to discover the most amusing YouTube video, but Wikipedia has been vilified for inaccuracies, and the online world hardly has a reputation as a trustworthy source.

In one short sentence the writer manages to dismiss

  • YouTube as a mere site for “amusing” videos,
  • the “wisdom of the crowd” as a mere mechanism for finding stuff,
  • Wikipedia as apparently the mere butt of vilifiers, and
  • the online world as, basically, untrustworthy.

Sources? Examples? A measure of balance? Er, none.

Now I like the Globe, and I love the IHT, where I read this, so I’m guessing this might just have been a bit of sloppy editing or last-minute “background” so enamored of editors. But frankly I can find very little vilifying of Wikipedia, at least if one counterbalances the criticism with the praise  — and the sheer numbers: nearly 2 million articles in English, in the top 10 websites. (The best source, by the way, for criticism of Wikipedia is, er, Wikipedia; the piece has 125 external references.)

So, come on, mainstream journalists. The time is past for sniffy, unsubstantiated asides about things like Wikipedia. The social web has already established itself and proved itself. It ain’t perfect, but neither are we.

Sharing the wealth – The Boston Globe

Cellphone Spikes and Disaster Management

By | November 22, 2011

image

Steven Levitt makes a good point on the Freakonomics blog about the spike in cellphone usage after the Minneapolis bridge collapse which alerted at least one carrier to an emergency before the news hit. His conclusion:

This would seem to hints at strategies that could be useful for coordinating quick emergency response more generally, as well as military/intelligence applications.

One commenter suggests that this may simply throw up lots of false positives, while another says the real problem is in identifying the cause of the spike — disaster, or a radio station offering $1,000 to the 26th caller?

Seems to me that you should be able to tell pretty quickly where the spike originates — lots of people calling from stranded cars on a bridge are unlikely to indicate a phone-in competition. Perhaps if cellphone masts and base stations also included cameras and/or two-way communication devices it would be possible for cellphone engineers to be able to not only assess the situation but open their communications up to rescue services, who could then monitor the situation and convey instructions and information to those in the affected area.

How To Blow It From “From”

By | November 22, 2011

image

I’m amazed by how many times this happens, and it always seems to be PR folk in the technology industry who are the culprits: An email where the sender, say Geoff Blah, hasn’t filled in the ‘From’ field in his email program or service so it appears in my inbox as from ‘gblah@aol.com’ or, sometimes, just gblah. (Yes, very lame for a PR person to be using their AOL account to send out pitches, but that’s another story.)

Why is not having any ‘from’ name not good?

  • Well, first off, it looks shoddy. It would be like sending me a letter and not bothering to actually put your name at the bottom, requiring me to decipher your handwriting. Or handing out namecards without an actual name on. Your emails are your business cards.
  • Secondly, it suggests a lack of technological prowess that may undermine you, or your agency’s, claims of being ‘best of breed’ or whatever is the cool term these days. One I received this morning was from a PR agency that claims expertise in consumer technology and IT technology. (The same agency hasn’t bothered to check its DNS registration, so entering the website’s name without the www’s — blah.com, not www.blah.com – – will result in an error. This further erodes my confidence in their much trumpeted ‘technical savvy.’)
  • Thirdly, it raises the chance of the email itself being discarded as spam. A lot of spam filters check these header fields for unusual or inconsistent activity and not having the ‘From’ alias field filled is one of them.
  • Fourthly, it irritates me and I hate being irritated in the morning.

So, all together now: Fill in your name in your email program or online service. Anything less looks like you’re either in a real hurry or you’re not sure what you’re doing.

Overloading a Brain

By | December 30, 2011

I’ve written too much of late about PersonalBrain, so I’m not going to do so anymore — at least here. Instead I’ve started a Google Group for those of us interested in exploring how to use the tool, but not necessarily so excited about it we want to follow all its ins and outs. For such folk there are the PersonalBrain forums and newsgroups.  

For now you need to sign up to join. If you’re new to PersonalBrain, or wondering about it, or are a user happy to share your experiences, please join. This is a non-technical group, and the emphasis is on usage rather than bugs, feature requests etc.

Technorati Tags: , ,

A Beginner’s Guide to Managing E-mail

By | November 22, 2011

(This is the text of my weekly Loose Wire Service column, written mostly for newcomers to personal technology, and syndicated to newspapers like The Jakarta Post. Editors interested in carrying the service please feel free to email me.)

I’m always horrified when I see people’s e-mail inboxes.

They are always so full — brimming with messages that should have been answered, or should have been deleted, or should never have arrived in the first place.

It’s not the way to work, since you’re bound to lose stuff that way and, if you’re anything like me, you’ll get steadily more and more depressed about all the stuff sitting there you won’t, after a while, even bother opening your inbox until after a stiff drink.

It needn’t be like that. Here’s my two-step recipe for e-mail order. Follow it and stay sober:

Keep all your e-mail in one place

In other words, make sure all your accounts are accessible from one location. It means that no e-mail will go missing, you’ll know exactly what you’ve got, and when you’re on the road you’ll have only one place to go to check.

Nowadays this is possible to do for nothing. This is how I do it, and how I think you should too:

  • Set up an account with Gmail. (More on why Gmail is best for this later.)
  • If you have other accounts, set them up so they land in Gmail. (For the complete instructions for this, go here). It’s a tad fiddly, but when it’s done you’ll be glad: Basically, Gmail will go off and fetch your e-mail from other accounts — and, most important, let you send e-mail from your Gmail account as if it is from those accounts.

(In other words, if you want to, you can continue to use Gmail as your main sorting office, while still using your old e-mail account, or accounts without having to add another e-mail address.)

Why is Gmail better? Well, it’s free, for one thing, and it loads quickly on slow machines. And it has a great — though not perfect — interface. Yes, it scans your e-mails to better target you with ads. For some people this is a showstopper.

But the advantages, for me, outweigh the disadvantages. (One point I should mention is that you can’t forward Yahoo! e-mail to Gmail, unless you have a paid account with Yahoo!.)

Get labeling

An inbox should be just that. A place where you pick things up. They shouldn’t stay there. A bloated inbox is like reading your physical mail and then putting it back in the mailbox at the end of your drive/in the lobby/on the door of your home.

It doesn’t make sense. So the cardinal rule of good e-mail management is to move anything you’ve read out of your inbox as soon as you can. That means having somewhere to move it and, in the past, that meant folders and subfolders. No more.

Gmail doesn’t use folders, it uses labels, which makes it possible to organize your e-mails in a logical way — since you can apply any number of labels to an e-mail, you’re not forced to agonize over which folder to put an e-mail in.

So one e-mail I receive could have the label “PR stuff” but also be labeled “USB devices” as well as “gadgets to check out”. (Not very inspired labels, I admit, but they work for me.)

Labels can be applied manually, or they can be automated via filters, which will do the labeling for you when the e-mail arrives.

Labeling in itself doesn’t solve the bloated inbox problem. Gmail has one more feature for this called Archive. One of your e-mails is either in the inbox (what you see when you open your account) or the Archive.

You can ask the filters to move incoming stuff straight into the archive, or you can select one, some or all the messages in your inbox and archive them with one button.

You’ll still be able to find them by doing a search, or, if they have a label attached to them, by clicking on one of the label links on the left. Archiving something merely moves it from your inbox.

Which is what you should do. Create lots of labels as you work — you can have as many as you like, but it makes sense to give them some thought. Assign incoming e-mails to labels manually or automatically as you read them.

Then, at the end of your working day, when you feel you’ve done everything you can with the e-mails in your inbox, select them all and archive them. You’ll then have an empty inbox, and — trust me — you’ll feel good.

Now you may not be able to get everything done before you go home. If necessary, you can create a special folder (mine’s called !Tickler — the ! ensures it’s at the top of my label list) which I put stuff in I still need to deal with.

Gmail offers its own solution: a star you can assign to an e-mail that will make it stand out. Either way, you have a way to ensure important stuff doesn’t get lost. (Of course, you then have to monitor your special label and make sure it doesn’t just become a siding for your inbox inefficiencies.)

One other tip: Gmail is great with spam. It will do a near-perfect job of getting rid of all the stuff you don’t want. But you still have to monitor your spam box and weed out the few good e-mails that land there.

Get into the habit of emptying the spam box every day, too, otherwise you might find you lose the occasional e-mail that got buried there.

In the future I’ll offer more tips on managing e-mail but this should get you started. Let me know how it works for you, or if you have other tips that work better for you.

The Jakarta Post – The Journal of Indonesia Today