Posts tagged ‘Google+’

September 22, 2011

Do you STILL hate the new Facebook? [Video]

I’ve written this post before, at the end of 2010, the last time Facebook made a significant update. Every time Facebook unveils their new innovations, users get up in arms and turn to Facebook itself to vent their frustration. I can understand the shock that some people feel when the login to see that their photos, news, friends, and lists are not in same place. Facebook has updated their service a lot over the past few months, including new subscriptions, news feeds, mobile versions, games, photos, lists, and more. Change is good.

Here’s what I see:

News ticker: It’s that little box on the top-right side of the page that follows you as you navigate around the page. It keeps me posted on the minute-by-minute updates from friends and I don’t have to click back to the main news feed to see the updates. I like it.

Better lists: We have Google+ Circles to thank for this upgrade. Facebook has gone one step further and has started to suggest how to categorize our friends. Though, they can’t get it 100% right with their suggestions, I like to have a place to start from.

Subscribe button: This is another page out of the Google+ (and Twitter) playbook. You can now follow anybody on Facebook, without having to be their friend, as long as they have enabled their subscribe feature. I’m still experimenting with this and don’t know if I’ll keep it.

Privacy: They claim to have added a “new suite of safety tools” to the network, including advanced security settings, and tools for families. Before you go any further with the new Facebook, it’s a good idea to revisit your privacy settings to make sure nothing has been unknowingly changed. I do this after every Facebook upgrade.

User backlash: It happened in 2008, it happened in 2010, it happened in February of 2011 with the photo viewer update, and now it’s happening again. People are freaking out about the upgrades. I would encourage those who are upset to take a breath, give the new features a try, and then decide if they work for you. If you don’t like them, don’t use them – that sends a message to Facebook.

Remember, this type of upgrading is essential. If we were faced today with Facebook as it existed in 2006, surely we wouldn’t be satisfied. Yes, they are “keeping up with the Jones'” in some respects (Google+ and Twitter), but that’s a good thing. The more pressure these companies put on each other the faster they are forced to innovate and improve their services. At the end of the day, it’s the user who benefits most from these perpetual upgrades. You may not love them all, but we’re definitely better off today then we were way back in 2006.

What do you think about the new Facebook? Love it? Hate it? or meh? I would love some thoughts on this one.

Here’s a quick video from Facebook explaining some of their new features:

September 14, 2011

Don’t make anonymous online posts, you drunks!

Do you ever get frustrated when you come across a posting that you passionately agree, or disagree, with and want to find out more about the poster, but you can’t? The problem doesn’t lie with your research skills, it lies with the fact that the post was made anonymously. Now, because that person used a pseudonym, and didn’t enter any additional information, it is almost impossible to find out more about that user to establish credibility, connect with them socially, or follow-up on other related topics.

I can just picture this “anonymous” person sitting behind the keyboard thinking “I don’t want the whole world to know my name” or “why would I ever want to add a ‘profile picture'” or “I’m not telling you who I am: what if my boss see this?” But this person goes ahead and shares his/her opinion thinking that “the world NEEDS to hear my opinion!”

If you don’t tie your individual comments back to your own personality, it’s very difficult to establish credibility on the subject you are commenting about. Without credibility, comments and subsequent replies have the tendency to turn into a virtual bar-room shouting match rather than a productive conversation between opinion leaders, experts, industry, educators, students (I use the term students to include anybody wanting to learn more about a topic), etc.

In my view, anonymous posts not only provide the ideal conditions for people to aggressively (offensively) broadcast their opinion and pick fights, but also they effectively stifle the conversation by polluting it with a lot of words with little substance.

A lot of academic research was conducted around the turn of the millennium (1997-2003) on anonymous postings on the internet. Most of the research suggested that this anonymity is a good thing and should be protected – after all it was the “natural state of the internet”, they thought. But this was over a decade ago, and things have changed.

The biggest change is the introduction of social networks. Many of these networks require users to provide a real name to participate (Google+) or to get the best value out of the service (Facebook). Now, the “natural state of the internet” is a place where many of our accounts are linked, creating a consistent online footprint that aggregates and tracks much of the content we have generated or interacted with. If I am intrigued by a comment you make, I can usually follow a series of links and get a general understanding of who you are, which helps contextualize your comments and posts.

Another significant change is that “online worlds” and “offline worlds” are now so interconnected that they can be considered one, and not two separate places. Instead of splitting our personalities into several different performances based on work, home, family, friends, online, and offline, we are recognizing that who we are in one element of our lives should be reflected in others.

Current research paints a very different picture from the research conducted just a decade ago. In a recent study from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, researchers concluded that the thrill people get when making anonymous online postings can lead to impaired judgement similar to that experienced by those who get a kick out of abusing their power or are intoxicated by alcohol. This mask of anonymity lowers the users’ inhibitions, ulitmatly encouraging them to pay less attention to social norms, and act more impulsively.

Here’s a brief overview from the Kellogg School of Management’s news release:

“When people lose their inhibitions — from being drunk, powerful, or acting anonymously — there can be significant behavioral consequences. In effect, disinhibition can both reveal and shape the person, as contradictory as that may sound…[this] disinhibition can lead to behavior more consistent with one’s true underlying motives or dispositions…”

These researchers stop short of saying that we should eliminate anonymous postings, but that is exactly what I’m suggesting. Let’s get rid of the option to post anonymously and ensure that all content is properly attributed to the content creator. We would then be able to view all comments, discussions, blogs, and posts in a context related to the users’ experiences, employment, education, post history, and so on. Reducing, or eliminating, these “impaired” comments would enhance our online experience.

If you have an opinion you feel strongly about, why not have it attributed to you? What are you worried about? Let’s take responsibility and stand behind what we say online and offline – If you’re not willing to share your name, don’t bother sharing your opinion.

Now the question is over to you.…Should we work towards eliminating anonymous postings? Or is it something that should be preserved as it is vital to your internet experience?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 91 other followers

%d bloggers like this: