Ditto for the terms “new media” and even “online media”, which imply that channels other than print and broadcast are somehow separate or niche.

The best take on why it’s important to update and integrate assumptions about the nature of media (and how that affects news) is shown in this hilarious skit from Landline.TV:

Here’s where media is at today: In the current integrated media ecosystem, every print and broadcast organization has an Internet and mobile presence — and most of these now go beyond bare “shovelware”. Also, more and more of these organizations are distributing their content online first, making print and broadcast secondary channels (if not secondary markets). In contrast, most media outlets and public discussion venues that began life on the Internet do not have a print or broadcast presence. These vastly outnumber print and broadcast media outlets.

Consequently, when you consider the number and diversity of media outlets, print and broadcast media have become the exception — not the rule…

So it probably makes sense to start assuming that the umbrella term “media” now includes things like the Web, podcasting, and text messaging. This is the new default. It also probably makes more sense now to call special attention to “print media” or “broadcast media” by using those terms than it does to refer to “multimedia”, “online media”, or “new media”.

This is not a superficial matter of trendiness (which terms are “in” and “out”). Rather, it’s about updating default assumptions about what media is and how it works.

Viewing integration and distribution via multiple channels and content types as the norm, and specifying specifics as needed, is probably more useful and practical to anyone involved with making media these days. Reframing the issue in your head this way can constructively influence editorial and journalistic decisions, media business opportunities, and more.

I tweeted to ask whether I am the only person who thinks “multimedia” now sounds retro, and I got some interesting and fun responses:

• Perry Hewitt: “Multimedia is beginning to sounds 90s like multipurpose room sounds 70s.”
• Mark Gammon: “Funny, I had just thought that about multimedia a few days ago. Its day in the sun is waning for sure.”
• David Stanton: “Absolutely. I really don’t like the term ‘multimedia’. Completely uninformative.”
• Mary Maher: “No you’re not. And I’m thinking ‘new media’ and ’2.0′ aren’t so right either…”
• Joey Baker: “I’d gladly welcome a better term than ‘new media’ — got one?” (This triggered a fun conversation.)
• Mactavish: “I remember our ‘multimedia’ library in seventh grade — books, tapes, LPs, and little filmstrip thingies!”
• Daniel Bachhuber: “Ditto ‘online journalism’.”

(Thanks to David Cohn for the tip on the video.)

I really used to hate stereograms.

When they became popular in the early 1990s, they often reduced me to serious frustration and headaches. I would stare at them — glare at them, really — trying to will their embedded 3D images to leap out. Everyone else seemed to enjoy these hidden illusions with ease. But my eyes and brain stubbornly refused to do the trick.

Then one day, I realized that I was looking at a dolphin. I just glanced at the cover of a book of stereogram art, and there it was. I was delighted to discover that the image wasn’t “leaping out” at me — rather, I was “seeing into” it. I wasn’t even sure how I’d started to see the hidden picture. All of the sudden, and quietly, it just worked.

Years later, I’ve come to realize that whenever I’ve identified a key mission or purpose I should pursue, it’s emerged (very much like that dolphin) from the background of the world around me. I get a sense that some vision is waiting to be seen, and I prepare my mind to be open to it. Then eventually I see it, and it feels like I always should have seen it.

In contrast, whenever I’ve tried the top-down, primarily rational (rather than intuitive) approach to choosing a course in life, I usually end up not really wanting what I’ve been working for, or liking what I’ve done — which is frustrating and demoralizing on many levels.

I’ve been quiet on this blog lately, mostly because I’ve been spending more time conversing, research, reading, and journaling. To be honest, I’ve been searching for purpose. For a couple of years now — although I’ve been doing a lot of interesting work, meeting a lot of interesting people, and learning a lot of interesting things — privately I’ve been feeling like I’ve been flailing around, seeking direction and purpose.

Finally, I feel like the picture is starting to emerge. Here is the outline so far…

• Relevance: I think I can help foster a greater practical understanding of relevance — connecting the dots between information and people. This could, in turn, help people create automated tools that can spot and convey relevance. Imagine a “relevance engine” that could scan a seemingly random group of news stories or datasets and indicate not just which ones are probably most relevant to you, but explain how each is relevant.
• Helping people discover and share useful information. On this front, I think I could be most immediately useful by helping to free professional and amateur journalists from the constraints of traditional news organizations (most of which probably won’t be around much longer, and which have also succumbed to a toxic culture that directly undermines journalism and communities). Journalists have developed very useful skills, and I don’t want that value to be lost as this particular corporate house of cards collapses.
• Energy. My work and interests keep bringing me back to energy (electricity and fuel). It truly makes almost every other good in the world possible. Plus, the fragility, unevenness, and difficulties of how energy is produced, transported, and used around the world lie at the root of many thorny problems (war, poverty, drinking water, medical care, climate change, etc.). I want to directly support the development of more diverse, less destructive, and less centralized energy sources around the world — as well as more efficient ways to use that energy.

…That’s what I’ve gleaned so far from the patterns in the world around me and how they’re resonating in me. I have a sense that there’s a deeper purpose that unifies these three missions — but I can’t quite articulate that yet. Still, I do believe it’s important to keep my personal focus on practicality, not theory — on helping people in the real world. And I am passionate about all these missions.

I’m curious what Contentious.com readers think of this emerging outline for the next big phase of my life and career — as well as my intuitive process for choosing direction.

How do you figure out what you should be doing in life? Are you rational about it, intuitive, or both? I’d love to hear how other people wrestle with this kind of quest — or if it’s even a conscious effort you make.

Well, there’s been a ton of great discussion lately on the theme of what kind of education and preparation today’s journalists really need, given the changing landscape of opportunities they’re facing. (Thanks to Mindy McAdams, James Ball, Paul Canning, Andy Dickinson, eGrommet, the Ethical Martini, Innovate This, Monitorando, and José Renato Salatiel for their contributions, to the many commenters on all these posts, and to Elana Centor who started it all. Here are my recent posts on this theme.)

I’ve heard from some journalism educators that the kind of preparation I’ve proposed is far beyond what most existing j-schools could offer. I understand that.

Really, I think what may be needed is to completely re-envision and rebuild j-school with today’s realities and tomorrow’s likelihoods in mind.

Here’s what that might look like…

At the undergraduate level:

• Keep the core basics: Training in reporting, writing, ethics, and editing skills. But make sure these are taught in the context of today’s media landscape. (For instance, the ethics course should cover the ethics of community management and comment moderation, as well as more traditional fare.)
• Minimize instruction focused solely on traditional roles and jobs. How many courses in magazine writing do these folks really need? Not much.
• Require at least two internships: One with a traditional news org (mainstream or alternative press), and the other with an independent or entrepreneurial venture or project. A good optional third would be internships that involve online advertising, search engine optimization, or community management. (Hey, I did four or five internships with my journalism degree.)
• Require at least one media business course on how the media landscape is changing — emphasizing the importance of entrepreneurialism, business skills, building a personal brand/network, and continuous self-education.
• Teach the right tools. Ditch Dreamweaver. Teach a real CMS (like WordPress or Typepad), a feed reader, media-sharing tools like Flickr, a key SEO tool like Wordtracker, using social media like Facebook, and basic mashup tools (like Yahoo Pipes or Google Maps). Experience with these tools provides a practical grasp of information architecture and why it matters. Of course, also teach the basics of capturing and editing photos, audio, and video — as well as GPS and geotagging. None of these tools needs to be in-depth. Just the basics will do for undergrads. No need to teach them separately — better to use them together in projects.
• Teach them to think on their feet and educate themselves. Have students create whatever content they can with whatever tools are available to them (including cell phones, digital cameras, text messaging, browser add-ons, Google Earth). Require them to figure out how to get mileage out of what they already have on hand. It’s more important to open undergrads’ minds to options, creativity, and resourcefulness than to impart detailed production skills that are quickly outdated. (Pro-level photo, video, audio, or design skills that journos are likely to use are better taught in workshops, IMHO.)

At the graduate level:

• Partner with a business school for an entrepreneurial journalism degree program. (Could be a specialized MBA.) This would cover all the business, marketing, management, and economics territory I discussed earlier. It would also involve running student team projects as businesses. (Like a mini startup incubator.)
• Open teaching to more practitioners. Let more people who actually DO today’s cutting-edge media projects do more of the teaching — either entire classes, or special seminars or team projects. Part of the problem with today’s j-schools, IMHO, is that too much of the teaching gets done by faculty who are out of touch, inexperienced, or in denial about media evolution. Students should get more exposure to practitioners than occasional guest lectures. Get rid of requirements that faculty have advanced degrees.
• Involve the students in evolving the curriculum. Require them to actively consider what opportunities they really face, and what they really need — and more importantly, what j-students will need next year, in five years, in 20 years. Keep in touch with grads, so they can be your radar screen.
• Let the undergrads in. If you have some promising undergrads, allow them to participate in grad-level activities and projects as time and resources permit, and according to their abilities. Feed the fire in the belly wherever it flares — don’t just ration knowledge and empowerment based on hierarchy.
• Let the geeks in. It’s vital to invite and engage technologists (programmers, search mavens, database gurus, mapping geniuses, etc.) in the field of journalism. We need each other. Offer these people additional training in journalism basics, and leverage their talents and perspective in planning and implementing projects.
• Continuing education. Offer options for mid-career journos and others with related experience or goals to take classes, participate in projects, etc. Don’t require people to commit to getting an expensive advanced degree in order to get value from — and contribute value to — this collective learning experience.
• Distance learning. To the greatest extent possible, make these llearning and collaboration experiences available online. After all, the teams behind many of today’s media ventures are widely distributed.

Seems to me this wouldn’t necessarily have to be a degree program or happen through a college/university to be useful. (IMHO, in journalism and media, advanced degrees are worth far less than experience — unless you’re specifically interested in academic research or a teaching career.) However, I’ve framed this in the context of higher education because that’s an existing institutional structure that might prove useful, as long as it doesn’t undermine the process with inertia and bureaucracy.

Whadya think? Could it be done? Would it help? What would you change? Please comment below.

Here’s another reason why learning to use a feed reader is a cornerstone skill for truly succeeding in online media today:

It’s not about your site anymore.In fact, it hasn’t been for at least a couple of years now.

In other words: The way online media works today, you’ll probably succeed more through participation and off-site distribution (syndication) than through publishing alone.

More and more people — especially, but not exclusively, younger folk (you know, the people you hope will become your community or customers someday) — prefer to craft their own custom hubs for information and interaction. That’s what’s driving the popularity of feed-supported, syndication-oriented social media experiences like Facebook, MySpace, MyYahoo, iGoogle, Digg, del.icio.us, YouTube, co.mments, Twitter, and podcasting. (And, on the bleeding edge, Zude, CoComment, and Pageflakes.)

It’s kind of like furnishing your home…

You set up house in a neighborhood that suits you, with amenities you value. You want your mail, news, entertainment, and other stuff to come to you there. You want people to be able to visit you there, but you get to control who gets let in or kicked out. You select furniture, cookware, and decor that suit you, and you put things where you want them.

People are creatures of habit, and most of us like to enjoy our homes. We typically venture out for variety or experiences that actually require a physical outing, such as a hike, or grocery shopping, or a family reunion. Generally, we don’t want to have to go to a TV store just to watch “Lost,” or out to a restaurant for every meal, or to the post office to pick up our daily mail. Too much running around.

The web is getting more and more like that. Hopping from site to site grows tedious and confusing. On other sites, people move stuff around without telling you. They levy “cover charges” of one sort or another, from having to buy a cup of coffee to being bombarded with sales pitches.

It’s a comfort to have some sense of home online — where most of what you want handy on a regular basis is available to you, in a known place and configuration, either for free or at a predictable, affordable price.

Therefore, if you want to continue to reach and expand your online communities (especially if you’re in the media business) you MUST offer flexible, robust, customizeable “home delivery.” In online terms, that means syndication — either via feeds or tools like widgets, browser add-ons, or Facebook applications.

People still want your content. They may even tolerate your ads (or welcome them, if you get really smart and creative about online advertising). But they want you to deliver it to them — and leave decisions about how and when they access and use it up to them. They don’t care about your site, and perhaps they never did.

If you honor that preference by making distribution and syndication the new focus of your online business model, you’ll be well ahead of the game.

But as long as your core business model and content strategy is based on luring out people to your site, you’ll be fighting a losing battle.

Think I’m wrong? Then start using a feed reader (even a basic, totally nongeeky one, like MyYahoo) for a few weeks, and see how your media preferences and perspectives start to change. You’ll start to get frustrated by content that forces you to jump to another site. You’ll start making connections with a greater diversity of sources and people who suddenly become apparent because of their smart online distribution. Visiting too many web sites will start to seem like a hassle, no matter how great their content. Investing major resources in site design will start to look frivolous — especially if you don’t offer decent feeds or widgets yet.

I dare you.

(FOLLOWUP POST: See Feeds: Getting Pretty Mainstream) 

The problem: Most of the content I’ve created does not live on my computer. It’s all over the web — my own blogs, comments to others’ blogs, my clients’ blogs, forums, e-mail lists, social media sites, media-sharing services, podcasts, wikis…. You get the picture. Consequently, I run the risk of “losing” much of the fruit of my hard work. In fact, that’s already happened. Sites or forums I contributed to years ago no longer exist. Blog comments don’t get indexed well by search engines and vanish into the ether.

Imagine this solution: A web-based service where I could archive all my content similar to Furl, only I could choose to make all or part of my archive public and shareable because it’s my content, not violating others’ copyright. Every piece of my content would get a unique, permanent URL, so I don’t have to worry if a site dies or changes. Any post I make to a forum or e-mail list would also get stored there (not the whole thread with others’ work, just my contribution).

And I could tag it all, share it selectively, generate feeds, and apply analysis tools to it. Plus incorporate whatever new cools tools come down the pike.

I want it. I want it bad. Do you, too? Does it already exist somewhere and I don’t know about it? Please comment below.

Of course, I disagree slightly with something he said there (as I often do).

In a nutshell, Dave explained that he doesn’t like to feature a date/timestamp prominently on his weblog postings. He thinks that tends to diminish the perceived long-term value of the content. He encouraged business bloggers to generally follow suit: to focus on providing “evergreen” content, and to play down or possibly even omit the date/timestamp on their blogs.

Personally, I think Dave’s approach puts the blogger’s desires ahead of the needs and reality of the weblog audience – in a way that could be a problem for many blogs, and their readers. Here’s why…

EVERY WEB USER IS A TIME TRAVELER

One of the most wonderful – and endlessly annoying – aspects of the web is that it makes content easily accessible, regardless of when it was created. From the user’s perspective, jumping from site to site means constantly having to reorient your sense of time. When content was created or last updated often plays a key role in defining its current relevance, significance, or meaning – even for many “evergreen” topics.

Time, after all, is a cornerstone of human experience. Events, issues, ideas, and perspectives constantly evolve, often through interaction with each other over time. I am hard-pressed to name topics which would be written or perceived in exactly the same way today as they would have five years ago. Yes, our world is moving that fast. Personally, I don’t expect it to slow down anytime soon.

Reorienting your time sense is generally a small matter when visiting one or a few sites. However, when you multiply that task across dozens or even hundreds of web sites (not an uncommon figure for a few days’ worth of browsing), it all adds up to a fairly significant and tiresome cognitive load.

I believe in making all online content as easy to access and grasp as possible, taking into account the needs, expectations, and realities of the target audience. For this reason, I think it’s important to put your date/timestamp at the top of your weblog entries – probably not ahead of the headline, but certainly before the body of the posting.

This approach allows readers to orient themselves before they start reading your article, not afterward. This makes their time reorientation effortless. Because it will be effortless, don’t expect anyone to notice or thank you for it. Still, whenever you remove cognitive or accessibility barriers to your content, you’re making room to build a relationship with your audience.

And that’s what blogging is really all about: building relationships between human beings by sharing knowledge, information, and perspectives. After all, relationships are the basis of every positive human endeavor, from society to business to education to crisis management and more. (I’m pretty sure Dave would agree with me on that.)

I’m not saying Dave’s wrong. I’m not saying I’m right. I’m just saying that there are different and valid ways to approach the date/timestamp issue. If you blog (or if you want to start blogging), do yourself a favor and consider this matter carefully. Don’t just do what other bloggers do. What would work best for your target audience?

You don’t always have to put the needs of your target audience first of course. However, when making decisions that will affect every posting in your blog (rather than just a few items here and there), it probably is best to put the target audience first.

…That’s my take, anyway. I’m sure Dave will chime in on this one, either here or in his blog.

Anyway, today I was gratified to learn that in a recent Social Customer Manifesto blog posting and podcast entitled The “newvoices” Tag: Throwing On The Floodlights, PR/communications guru Christopher Carfi highlighted and graciously complimented my weblog CONTENTIOUS. (Thanks, Chris!)

I think this “newvoices” tag strategy is intriguing and worth a shot. So I’ll bite the bullet, learn more about Technorati tags, and give it a try. However, I have a couple of reservations and questions about Technorati tags in general…

Bear in mind, everything that follows clearly reflects my personal lack of firsthand use of Technorati tags. If I’ve misunderstood anything, please feel free to correct me in the comments.

ISN’T THIS HIGHLY SPAMMABLE?

It strikes me that if any particular Technorati tag, including newvoices were top become the basis for a popular feed, then it might well become a major spam magnet.

That is, if lots of people start subscribing to the Technorati newvoices tag feed, wouldn’t that tempt unscrupulous people to add that tag to irrelevent postings simply to attract eyeballs? And wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of newvoices – or any tag?

HOW RELIABLE IS TECHNORATI, REALLY?

In a followup post yesterday, Chris Carfi noted that blogger Pete Scott used the newvoices tag in a posting.

Well, I just subscribed to the newvoices feed, and the only posting I see on there so far is Carfi’s. Of course, at the moment I don’t seem to be able to hit Pete Scott’s blog at all, and I don’t know whether temporary server outages or other site-access glitches affect how Technorati processes and displays tags.

UPDATE JULY 29: Pete Scott’s blog is now up, and his item has appeared in the feed for the “newvoices” Technorati tag.

Coincidentally, just today my friend and current houseguest Koan Bremner posted an item about how Technorati appears to be flaking out, particularly regarding tags. People who commented on Koan’s post reported similar problems.

I’d love to hear more perspectives on the reliability of Technorati tags and the overall reliability of Technorati in general. I realize it’s a free service, and I respect David Sifry greatly. However, Technorati has become recognized as a crucial part of the infrastructure of the blogosphere – so I think it’s important for bloggers to have a frank discussion about that service’s true benefits and limitations.

Personally, I often recommend Technorati to people who are learning about blogging. I’ll continue to do so – I just don’t want to oversell it.

CAN TECHNORATI TAGS BE USED BY OTHER AGGREGATOR SERVICES?

Again, this may reflect my ignorance, but… It seems to me that, in theory, Technorati tags in feeds could be recognized and used by any similar service – like BlogPulse, Feedster, Blogdigger, PubSub, etc. Right?

I mean, just because Technorati started the blog-tagging thing doesn’t mean that other services can’t capitalize on that infrastructure. Right?

I raise this point because, if for some reason Technorati’s technical infrastructure can’t support the volume of processing required by tagging, maybe another system can do it better. (Again, that’s not to trash or undermine Technorati.)

I believe that a functional, timely, tag-oriented blog aggregation services is vital to the public conversation. Somebody should be able to fill that role capably.

I’d hope so, at least.

Thoughts?

“Content” is what you have to say, however you say it: text, pictures, audio, video, spoken word, math, sign language, smoke signals, Morse code, cuneiform, music, body language, etc.

Whenever we communicate – whether with the whole world, a specific audience, a closed group, or just with ourselves – we rely on content to convey our message. It’s how we package our thoughts and observations.

In turn, content is wrapped in context – which is only partly determined by your intention behind the message you’re sending. This means that ultimately you have surprisingly limited influence over the meaning someone receives from your content.

This makes trying to accomplish goals, connect with others, and express yourself a tricky business…

WHAT CONTENT CAN DO

In the big picture, content can accomplish almost anything. Usually, most of what it accomplishes will not be exactly what you’d hoped. This uncertainty is both good (serendipitous, educational) and bad (counterproductive, embarrassing).

All content has intended and unintended effects on you, others, and the world. Here are some examples of intended or welcome effects you probably hope your content will cause:

• Building or maintaining healthy relationships
• Spreading news or information
• Establishing, shifting, or repairing your identity or reputation
• Obtaining cooperation, validation, or support – sometimes from unexpected quarters
• Teaching and learning
• Soliciting ideas, questions, or other feedback
• Creative or practical collaboration
• Clarifying and addressing issues, opportunities, or problems
• Persuading people to do specific things (actions)

Here are some examples of unexpected or unwelcome effects your content also might cause:

• Negative media, legal, regulatory, personal, or other attention
• Public criticism
• Sabotaging or confusing your identity or reputation
• Undermining healthy relationships, or creating or worsening unhealthy ones (including new opposition or enemies)
• Unrealistic expectations
• Polarization or rigidity
• People thinking or doing the opposite of what you’d hoped or recommended
• Confusion, which in turn causes inaction, disengagement, and frustration
• Misunderstandings, whether subtle or gross
• A higher response volume than you can handle
• The spread of misinformation by others, either because they misunderstood you or they’re twisting your message to suit their own purposes
• Personal embarrassment or discomfort at being forced to acknowledge your error, oversight, or miscalculation; or at having make a public change or retraction
• No effect at all (they ignore you)

You are always affected by the content you create. Simply crafting and sending a message influences how you think and feel, what you perceive, and what you do – sometimes consciously, often not. It can also influence other people within your organization or on your team. It’s important to be aware of these internal effects of content and communication. Too often they’re overlooked in favor of a sole focus on external effects.

By communicating, you’re playing a role in a system: the ecology of influence. Influence is always mutual. No one exists outside that system – not even you.

SEEK INFLUENCE, NOT CONTROL

One of the hardest parts of developing your content strategy is learning to give up the illusion of certainty and control.

Look at it this way – the formats and terminology of most legal, legislative, regulatory, insurance, medical, academic, and scientific language have evolved to a virtually unintelligible state. Why? Mainly because people in these fields usually wish to control every nuance of how their messages are interpreted and used. Based on your personal experience, how helpful is that approach? Are they generally achieving that goal?

Strong communicators expect and accept that their message probably will not be received and used precisely as intended. Therefore a robust, effective content strategy is:

• Iterative: No message is communicated as a one-shot deal. You increase your chances of success if you transmit each core message in different ways, at different times, and even using different channels. This creates resonance with your audience, and it allows people to gain a richer, clearer understanding of your intended meaning. Think of that as mental depth perception.
• Interactive: Effective communication relies as much on listening and empathy as it does on crafting and sending messages. The strongest content strategies are conversational in that they allow and encourage direct feedback: comments, questions, observations, praise, criticism, etc. It’s even better if you encourage all recipients of your message to discuss it among themselves, ideally in ways that you can participate in or at least follow passively. All of this indicates how your message has been received and is being used, by whom. You can use that information to refine future messages, predict results, and prevent problems.
• Fluid: Your content strategy should enable you to “go with the flow,” to spot important developments early, and to adapt gracefully. This is easier if you seek to influence – not control – the flow and effects of communication. It’s important to be flexible, creative, and curious. Aim for consistency and authenticity, rather than uniformity and “officialness.” Most importantly, be open to and aware of the shifting, myriad contexts in which your messages exist. Such flexibility often depends on the communication tools and channels you choose, as well as your attitude toward communication and your audience. Simple tools, basic respect and interest, and being genuine generally work best.

Once you become aware of these larger realities of the nature of content, your ideal content strategy will become simpler and more apparent to you. Content decisions will get easier to make because they’ll be steered mainly by focusing on your goals and audiences. Also, the unexpected will become less difficult to cope with – even more serendipitous. You’ll find the communication process less tedious and scary, and more creative, rewarding, energizing, and fun.

And best of all, you and your organization will get more done.

The first step on this path is to clarify your goals…

COMING NEXT: What are your goals?…

PREVIOUSLY: Why communicate at all?

Index and intro to this series.

Over the last few months I’ve developed my own way of using these two tools together. It suits me, and I think it suits the unique strengths of each tool. So in case it’s useful to others, here’s how I use Furl and del.icio.us together…

MY GOALS

I need to:

1. Save my own collection of web content that is interesting, important, and relevant – both to me personally, and to CONTENTIOUS readers in general. I want it saved in an easily searchable form (full text as well as metadata)
2. Freely categorize that collection of information in a way that makes sense to me. This includes associating each piece of content according to how I intend to use it (such as projects I’m working on), as well as according to topics of interest.
3. Selectively share pieces of content in my collection with my weblog readers and the general public. For instance, most CONTENTIOUS readers would not be interested in information I collect related to environmental issues in my work for the SEJ Tipsheet. I want to be able to give CONTENTIOUS readers an easy way to access the material in my collection most relevant to what I discuss in this weblog.
4. Allow custom access. I don’t want to deluge anyone with too much information. Therefore, I want my weblog readers to be able to access only the content I recommend in categories that interest them. For instance, some of my readers have no interest in editing or journalism, but they’re very interested in e-learning and knowledge management. They shouldn’t have to wade through the full onslaught of my omnivorous mind, they should just be able to find out when I’ve posted something of interest to them.
5. Access from anywhere. I’m often working on various computers, so I need a web-based solution.
6. Keep it simple. I’m willing to tolerate moderate complexity in order to achieve these goals, but not a lot. This can’t take too much of my time.

HOW FURL HELPS

Storage. From my perspective, and for my purposes, the big strength of Furl is that it allows me to save a complete copy of any web page. This is why the service bills itself as “your personal web.” (I think it used to call itself “your web filing cabinet,” or something like that, which I liked better.)

Full-text search. Because Furl saves a complete copy of each web page I want, I can search the full text of my archive. I do this often, since my memory gets jarred in all sorts of ways. If I had to remember how I categorized each item, I’d never find what I want – at least not fast.

Metadata. Furl also allows me to label and annotate each piece of content in my collection in very flexible ways. I can create unlimited categories (but alas, not sub-categories yet). I can rate each item, add keywords and comments, etc.

Safety. When I Furl a web page, I’m saving my own copy – so if it later moves, changes, or disappears I still have my reference copy.

Although my collection of Furled content lives on Furl’s servers, I can also download it (and its associated metadata – all my categories, notes, etc.) to my server for backup. (OK, well, it’s my husband’s server.) So if Furl suddenly goes belly-up or gets sabotaged, I’ll still have my content library.

Optional sharing. I can designate each item I Furl as private or not. This allows me to keep stuff I don’t wish to share with anyone in the same collection as the public stuff. I can still access it all in one place. Also, the “save and e-mail” option makes it easy to notify specific individuals about items I’m Furling, and provide comments as to why I’m telling them about it. I don’t have to get into my e-mail program (Thunderbird) and send a separate message. Only items not designated as “private” are visible in my public Furl archive and its associated feed.

I only designate as “private” Furled items that are very sensitive to me for competitive, client, or personal reasons. Therefore, I publicly Furl many items that probably wouldn’t interest CONTENTIOUS readers. This is why I consider my public Furl archive everything that’s “on my radar,” as opposed to recommended reading for my weblog audience.

HOW DEL.ICIO.US HELPS

Since del.icio.us is a “social bookmarking” tool, the whole point of using that service is sharing – and when it comes to sharing a lot of recommended links with a specific audience, I think del.icio.us is a bit better and easier than Furl. (That’s just my opinion, and I’m sure others will disagree.)

I use my del.icio.us page specifically to share links of potential interest to a specific audience: CONTENTIOUS readers. It’s also available to the general public, but that’s secondary to me. I consider that page as an adjunct or “link blog” for CONTENTIOUS.

Consequently, I’ve devised a different list of “tags” (categories) for my del.icio.us page than what I use in my Furl archive:

• Inner focus. My Furl categories (tags) primarily focus on how I use each content item that I archive. This is because I Furl things primarily for my own purposes.
• Outer focus. My del.icio.us tags are intended to help other people find the information they want from my collection of recommended links. In others words, my del.icio.us tags focus on how others might use the information I’ve collected.

This distinction is not absolute, of course. My Furl archive contains some purely topical categories, while my del.icio.us page has a few tags that mean a lot to me but probably very little to others (such as arranging-ideas).

Because of this difference in focus, I have fewer Furl categories than del.icio.us tags. Also, I tend to designate multiple del.icio.us tags to each item, but only one Furl category to each item. This is because of Furl’s excellent full-text search function – I feel less need to categorize extensively than with del.icio.us, and little or no need to rate specific Furled items. Again, that’s just me. Other people handle it differently.

I like that on del.icio.us, my full list of tags always is visible on the right-hand side of the page (the “all tags” column). When you click on any category that column, it displays a second column of “related tags.” For instance, if you click on my content-style tag in the “all tags” column, you’ll not only see a list of every item I bookmarked with the content-style tag, but a list of every other tag associated with all my content-style items.

So what? Well, this gives you a greater sense of the connections I perceive between various topics. It’s kind of a sideways view into how my twisted, omnivorous mind works. Plus, it might encourage you to explore other topics in my tag list which did not initially command your interest.

Connecting to other people. Both Furl and del.icio.us will show, for each item in your collection, how many other people have bookmarked/saved the same item and then connect you to them.

I find this useful in both services. (I’ve encountereed some very interesting people, information, and ideas this way.) However, I think del.icio.us makes these connections between people just a tad easier than Furl. Del.icio.us shows right in the main listing of recommended links the number of other del.icio.us users who have bookmarked that same item, and allows you to jump right over to those other collections. In Furl, you only see that information once you’ve already zeroed in on a particular item in an archive. It’s a minor difference of emphasis, but to me it matters. Again, that’s just my opinion.

Drawback: Field constraints. Unfortunately, the form used to bookmark an item in del.icio.us allows the entry of only very limited information: link URL, short description (default is whatever’s in the page’s (title) tag), extended description (only up to about 250 characters) and tags (which you have to type in, you can’t pick them from your list, so typos happen).

Often I’d like to include a link indicating where I found out about a particularly good item (such as in another weblog), since I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I can do this in Furl’s ample “comments” field, but not usually in del.icio.us since the “extended” field is so very small. It’s more important to me to use those precious 250 characters to explain why I think a particular link is worth visiting.

Oh well, can’t have everything…

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

So here’s my current process for when I find a web page I wish to recommend to CONTENTIOUS readers:

1. Save my own reference copy. I Furl the page to make sure I have it for future reference. If a work of content spans several pages, I Furl each relevant one. (Sometimes there’s a printer-friendly version, so I Furl that instead since it’s complete on one page.) If my only intended use for that page is to recommend it to my readers, I categorize it as contentious-blogged. This is usually a very quick process, since usually full-text search is all I need to find what I want later.
2. Add it to my recommended reading list. I then add a link to that same page on my del.icio.us page. Here I take the time to make sure the “description” is indeed descriptive and indicates the source as well as the topic or nature of the target content. I also take the time to indicate why I’m recommending that page – either a short excerpt or a brief comment. I also take the time to add all the relevant tags from my list.

The result is that I have two ways of accessing and sharing my collection of treasured content: one that works well for my own use, and one that (hopefully) works well for my weblog audience.

I’m sure I’ll refine and modify this process over time. If you have suggestions or observations, please post them below. Also, I’m not promoting this process for anyone else – only you can decide whether it sounds good to you. I’m just explaining how I use these tools.

In a perfect world, Furl and del.icio.us would combine so I could handle this all through a single system. That would be nice. But in the meantime, I’ve found a system that works well enough for me and isn’t too demanding.

I’d like my audience’s perspective, though:

• Do you read my del.icio.us page of recommended reading? (Either on del.icio.us, or just my five most recent additions presented in the right-hand column of CONTENTIOUS) If so, is it useful to you? Do you focus on certain categories?
• Do you scan my Furl archive? (Either though occasional visits, or by subscribing to its feed) If so, why? How do you use it, and what do you think of it?

Thanks! Enjoy! Experiment!

Here are the steps in Pollock’s Book Meme 123.5 method:

1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
5. Don’t search around and look for the “coolest� book you can find. Do what’s actually next to you.

OK, here goes my attempt…

(UPDATE: According to Alex Barnett, this technique isn’t new. Big deal. It’s still fun.)

I’m in my home office, facing one of my bookcases. I picked this book directly in front of me, at eye level: Lenin’s Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire, by David Remnick (1994). Wow, it’s been years since I read this book…

This is the fifth full sentence on that page:

[quote from Arnold Yeryomenko, who was a reform activist in Russia's Magadan region, not far from Siberia, in the 1980s] “I remember seeing the prisoners in huge lines, five, six thousand men and women in rags, exhausted, being marched from the ships and onto the shore and up to the barracks.”

Wow, talk about a cold slap in the face, this is taking my creativity off in an entriely different direction.

The thing that strikes me about this is the dangers of secrecy. The Soviet gulag political prison system was huge. Most of the world did not know it existed, or were not aware of its extent and nature. Within Soviet society it existed mainly in whispers, veiled threats, and stories of the occasional released prisoner. Secrecy maintained and magnified its power.

Secrecy is the linchpin of systematic abuse or oppression – whether it’s a secret prison, or a secret trial, or secret surveillance, or a child molestor swearing his victim to secrecy with threats of further violence, or an unspoken agreement in society not to acknowledge the existence or role of prejudice. Abuse thrives when it’s unopposed, and it can remain unopposed more easily when it remains hidden.

Not all secrets are harmful. However, secrecy in general is easily misused. Knowledge is indeed power. And the Wizard of Oz’s admonishment to “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” indicates the essence of secrecy. We sometimes make secrets in order to maintain privacy or protect others, but usually to shield ourselves from consequences.

This is one reason why I love and fear the online age. It’s very hard to keep secrets on the internet. There’s always a way for a determined investigator to discover any information or its source. But here, people can talk – and they do talk.

People take risks by revealing secrets online, even under a disguised identity. If recognized they might be confronted, embarrassed, ridiculed, ostracized, fired, divorced, disowned, beaten, jailed, or killed. They might be putting others at risk. So why take the risk? Because telling secrets shifts the balance of power, even if only a little bit, even if only temporarily, even if the effects are delayed by decades.

People can be bound to secrecy internally by fear, guilt, or shame; or externally by threats, agreements, or norms. The act of revelation always wrests some power from the oppressor. The act of telling a secret may be noble, spiteful, naive, strategic or anything in between. But something will change because of the revelation, even if only inside the mind and soul of the revealer.

…OK, that’s enough for now. It’s more abstract and philosophical than my normal post, but I think it was a worthwhile exercise. Try it out on your blog, or even just in your personal journal. It is definitely intriguing.