Picking up on my post yesterday, Univ. of Florida journalism professor Mindy McAdams challenged me (and her other readers) to translate my quick list of what j-schools should be teaching into a something more testable and measurable that could be translated into a curriculum.

Here’s my first shot at that:

• Content management systems (including blogging tools): First, I’d have the students run a group blog on a topic of their choosing for a year to get comfortable with the content and commenting apects of blogging. (A group blog is likely to get more activity and discussion than individual blogs.) This blog should be based on an expandable, customizable tool like WordPress. Then the students should be taught the basics of information architecture, and from that figure out how to expand or customize their blogs to deliver or integrate new kinds of content or services. This could be as simple as finding and installing WordPress plugins to add features, or integrating content from other places (such as Flickr or del.icio.us). The goal would be to get them to not just understand, but demonstrate that on their own they can envision, research, evaluate, and act upon options to do more with their content online. There’s a lot you can do without getting too geeky. They need to gain the confidence that many options are within their personal grasp — they don’t always need to get permission or beg someone else to do things for them.

There’s a lot more on my list, of course…

• Mobile tools and mobile media strategies. These students all have cell phones anyway. Require them to subscribe to mobile news and information services, and critique the quality of the service and user experience. Also, require them to create whatever kind of content their phones support (photos, video, audio, GPS data, even just SMS to Twitter, etc.) and post or stream it from their cell phones. Include participatory exercises based on SMS or MMS to include students who don’t have data plans on their phones. Free services like NowPublic, Flickr, Qik and CNN’s iReport could be especially helpful and even fun for your exercises.

• Social media. The point here is to help students learn a key tool for engaging communities, while also gaining experience with how influence works and information travels through social media. I suggest starting with whatever social media services most of the students are already using (like Facebook, MySpace, Ning, LinkedIn, YouTube, or Twitter) and explore both the one-to-one and group interaction options through exercises. For groups, it’s probably better to get them involved with existing, active groups on these services — rather than try to start a new group from scratch. Where possible, use both web-based and mobile options for these services. They should learn to use these tools for community outreach, story/issue research, and promotion of their work.

• Economics and business theory/models. Journalism students should be taking courses in the media business that offer the fundamentals of historical, current, and emerging media business models. They should learn what budgets and balance sheets look like, how grant funding and investment works, and how to evaluate the economic environment they’re operating in — including how it’s changing. Get them used to seeing the big picture and looking ahead. Practical skills could include analyzing the economic environment of the local community, spotting emerging trends that could offer journalistic or other media opportunities, and writing a basic business plan to capitalize on those opportunities.

• Business skills. This could involve evaluating and estimating revenue options from grants to investors to advertising to subscriptions to partnerships and more, as well as knowing what steps to take to pursue that funding. Example exercise: Develop a strategy and action plan for increasing online revenues for the campus or local daily paper — including calculation of expenses and revenues, and a timeline for implementation. In addition, they should be aware of what it takes to start and run a business — requirements for taxes, healthcare, getting SMS shortcodes, working with advertisers, etc. No part of the business that supports their journalism should be alien to them.

• Management skills. I’m envisioning this both from an entrepreneurial and organizational perspective. In all exercises, put the students in a decisionmaking role and guide them through learning how to manage time, resources, and people — whether employees, collaborators, or community members. For instance, if a class project is increasing online revenues for the campus paper, divide that mission into sub-tasks, assign someone to manage each part of that project, and require them to make decisions and delegate. Teach them how to use tools like Basecamp to coordinate team efforts. In fact, it might be a good idea to coordinate projects with other j-schools around the country or world, since increasingly in the media business project teams are widely distributed. The point is to encourage them to take charge of the process, not just to pigeonhole themselves as content creators.

• Marketing, advertising, and SEO. In addition to taking a marketing basics class oriented toward media products and services, j-students should learn the basics of search engine optimization — since findability generally translates into traffic, engagement, and revenue for most media ventures. Exercises can include learning to use Wordtracker to optimize headlines, stories, and metadata to increase both traffic and relevance; using Google Analytics to analyze traffic patterns to a news/info site (such as for the campus paper) and suggest strategies to boost traffic and engagement; developing and running Adwords campaigns (with a modest budget) to promote a class project; researching niche ad networks that might help support various types of coverage or beats, etc.

• Community engagement and management. This is perhaps one of the most marketable skills any journalist can have for the next several years or decades. The point is to get them used to creating news as part of a conversation, rather than simply as a one-way product for publication. It’s about promoting constructive public discourse through active engagement. Exercises could include participating in an active community forum; working as a volunteer moderator for an active forum where contentious topics arise; taking and active role in editing and discussing a Wikipedia page of interest; helping to coordinate (not just cover) local events like town hall meetings, conferences, or festivals; participating in or running local meetup groups, etc. These experiences tech how to handle conflict, foster consensus and diversity, produce events, and demonstrate respect and understanding for communities in order to build credibility. In this respect, working through local government, advocacy groups, social service agencies, neighborhood associations, and ethnic or religious groups could be as valuable (maybe more valuable) than working through journalistic or media organizations.

…I realize that my list sounds like a hell of a lot of stuff, but I feel like I’ve only scratched the surface in terms of what today’s journalists really need in order to take advantage of current opportunities, spot emerging opportunities, and take charge of their own destinies (rather than relying on a paternalistic news org to shelter them while they write, write, write).

I realize also that there may be resistance in journalism schools to much of what I propose, for reasons ranging from “we’re not a vocational school,” to IT staff resisting implementing the kinds of tools I’ve mentioned, to the need to integrate curricula more closely with business schools, to the tenured faculty who must teach at least some of these topics not knowing or caring much about them.

I’m not saying this would be easy. But I do think what I’ve outlined, in addition to teaching core journalism skills and values, is what today’s j-students really need to prepare for the kinds of careers they are most likely to have — and the kinds of media they can play a key role in inventing or developing.

Thoughts?

(And thanks, Mindy, for making me think this through more.)

Having to assign a year to a copyright notice makes things rather confusing in online media. For instance, In a blog or any other site where fresh content regularly appears, there typically is a date assigned to each item (at least in the metadata, if not displayed). But then… there generally is a visible copyright notice that appears throughout the site and is managed by a template. So if you look up archived content from previous years, you’ll view the older content on a page that bears the copyright notice for the current year.

That doesn’t make much sense to me…

My colleague Steve Outing recently reminded his readers to update the year in their online copyright notice. This made me wonder whether a year is really a legal requirement. So I looked it up. Here’s what the US Copyright Office says:

Visually Perceptible Copies

The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain three elements. They should appear together or in close proximity on the copies. The elements are:

1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright,� or the abbreviation “Copr.�; and
2. The year of first publication. If the work is a derivative work or a compilation incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the derivative work or compilation is sufficient. Examples of derivative works are translations or dramatizations; an example of a compilation is an anthology. The year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles; and
3. The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner. Example: © 2004 Jane Doe

However, the Copyright Office also says that any work of intellectual property is automatically considered copyrighted from the moment it is created. Therefore, no notice or registration is necessary in order to claim copyright for a work:

“No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. …Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is ‘created’ when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. ‘Copies’ are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.”

So: Considering that the web is a medium that allows a work to be visually perceived “with the aid of a machine or device” (a computer, Blackberry, etc.), I gather that publication to the web — or even just saving a word processing file — constitutes “creation” of a valid copyrighted work.

…Yes, it’s true that registering your copyright helps a lot if you want to actually be able to legally defend your copyright. But even the government acknowledges that this is a legal formality, not a prerequisite for copyright protection.

Seems to me that this is a case where, once again, media-related law has fallen drastically behind the current state of media.

This is why my copyright notice for this site (see the right-hand sidebar of any page on Contentious) does not include a year. I don’t know whether that makes my notice “invalid” in any legal sense — but since my copyright protection doesn’t require a notice, then so what? Every item I post to this blog is displayed with the date of publication. I figure, that’s enough to clarify the date issue.

Even better: A dateless copyright notice means I have one less picky task to perform every January.

What do you think of this approach? Please comment below.

I like this strategy because it benefits journalists as well as organizations doing outreach, by making information easier to find. In my book, this blows away traditional direct distribution of press releases to journalists.

Here’s the example…

Right now, I’m finishing up writing an item for the SEJ Tipsheet on recent energy policy efforts at the state level in the US. I decided to do a quick perusal of Google News to see if there were any last-minute additions I should make concerning key “leader” states in energy policy, such as California or New York.

So I searched Google News for the phrases “California energy policy” and “New York energy policy,” plus for a few other states. I immediately noticed a pattern in the results. Here’s what I found:

• “Report: California Energy Policy Provides Model For President; States Leading Way To End Country’s ‘Addiction To Oil’“
• “Report: New York Energy Policy Provides Model for President; States Leading Way to End Country’s ‘Addiction to Oil’“

…And so on for Texas, New Jersey, Michigan, and several other states. (Although, notably, not for states which aren’t known as front-runners on energy policy, such as Alabama, Ohio, and North Dakota.)

What did the Apollo Alliance do? They took the same press release and spun the headline and metadata so it would show up high in results for state-specific searches on energy policy. This is likely to get the word out in a timely fashion to reporters who, like me, are looking for leads on specific topics.

Is this more work? Yes. Is this more likely to serve the needs of journalists and the public than a traditionally-distributed press release (one headline only, not really optimized for multiple searches, etc.)? I’d bet money on it.

I think it’s helpful that news wire services like US Newswire can get releases plugged into Google News – although I wish Google News did a better job of distinguishing press releases from independent news organizations in its search results. This distribution, and especially this level of search optimization, makes it much easier for a journalist to find relevant, timely leads.

It would be even better if they also got their material into Technorati and other popular feed-based aggregation services, too.

Better still would be if the Apollo Alliance used these channels to distribute leads, but abandoned the stodgy traditional press release format for presenting the information. But one step at a time; I’m still tickled to find this level of search optimization. Well done, IMHO!

So, what do you think of this strategy?

“Tagging is moving against the tide of the net. …In a game of tag, no one wants to be the one doing the tagging. Tagging requires a little extra unnecessary effort that most folks are not only unwilling to make, but aren’t prepared to learn.”

I think he’s right… And I think he’s wrong, too…

Yes, tagging is a social phenomenon that derives certain benefits from mass adoption and widespread voluntary behavior. However, tagging provides different benefits when used as a tool for managing information (that is, with nary a thought to public sharing) by individuals and groups.

More importantly, tagging is used by enthusiasts, experts, researchers, or opinion leaders to create and share unique bodies of content and context. Even if only a miniscule percentage of net users employ tagging in this manner, those few people can have tremendous impact.

So to me, it doesn’t matter much whether vast numbers of people start tagging regularly. This practice definitely isn’t for everyone, and you should only do it if it suits you.

It is possible that popular adoption of tagging might decline in the future. (I doubt it, but we’ll see.) If that happens, we would lose some of benefits of this tool. However, I am convinced that a surprising number of individuals still would continue to embrace tagging as a way to create and share their own collections of information and context. It’s just too easy and valuable for that purpose.

This isn’t strictly a numbers game. The value of tagging is about more than simply how many people tag. It’s also about who is using it well – even influentially.

Some people adore it and tag everything they find; others disdain its lack of formality or reliability; and most people either experiment with it sporadically or ignore it entirely.

This morning I stumbled across a thoughtful exploration of tagging from someone who is not enamored with the process or results. Check out “Folksonomy Recapitulates Ontology.” Despite its leaden title, this article offers a fairly plain-language and fair examination of the pros and cons of tagging.

Here’s my response to that article…

I just posted the following comment to that article:

Excellent article, and quite thought-provoking.

I agree, tagging is far from perfect, comprehensive, or universal. I agree that it tends to be something that some people (though not necessarily just early adopters, IMHO) tend to do assiduously; while others do it randomly. In my experience, some people are more inclined than others to tagging habits and the tagging mindset. These tend to be the people who realize some direct benefit from tagging, or who view their tagging efforts as the creation of a unique body of work.

This is the case with my tagging efforts. I use two regularly: Furl and Del.icio.us. Furl I use because it stores a searchable copy of anything I bookmark there, which I find useful for my work. I tag things in Furl not so much with the purpose of sharing, but rather for categorizing in relation to the projects I’m working on. Del.icio.us is where I tag for sharing. It’s how I create my list of recommended reading links in the sidebar of my weblog Contentious.com

If I didn’t view these efforts as the creation of unique bodies of work and if I didn’t realize benefits from them, I probably wouldn’t bother. Just tagging for the sake of tagging isn’t enough for me. For others, it is.

However, I also realize benefits from the tagging efforts of others in two ways: It helps me identify opinion leaders or experts; and sheer serendipity.

Opinion leaders play a huge and important role on the net. They create most of the value you find online. To me, it doesn’t really matter that most of what’s available online is disorganized crap – the opinion leaders and experts are the ones who create the jewels, and they make the whole chaotic scramble worthwhile.

Serendipity is the other key to value on the net. Exploring others’ tags often leads me to surprising discoveries. I think it complements the search focus in a surprisingly useful way. I think of tag exploration as “focused randomness.” It tends to provide relevant serendipity.

At least, that’s my experience of it. I’m not disappointed that tagging isn’t as comprehensive, reliable, or meticulous as taxonomy. It serves different – and complementary – purposes.

And even though, from the perspective of some people, tagging serves little or no purpose – well, it’s easily ignored. So it doesn’t really hurt anything, does it?

Now we’re starting to delve into the truly sensitive and intriguing part of the survey – mentioning personal information that might be construed as non-mainstream, taboo, controversial, or “tangentially sexual.”

SURVEY QUESTION 4: In one weblog you read mainly for business reasons, the author mentions in a posting that he is gay. Your reaction:

The big news here is that mentioning on your professional blog that you’re gay is somewhat risky – but probably not as risky as you might imagine. Still, such a non-mainstream and potentially controversial disclosure should be made in a relevent, gentle context, and considered carefully. Know your target audience.

CAVEATS: All of this depends, of course, on whether survey respondents are being honest – and if you consider informal, self-selected surveys of any use at all.

Here are the responses for this question, and my initial observations about them…

Of the 176 respondents:

• 46 (26%) said: POSITIVE: I always like to know more about the person behind the blog.
• 38 (22%) said: NEUTRAL: I have no reaction to this disclosure. (This includes one “other” response that said “No reaction positive or negative.”)
• 25 (14%) said: STRONGLY POSITIVE: I’m glad that the author is confident enough to be “out.”
• 24 (14%) said: Other
• 14 (8%) said: DISINTERESTED: (However, the first 30 responses were gathered before I added this option to this question, so this answer may be somewhat under-reported. Two early responders specifically said “disinterested” in their responses under “other.”)
• 14 (8%) said: EMBARRASSED: I’m not repelled, but it seems somewhat inappropriate, especially in a business setting.
• 8 (5%) said: RELIEVED/GRATEFUL: I too am gay (or am close to someone who is) and now feel a bit less alone or ashamed because of this blogger’s admission.
• 3 (2%) said: REPELLED: That kind of personal information has no place on a business weblog.
• 3 (2%) said: SCANDALIZED/NERVOUS: Homosexuality is shameful/taboo and should never be openly discussed, especially in a business setting.

WRITE-IN “OTHER” RESPONSES

Some people’s reactions didn’t fit the categories I offered. Here’s how they described their reactions.

• Once again context….If disclosing they are gay has nothing to do with the topic of discussion I would be disinterested and confused by its mention, on the otherhand if such disclosure is relevant to the topic and perspective it offers I would be quite interested…
• Unless it is a HR related blog where this information is pertinent, it’s, well, not pertinent.
• Being gay, it is not a problem for me.
• Again, if it is directly related to the professional discussion, maybe OK.
• This would be the same as a “straight” person mentioning that they are straight. The reaction would be positive. It would have to fit into the context of the post, otherwise it’s the equivelent of “Repelled.”
• Again, why is the disclosure being made? I worked with someone who loved to talk about the company I worked for as a “gay company.” Why? Because he and two others were gay. I didn’t get it. What was the point? I did not join the company because he was gay, and did not think we were doing “gay” work, even though the company had many clients in the “gay community.” Some people mention it as if it’s a chip on their shoulder. Others just mention it in passing. I guess the more political the statement is, the more put-off I am in a business context. But in a personal context, I really do not care, and in fact feel good that the person feels comfortable enough to disclose.
• If it’s in context – e.g. posting about personnel benefits and writer provides personal anecdote – it’s OK. Otherwise, save for personal blog.
• It’s one thing if hes been “out” for sometime and when he mentions it in the blog, it’s fairly casual because it’s just part of who he is at his business. If he chooses to make a big deal about “coming out” on a business blog, especially for more than one post, I’d question his judgment.
• It depends on whether it illuminates the business positions that he or she has taken.
• Mostly neutral, though I might pause, think “interesting,” and continue reading.
• If it is relevant, I like to know more about the person behind the blog otherwise I’m disinterested.
• Personally I am against homosexuality. I do not discuss my opinion on it unless specifically asked. If an individual is seeking a business relationship with me, they will have a better chance not mentioning their homosexuality.
• It depends on the context. Sexual orientation shouldn’t matter one way or another, but if talking about it isn’t germaine to the subject at hand, then don’t mention it.
• No reaction positive or negative. Being gay is a choice, many may choose to not disclose it for discrimination purposes. I wouldn’t want anyone to be discriminated against but maybe the blogger wouldn’t want to work with someone who wouldn’t want to work with them because of their sexual preference.
• I am very glad that the author is confident enough to be out, and feel strongly positive towards having diversity visible in general in the media, but if this posting is done trying to push that information at the reader without any relevance to the business topic of the blog, then I’d also skip those posts, and feel that that wasn’t so appropriate. Posts which e.g. mention something like “my partner brought in the fresh supplies, and he…”, I wouldn’t think anything of it. In other words, it is possible to be pro- a topic, but anti- it being out of place. I tend to feel the same way when people clutter up electronic mailing lists with off-topic postings. I have nothing against the off-topics per se but I don’t like the topics straying where they shouldn’t be, because it wastes my time.
• CONCERNED: In certain environments, a disclosure is equivalent to asking for trouble.
• I’d initally be, “hmmm. who knew?” But would probably be watching to see if a) there are more posts with an agenda that interferes with my enjoyment of the blog, in which case I might dump it; or b) if the blog stays on target for my needs but experiences backlash (in context with my industry) then I’d pitch in with more links and analysis on their posts on my own blog.
• It might add value, it might help to understand why he is posting something in a special direction, but usually this is not like the one before [stamp collecting]. I am not embarrassed by that (I am not American and therefore probably have less problems with sex at all), but it goes into the “does it provide me with a benefit?” if not, it is just plain not interesting.
• Depends if its relevant to the context
• Again, it has to be relevant. although I’m sure to gain some insight from people who have different perspectives and since I would respect them already through their blog, I would be more open to what they have to say.
• and….
• If it’s relevant to the rest of the post, then it’s appropriate. If not, I can’t see why it would be mentioned.

AMY’S OBSERVATIONS ON THIS:

• Most of your online audience probably doesn’t care whether you’re gay. In all, 75% of responses to this question ranged from disinterested to strongly positive. Also, most of the “other” responses (above) indicated relevence concerns.
• Relevence is key. As the “other” responses for this question (above) and indeed throughout this survey indicate, the online audience mostly cares about relevence. If you wish to disclose anything personal in a business context, find a way to work those mentions in naturally with your primary topics. Usually that’s not too much of a stretch – life and work often resonate on many levels.
• Start gently. If you choose to disclose something sensitive or controversial, and you don’t wish to ruffle too many feathers, you’re probably better of to keep the first mention very low-key and relevent. Mentioning anything unusual or controversial for the first time always tends to attract attention, no matter how gentle and relevent the presentation. You’ll probably get some initial response or raised eyebrows. Someone will probably accuse you of pushing a particular “agenda.” Just ride that out, and see how it goes over time.
• Prejudice is real, but usually disguised. Gay people are concerned about being “out” in a professional context for a reason: they do get discriminated against. Rarely is this prejudice stated flat-out: if someone is opposed to homosexuality, it’s not difficult to invent socially palatable excuses not to hire gays or read their weblogs. So if you do disclose that you’re gay, you probably will lose some readers because of that. Just don’t expect anyone to admit that to you.
• Being “out” might even increase your audience. It strikes me as significant that 45% of responses to this question ranged from positive to strongly positive, yet only 12% of responses were specifically negative (plus a couple of clearly negative responses under “other”). The thing about being “out” (public) about any non-mainstream or controversial personal characteristic is that it generally indicates confidence and integrity – extremely desireable qualities in any business or professional setting.
• Your disclosure can support others in need. Prejudice thrives in darkness and silence. People with some unusual or controversial aspect of their identity often live under the shadow of isolation – an inherently vulnerable position. In this survey, so far 5% declared a “relieved/grateful” reaction to this disclosure. Specifically, they resonated with the statement, “I too am gay (or am close to someone who is) and now feel a bit less alone or ashamed because of this blogger’s admission.” Now, 5% doesn’t sound like a big number, but to people in marginalized communities who may have personally experienced isolation and/or prejudice, that could be a very important 5% to reach. It’s about people, after all – not just numbers.
• Expect any controversial disclosure to be called “activist.” Based on my conversations with bloggers who have disclosed personal info (including in some business blogs), and based on many of the write-in responses to Question 8, it seems to me that going public with any sensitive personal information often involves some measure of activism, even slightly. Whether or not that’s part of your conscious motive for disclosure, expect both praise and criticism on that point.
• Putting prejudice in perspective. We typically consider “prejudice” and “bigotry” in terms of hot-button issues such as race, gender, sexual preference, religion, age, political leanings, etc. However, in my experience in the professional realm, I’ve more often witnessed professional prejudice. For instance, some tech pros definitely discriminate in hiring against people who, say, like Java or Linux or Windows. Some journalists and attorneys distrust and eschew colleagues who disagree with them on matters of practice. Educators, scientists, and scholars can be notoriously cliquish and exclusive on a broad array of issues. And then there’s the universal matter of prejudice based on personality type. To me, these kinds of prejudices often seem to outweigh social “hot button” issues in professional settings. Disagreement and difference are rarely comfortable, after all. Also, everyone is entitled to make his or her own personal judgements. A level playing field is a fine objective worth pursuing, but it’s folly to think that prejudice of any kind will someday completely disappear. Diversity and friction are constant companions, I think. So we each find our own way to deal with that reality.

NEXT: Disclosure of religion
PREVIOUS: Disclosure of a hobby
Index to the survey results.
Overview of numerical results.
About this survey.

There’s a lot of buzz in online circles these days about tagging and social bookmarking. Are these networking tools relevant to news organizations? I think so, precisely because they’re messy and informal…

A March 15 article by Infoworld.com VP Matt McAlister indicates some possibilities.

One day, McAlister experimented with using del.icio.us (a popular social bookmarking tool) to tag (informally categorize) articles from The Standard. To his delight, he found that doing so yielded a diverse and intriguing collection of related links from other del.icio.us users who’d bookmarked the same articles or used similar tags in their own link collections.

McAlister wrote:

“I’ve really just scratched the surface here. There’s a lot of power to this thing that I’m not sure I fully grasp yet. One thing that I really like is that taxonomies so often become outdated the day you create them, not to mention a giant resource drain with all the meetings and revisions and implementation costs. News evolves so quickly that you shouldn’t be locked into a closed hierarchy. So, this way I can intelligently tag and display all the rich content on this site, regardless of the type of content, as the stories we’re covering evolve over time. That gave me the ROI incentive to dive into this, and then I discovered deeper value which I’ll share as new examples appear.”

THIS GOT MY GEARS TURNING

Hmmmm…. For awhile now I’ve been playing with a slightly related idea in the back of my mind: setting up a separate del.icio.us account and using it to create an index for items posted in this weblog. (I use my current del.icio.us account to share my ongoing list of recommended reading.)

In some ways, creating an index is kind of like tagging. You identify the keywords associated with topics or themes (as well as other special items like people, organizations, and places) The format is different, and you’re using URLs instead of page numbers, but I think the basic concept holds.

Most people generally tag very informally (even inconsistently), but there’s no reason why you couldn’t be a bit more structured in how you specify tags if you wanted to.

And then I got to thinking: Well if I tagged CONTENTIOUS articles index-style in del.icio.us, then I’d be able to see which other del.icio.us users had bookmarked my articles. Which would be cool, because currently you can’t search all of del.icio.us, you can only search the link collections of specific users. (Which is a bit of a drag. If I’m wrong about that, please explain how to accomplish this.)

So, hmmm, let me try a quick little experiment…

AMY RUNS TO DEL.ICIO.US FOR A QUICK ADVENTURE

OK, I just posted to my del.icio.us page a link to the main page of my popular Online Vermin series. I figured someone in del.icio.us would have bookmarked that one by now.

Indeed, as of this writing 2o del.icio.us users besides myself have bookmarked that article. So what can I learn from this?

I clicked on the link that said “and 20 other people” and found a list of each of those other people’s bookmarks for my article. Most people didn’t bother adding comments in their bookmarks (which appears to be typical), so that’s not very useful.

However, what is potentially very useful is the common tags list that appears in the upper right corner. I’m not exactly sure how this is determined, but I think it shows the most common terms used by those 20 people to categorize my article. There’s a number next to each common tag, which I think indicates the number of people who’ve used that tag for that bookmark.

The list of common tags for that bookmark to my article currently is:

• community (4)
• online (3)
• internet (3)
• blogging (3)
• web (2)
• blogs (2)
• facilitation (2)

Interesting. Most of those tags are bland, but some of them represent opportunities for valuable connections I could be making. For instance, I’m interested in a number of issues related to how to use online media to facilitate group discussions. I belong to an e-mail list for online facilitation professionals, and I may end up moving part of my career in that direction. It makes sense for me to want to reach those people.

However, this made me realize that at that point I had no del.icio.us tag called “facilitation.” In my own twisted little mind, I consider the word “facilitation” clunky and jargonish. To me, “conversation” more clearly conveys my personal emphasis on the topic. But that’s not how others may see things. And if I want to connect with del.icio.us users who are into facilitation (more correctly, if I want them to find me there), I’d better have a tag that reflects the words they use.

…So I went back to edit my bookmark for the article and added a “facilitation” tag to my list. One problem solved.

Next, I clicked on the “community” tag listed under my bookmark (they’re all hyperlinks) and accessed the del.icio.us page for all bookmarks tagged “community.” Scanning the items here gives me a clue about what other sorts of items people believe belong to this category. In other words, it gives me a flavor of how people VIEW that topic (its current context), rather than a mere encyclopedia-style, taxonomic description of “community.”

I love context. I’m a total context junkie.

For even more context, there’s a related tags column on the right now. These are:

• music
• blog
• social
• art
• web
• media
• collaboration
• rss
• forum
• news
• wiki

…No big surprises there, but it does tell me more about what kinds of topics might be “naturally” connected to community in the amorphous online consciousness.

So what?Well, aside from learning how to make it easier for del.icio.us users to find my content, and aside from building an index that inherently creates and enhances relationships, I’m also getting ideas.

If I start seeing disparate topics being repeatedly associated, I’m going to wonder why. What’s the connection? It’s rather like an associative game I enjoy, MetaMemes.
That might give me ideas for new articles, or new projects, or new research efforts. Consider it intellectual R&D. It clues me in about how concepts that interest me are evolving, emerging, and diverging. It’s yet another tool for staying ahead of the curve.

BUT WILL NEWS STAFF TAG?

Getting back to news organizations…

Not too long ago I was speaking with a colleague who runs the website for a major daily paper. We were discussing content management systems, XML, and feeds. I was saying how I think reporters and editors should take responsibility for tagging (either in a formal taxonomy or informal folksonomy) relevant keywords for each story.

See, personally I think that stories should be tagged by the reporters and editors who create them – not just clerks or interns. If you’ve actually created the content, you have a visceral grasp of relevant topics which might not be obvious to the casual reader. It seems to me that tags are often about implications or connections, not just descriptions. That’s one reason why I like tags so much.

But my friend laughed, saying news staff would never want to be bothered with that task. They’re already too swamped, and it would be too geeky for them anyway.

Yeah, I know, he’s probably right. When I talk excitedly about tagging, journalists tend to give me blank stares. I’m used to that.

Still, it seems to me that McAlister’s article, and my tiny experiment here, might indicate some long-term business impetus for changing that mindset. We’ll see.

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!

“What if when I wrote weblog entries about General Motors, I included a special tag, a keyword tag, that let everyone who wanted to read blog entries about General Motors read my weblog article, without otherwise having to subscribe to my blog? Makes sense. Now, should it be gm or GM or generalmotors or general motors or General Motors or GM Corporation or … ?

“Therein lies the fundamental problem with Technorati Tags, as promoted by the popular weblog search system and utilized by a small percentage of bloggers.

…”With almost a half-million tags and with an online community that loves to engage in keyword and key phrase pollution to be more search engine friendly, I posit that the Technorati tags are a failed experiment and are just going to become increasingly irrelevant as the namespace continues to grow without bounds.”

I think the main issues here is that folksonomies (informal, user-created tagging systems like Technorati tags) and predetermined taxonomies (like the Yahoo directory) serve different purposes.

I explained this in the following comment to Dave’s posting…

(This is a comment I added today to Dave Taylor’s blog posting mentioned above)

Hi, Dave

It seems to me that the concept of a folksonomy (which is basically what you see with Technorati tags, and also with services like del.icio.us and Furl, where users are free to create their own tags at will) is pretty different from that of a taxonomy.

A folksonomy merges, diverges, and evolves much the way language does, through usage and interaction. A taxonomy, in contrast, is more like a master plan, rigid and fixed to a certain extent.

In practice, taxonomies are often a pain in the butt to use. They require people to extend effort to abandon their own perceived context and connections (which is what any labeling scheme is about) and instead fit something into someone else’s (often) ill-fitting box.

Yes, the lack of standardization you find with folksonomies is a problem for people who want to do one search and find every relevant result immediately. So folksonomies are not a good idea for libraries, archives, some business systems, etc.

That said, the strength I find with folksonomies is serendipity. With Technorati tags (which I have yet to implement) and Furl and del.icio.us (which I use avidly) I am often pleasantly surprised with the connections I find through tags.

Generally, someone has applied a tag to a link I wouldn’t have, so I get to see how they made that connection – and often my world gets a bit wider as a result. Or I locate individuals with tag lists that are intriguingly similar to or different from mine, and I use this as a way to start exploring their world.

So I guess, in short:

• Folksonomies enhance exploration.
• Taxonomies enhance searching.

…That’s how I look at it, anyway.

I wrote more about folksonomies here.

Best,

- Amy Gahran
Editor, CONTENTIOUS

One task I’m particularly compulsive about is sharing with CONTENTIOUS readers links to interesting sites, articles, tools, and books. For awhile I’d been presenting these as my “grab bag” articles, but that process was too labor-intensive for me to maintain.

So now I’ve figured out how to use del.icio.us to keep you up to date on all the cool content I’m encouraging you to explore…

Look over at the right-hand column of any page in this weblog. See the section that says Other Goodies? That’s your resource for all my recommended reading.

The first goodie, recommended online reading, takes you to my main del.icio.us page where you can find every link I wanted to share, with the most recent additions listed first.

You’ll see I have an extensive list of categories (tags) which I use to describe each link, and I also include a brief text description or excerpt for each link. Clicking on any tag in my tag list will produce a list of all articles I’ve given that particular tag.

There is also a feed available for each tag, so you can follow just the topics you like. You can also see who else in del.icio.us bookmarked that same link, and check out their lists as well. Very cool!

The next goodie, feeds Amy reads, is the complete list of all the webfeeds to which I currently subscribe. This is an OPML file, which you download and import into a feed reader. I’m warning you, this is a long list. I currently subscribe to about 300-400 feeds. They’re categorized, that helps a bit.

Next, recommended books, takes you directly to a list of books which I’ve read and highly recommend. I tell you why I recommend each book. These are my del.icio.us links bearing the books-read tag.

Next, books I’m currently reading is pretty self-explanatory. This is just what’s in my pile at the moment – everything on my del.icio.us list bearing the books-reading tag. If I end up not liking a book, I’ll say why (if it’s important) or I’ll remove it from my del.icio.us page (if it’s not worth sharing at all).

Books I want also is pretty explanatory. It’s my book wish list, which I maintain via BestWebBuys (not del.icio.us). If you ever feel the urge to be generous toward me, books are always my favorite gift.

On my radar is a list of items I’m checking out or have checked out in the past, not necessarily recommendations. I keep this list in my Furl archive. This used to be where I kept track of items to include in my grab bag, but del.icio.us is a better solution for sharing links. So now, consider my Furl archive a record of my curiousity, sprawling over a wide range of topics.

…Anyway, I hope this explains what happened to my grab bags. I know my grab bags were pretty popular, and I still may do special ones as warranted. I know some people will miss that form of presentation. However, I had to go with a system I could maintain. It’s always a tradeoff. Ultimately, I think del.icio.us offers more benefits for recommending links.

What do you think? Comment below!