Did you just get cut off? Is a professional driver behaving badly? Was your car towed? Or better, did you see a cute driver (or a really cool car) in the next lane? CarPong is a fun an innovative idea that allows users to send messages to other drivers by using their car's license plate number. Like blog commenting for vehicles, this service lets drivers write messages to other drivers, read what others have said about them and search for notes about other drivers. It's an interesting way to make our cars - and the people in them - a lot more connected in real life, and it just might work. Sponsor Car-to-car communiques remain one of the last frontiers for messaging services and one of the few environments where people are still inside isolationist social bubbles. On the Internet, we've mostly shed the goofy pseudonyms and nondescript avatars of the You've Got Mail era in exchange for real connections between real people. CarPong is exciting because it turns the highways and byways into a sort of chat room. One user called out a license plate of a European spec Ford Fiesta - which might be one of Ford's special social media fleet. Another sends a helpful hint to a fellow driver to invest in some new tires quickly. By and large, the site is so far a litany of complaints about others' bad driving habits. Still, by removing the anonymity of the road, this kind of messaging might encourage more human, more mindful and even kinder driver behavior. Founder Tony Mastrorio wrote us to say, "I am working on getting towing companies to notify car owners when their car has been towed, where they can pick it up and the associated fee. This aspect alone would make the service very useful for many people." He'd also like the site to work a bit like the "How's My Driving" signs we see on commercial vehicles. An enterprise-level CRM platform might also provide a good revenue stream. Currently, the site lacks the national or regional userbase of millions it would need to be truly useful. But I can see this idea spreading like wildfire if drivers like the idea of having a virtual complaints/comments box for those with whom they share the road. On the other hand, there's something about the encoded and regulated nature of license plates that lead one to a certain expectation of privacy. As with linking our real names, identities, careers, birth dates and even home addresses to our online personas, there may be some initial resistance to adding our license plates to that mix. Currently on the site, plates and profiles are not linked, but users can see all comments associated with other users and any reported license plate. How do you feel: Would this kind of transparency about who we are on the road lead to better and more personal communication between drivers? Or are our vehicles and driving records best left to principalities more private than the Internet? Let us know what you think in the comments. Discuss

See the article here:
SMS on Wheels: CarPong Is Vehicle-to-Vehicle Messaging

Editor's note: This story is part of a series we call Redux, where we'll re-publish some of our best posts of 2009. As we look back at the year - and ahead to what next year holds - we think these are the stories that deserve a second glance. It's not just a best-of list, it's also a collection of posts that examine the fundamental issues that continue to shape the Web. We hope you enjoy reading them again and we look forward to bringing you more Web products and trends analysis in 2010. Happy holidays from Team ReadWriteWeb! As machines learn to understand what the web means, what perspective will they understand it from? Who is teaching them? "Objective" descriptions of the world and the relationships in it can cause real problems, particularly for people with little power in those relationships. How will the emerging Semantic Web understand relationships and what will that mean for us as human users? Sponsor Editor's note: In this series, called Redux, we're re-publishing some of our best posts of 2009. We hope you enjoy reading them again and we look forward to bringing you more Web products and trends analysis in 2010. Happy holidays from Team ReadWriteWeb! Austrian researcher Corinna Bath argues that there is a real risk that the semantic web of the future will be built with the perspectives and assumptions of male computer scientists baked-in unconsciously - at the expense of everyone else. Background Corinna Bath is currently research fellow at the "Institute for Advanced Studies on Science, Technology and Society" in Graz, Austria. She's now working on engaging the several decades old study of gender and technology with the emerging world of the semantic web. What is the semantic web? We define it as a paradigm that makes the meaning of particular web pages understandable by machines - not just in full text searches or keyword categories, but in terms of which concepts are central to a given page and the relationships between them. The semantic web is hot. World Wide Web founding father and W3C Director Tim Berners-Lee says all the pieces are now in place for a semantic web to emerge. So is it a boy or a girl? When You Assume, You Make an... Corinna Bath did an interview last week for the Austrian Semantic Web Company where she articulates her concerns about gender and the semantic web. Unfortunately, the interview is extremely academic in language and tone - so we'll try to explain her arguments here. Her first argument is that the architects of the semantic web need to be very careful about the assumptions they carry into the creation of categories of relationships. Bath draws a historical parallel with the first phone books, where listings were organized by the names of the husband in each household. That appeared to the authors to be the logical way to do it at the time. It wasn't until after years of feminist political organizing led to general cultural change that the phone books changed. Why is this important? Because systems like the phone book help color our view of the world we live in and are the building blocks of basic inequalities. Too often, Bath argues, "binary assumptions about women and men are not reflected [upon] or the (gender) politics of [a particular] domain is ignored. Thus, the existing structural-symbolic gender order is inscribed into computational artifacts and will be reproduced by [their] use." Right: The Semantic Web made me grow this beard. Semantic web t-shirt via SpreadShirt. For example, the Dublin Core ontology concerns Documents. It consists of a list of elements that can be used to describe a document, including "creator," "contributor," and "isReferencedBy." Are there types of relationships that aren't included on the list but are important to an accurate understanding of a document? There probably are, and different perspectives could help articulate what those relationships might be. For example, some feminist critics argue that the Western cannon of almost every type of literature is full of work that men didn't give women appropriate credit for. Some argue that Albert Einstein's wife deserves substantial credit for his theory of relativity - should that be included in semantic markup wherever the book is cataloged? How should that relationship be described? Calling her a contributor would be controversial and wouldn't really capture the history - a new category may be needed. There are no shortage of ways to describe documents, events, people or concepts. The roster of people who will participate in the creation of a standard way to describe them will become increasingly important as machine learning becomes more important in our every day lives. Failing to take this seriously, Bath argues, could lead to the silencing of "minority views, quieter voices, and allows the dominant voice to speak for everyone, which seems highly problematic." Is Categorization Itself The Right Solution? The semantic web today is based largely on what are called "triples" - sets of subject, predicate and object. For example Marshall Kirkpatrick [subject], loves [predicate] Punkin' the Tabby Kitten [object]. (Hypothetical, I don't have any kittens and please don't send me any.) This way of describing things isn't beyond question, however. As Bath argues: Even the modeling concepts themselves should be questioned as Cecile Crutzen suggest, since e.g. the class concept and the inheritance concept lack to represent social processes, because of limited formal expressiveness for conflict, change and fluidity. Such an ontology abstracts from human sociality, situated action and real meaning construction processes. In other words life aint so simple: people change, conflicts and context matter and things in this world don't just get their meaning by one object bumping into another, one event leading to another, child inheriting traits from a parent, etc. Computer logic may necessitate simplification of some of life's richness - but this is nothing to take lightly. We're talking about helping computers understand meaning and that is not a simple or trivial matter. Is Knowledge Only The Absence of Doubt? Bath calls into question "computer science modeling that rests on the Cartesian epistemology," or the belief that way we know that we really "know" something is by having no doubt about it. If our semantic markup reading robot finds markup asserting that a certain relationship exists and does not find any markup asserting that it does not exist - ought we conclude that we've determined the truth of the matter? Particularly if not all perspectives on the matter have been taken into consideration in even formulating how the situation is described, then an assertion that a particular object has a certain property or two subjects have a particular relationship may be woefully inaccurate in describing reality. There are a lot of things people disagree about and there's a lot of knowledge that people deny for political convenience. The absence of doubt is not sufficient basis for determination of truth. Repeated attempts to disprove a theory make a much better basis for working knowledge. Or, as political blogger Karoli Kuns said to NPR's Andy Carvin this morning when Carvin asserted otherwise, "I'd argue that tag dissent balances folksonomies, not undermines." Let's talk about "working knowledge" and stop whispering about "truth", before the robot children hear us. Philosophy Aside, What Does This Mean? It means that as the language we use to communicate meaning to machines develops, we'd better watch out who is building it and what perspectives they take into consideration. Unconsidered assumptions could lead to a real disconnect between the meaning that machines know of the world and they way that millions of other people experience it. Bath isn't suggesting that the semantic web should be rejected, quite the opposite in fact. "I am convinced," she says, "that the perspectives I tried to sketch here can contribute to build better semantic systems or even prevent them from failure in function or on the marketplace." She has her own explanation why this is important: "With the use of the Internet we are already witnessing a radical change in practices of how knowledge is represented, stored and spread. In the future most of our work and life will involve the manipulation and use of information. It will crucially depend on the epistemologies, concepts and leading metaphors of the Semantic Web, which direction the semantic "human-machine reconfigurations" (Lucy Suchman) will take." That's a nice way to say that we need to work hard to avoid creating fascist robots that exercise a homogenizing influence on diverse human experiences. There are people who are doing semantic web work in directions that take this into account, but it's something worth considering for all of us. Disclosure: The author has consulting relationships with a number of pre-launched semantic web companies. Discuss

Continued here:
Will The Semantic Web Have a Gender?

One of the interesting trends of 2009 has been the gradual decline of RSS Readers as a way for people to keep up with news and niche topics. Many of us still use them, but less than we used to. I for one still maintain a Google Reader account, however I don't check it on a daily basis. I check Twitter for news and information multiple times a day, I monitor Twitter lists, and I read a number of blogs across a set of topics of most interest to me. Frankly I'm more likely to use Google Reader to search for specific information nowadays, than to scan my subscribed feeds for their latest posts [I should note however that our news writers use a variety of RSS Readers daily]. So what's happened to RSS Readers. Do people still use them and is there still a viable market for them? Sponsor In February 2007 we reported on the state of the RSS Reader market, based on statistics from Feedburner and Pheedo. At that point Google had 59% market share amongst web-based RSS Readers, followed by Bloglines with 33%, then Newsgator and Netvibes with 3% (note: this didn't count Newsgator's desktop apps, like FeedDemon). Pheedo's stats in February 2007 were somewhat different: Newsgator Online had 27% share, followed by MyYahoo! with 20%, Blogines 19% and Google Reader 13%. The first time ReadWriteWeb looked into market share for RSS Readers was 5 years ago, in December 2004 . At that point, very early in the web 2.0 era, Bloglines was the clear leader and Google Reader wasn't even a glint in the milkman's eye. 2009 Update on RSS Reader Market Well, unfortunately Feedburner no longer publishes any useful data about RSS Readers. The product has been infrequently updated since Google acquired it in June 2007 and it no longer even has a proper blog (a Google blog called Adsense For Feeds was the closest I could find). Pheedo also has gone quiet from a blogging perspective - its last blog post was January 2009. Tellingly though, it has an active Twitter account . The best data we have then is ReadWriteWeb's own Feedburner account. Here is the top 10 for Dec 09: 1. Google Feedfetcher 85665 (includes both Google Reader and its start page iGoogle) 2. Bloglines 38797 3. Netvibes 34894 4. FriendFeed 16269 5. NewsGator Online 6753 6. Firefox Live Bookmarks 2999 7. PostRank 2454 8. Windows RSS Platform 1587 9. Mac OS X RSS Reader 1307 10. Zhuaxia 1127 (a Chinese RSS Reader) Feedburner's numbers always need to be taken with a large grain of salt, nevertheless we can see that Google is now over twice the number of Bloglines. There's little sign of life on Bloglines' blog either and its Compete.com traffic numbers show a decline since June 2009 . Netvibes, FriendFeed, Newsgator and PostRank are the only other english language competitors showing in our Feedburner numbers. The others are either browser (Firefox) or operating system readers. Also note that Newsgator shut down its online RSS Reader at the end of July this year. Conclusion: Google Dominates, RSS Readers Less Relevant These statistics are by no means the definitive RSS Reader market numbers. They do clearly show two things though: 1) Google now dominates what's left of the RSS Reader market. Bloglines is hanging in there, but it seems like it's given up the fight judging by lack of activity in its blog and traffic dips. 2) RSS reading is a very fragmented experience circa 2009. People can monitor news and information via Twitter, Facebook, start pages like Netvibes, their Firefox bookmarks, their OS, aggregators like Techmeme, and so on. Tell us in the comments how you currently read your RSS feeds and how often you check them in an RSS Reader - if indeed you still use one... Discuss

Visit link:
RSS Reader Market in Disarray, Continues to Decline

Respected industry thought leader, Joseph Smarr, announced on his blog today that he is leaving Comcast-acquired Plaxo to join Google and help drive the company's next steps in the social web. Smarr has been a key innovator in the OpenID , Oauth and related technical movements. Smarr's work is all about enabling innovation by making it easy for users to move data from site to site. Sponsor While noting Google's support for specific open web technologies, Smarr also said: "Getting the future of the Social Web right - including identity, privacy, data portability, messaging, real-time data, and a distributed social graph - is just as important, and the industry is at a critical phase where the next few years may well determine the platform we live with for decades to come. " Smarr was the first non-founding employee of Plaxo, a dynamic contact management service that was once the darling of Silicon Valley, and then became its spammy boogeyman, and was finally acquired by Comcast 18 months ago . Plaxo was co-founded by Napster co-founder Sean Parker and was backed by Sequoia Capital, the fund that backed Google and YouTube. Chris Messina , fellow open-web leader and the self-described evangelist that helped turn Smarr from the dark side of Plaxo's early days ("champions of the open web can come from all corners," he told us), said of the move: "Smarr joining Google is a logical next step for him - I think he's done great work at Plaxo with John McCrea, but advancing the open web has not been able to be his priority since he took on the CTO role there." Kaliya Hamlin , who says she introduced Smarr to the Identity community, said of his move to Google: "His spirit and energy to get things done, work across company boundaries and a deep commitment to open standards innovation will be a great asset for Google. One thing that really stands out for me was his innovation with Microsoft on the Portable Contacts API. That idea originated at the Data Sharing Workshop seeking to make progress on what was possible and within six months under his leadership it was complete." OpenID leader Scott Kveton said this announcement is just the beginning. "That's great news," he told us, "and just the first of more to come I hear. It's going to be down to Google, Microsoft and Facebook. They are hiring all of the people building the open web. I'll be curious to see what kind of impact it has." Smarr photo by Adactio . Discuss

See original here:
Google Hires Open Web Leader to For Social Initiatives

In my recent post about the rise of content farms like Demand Media and the current incarnation of AOL, I posited that Google (and search in general) risks becoming less relevant as the Web gets drowned in lesser quality content. This is due to the scale at which these content farms are operating at - Demand Media alone pumps out 4,000 new pieces of content every day . The solution is of course for Google and other search engines to find better ways to surface quality content , whether that be from traditional news media, blogs or even Demand Media ( not all of its content is poor quality ). So how can Google evolve to identify quality content better? Sponsor Quality! Pah, Does Google Need to Bother? Perhaps we should first answer the question: why should Google be worried about the quality issue? After all, it has a virtual monopoly on the search market. The obvious and PR answer is that Google wants to provide the best search results possible for its users. But there is another big reason why Google needs to do something. So-called "quality" content providers are already well advanced in routing around Google, or at least making them less relevant. As I wrote yesterday, Reuters is onto something with its subscription business model. According to Chris Ahearn , President of Media at Thomson Reuters, the company already makes the "vast majority of its revenues" from subscription-based business models targeted to "vertical and niche markets." Reuters also provides services as well as just content. Bloomberg is another leading media company finding success with this strategy. The subscription model is making inroads, because the users themselves are flocking to it. A prime example comes from VC Paul Kedrosky , who became frustrated after doing various Google searches for "dishwasher reviews" and getting unsatisfactory results. He says that this has made him "more willing to pay for things" - in that case a Consumer Reports review of dishwashers. As Kedrosky archly noted, "the opportunity cost of continuing to try to sort through the info-crap in Google results was simply too high." What Google Can Do Google surely knows that quality (or lack thereof) in its index is a problem. As one part of the solution, Google is currently experimenting with real-time search results from social media sites like Twitter, MySpace and even Facebook. The theory is that users are more likely to get timely, relevant results by tapping into their social network. That's all well and good, but real-time search is unlikely to give you better results on the dishwasher search and other topic-focused search queries. So what else can Google do to identify and surface quality material? Some readers in Sunday's post (Tadhg, Charles Coxhead and others) argued that Google's current algorithm accounts for quality well enough, through the link economy. But many others thought that Google must improve its ranking of quality. Here were some of our readers' suggestions: Neutralize the link dilution; A.J. Kohn , who further wrote that "the introduction of SearchWiki, their measurement of short-clicks versus long-clicks, the new domain/brand SERP listing, snippet links, and use of breadcrumbs all point to a gathering movement to help determine quality without such a reliance on an ever diluted link ecosystem." Do a better job ranking authority; for more on this read Clay Shirky's post on "Algorithmic Authority." Introduce a user rating system; Tony Masinelli. Leverage sharing networks to determine where the quality is; Alex Kessinger . Special curation and algorithms on top of that; William Mougayar, whose company Eqentia does precisely that. p2p recommendation (i.e. filtering through your peers); Nick Taylor . Capture engagement data; Mark Littlewood . Give special weightings to categories of content, e.g. content farms, social media bookmarks blogs and Twitter; Aaron Savage . Use anti-spam type software to identify content that makes too much use of keywords; Barry . Track reputation against authors rather than URLs - a 'PageRank for People'; Marshall Clark . These are all great ideas. Google is almost certainly already doing some of these things already - as will other search companies. John Battelle is expecting a "major breakthrough" in search in 2010 and I hope he's right. One thing is for sure, Google will need to do more in 2010 if it's to stay ahead of the content farms and continue to surface quality content for its millions of users. Discuss

Here is the original post:
How Google Can Combat Content Farms

Facebook announced this morning that its 350 million users will be prompted to make their status messages and shared content publicly visible to the world at large and search engines. It's a move we expected but the language used in the announcement is near Orwellian. The company says the move is all about helping users protect their privacy and connect with other people, but the new default option is to change from "old settings" to becoming visible to "everyone." This is not what Facebook users signed up for. It's not about privacy at all, it's about increasing traffic and the visibility of activity on the site. Sponsor Information like your email address is recommended to remain limited to friends, but make no mistake about it - Facebook wants you to make the status messages you post visible to the entire internet. According to the video explaining the changes, the new default for status messages is "everyone." That's a huge change. Of course it's not hard for people to keep their existing privacy settings, but confusion around what those settings are is hardly resolved by the phrase "old settings" and a tool-tip phrase appearing when you hover over that option. A substantial backlash has already begun in comments on t he Facebook blog post about the announcement. Previous moves by the company, like the introduction of the news feed, have seen user resistance as well - but this move cuts against the fundamental proposition of Facebook: that your status updates are only visible to those you opt-in to exposing them to. You'll now have to opt-out of being public and opt-in to communicating only with people you've given permission to see your content. Will users go for it? If Facebook becomes a lot more like Twitter, will users stick around? The network of friends you've created on Facebook can't be taken anywhere else - access to those people off-site is limited due to "privacy concerns." This is an amazing move that was announced with limited press attention. A Facebook group message to press was sent out at 6am, two hours before a press phone call. The announcement is a long, wordy and unclear text putting undue emphasis on Privacy when the new options clearly favor going public. Earlier this week the company made an announcement about forthcoming privacy policy changes and Open was not the recommended setting . Facebook confirmed to us in a press call earlier this year that the company does in fact want users to post more publicly and we expected a site-wide call for users to loosen privacy restrictions - but not like this. This announcement was couched in language of user control and privacy. A much more honest approach to privacy would be to encourage users to create lists of contacts and encourage them to select which list any update was visible to . Instead, that's greatly underemphasized. Expect to see this story blow up for the rest of the year. It's a very big move. See our previous coverage for context: Facebook Wants You To Be Less Private - But Why? A Closer Look at Facebook's New Privacy Options Is Facebook a Cult? Discuss

Read more:
The Day Has Come: Facebook Pushes People to Go Public

Jack Herrick knows a bit about Demand Media , one of the top 20 web properties in the U.S. and the subject of several ReadWriteWeb articles about sites that are pumping thousands of pieces of content into the Web every day. Herrick sold the business he founded, eHow , to Demand Media in 2006. eHow is one of Demand Media's flagship properties, but Herrick became frustrated with the focus on quantity over quality. So he created another business, wikiHow , which he claims produces higher quality articles. wikiHow has today unveiled a redesign (screenshot below). However we were more interested in the content quality question, so we asked founder Jack Herrick what makes him think wikiHow is any better than Demand Media's content farms? Sponsor The newly re-designed wikiHow How Jack Herrick Went From eHow to wikiHow "When I ran eHow," Herrick told us via email, "we produced content in a manner somewhat similar to the way Demand Studios does today (although at a much, much smaller scale.)" However Herrick ultimately became frustrated with that model when he realized that "it would fill the web with a bunch of mediocre content." "It's like eating a McDonald's burger vs. a wonderful, home cooked meal." At the time Herrick thought that the mediocre content production would hurt eHow's long term brand. Although he now concedes he may've been mistaken on that point, given Demand Media's success over the past couple of years. When Herrick sold eHow in 2006, he began to work on wikiHow - a wiki how-to manual which now competes with eHow. wikiHow currently generates 19 million unique visitors per month, according to the company (it's about to hit 20 million monthly uniques). Demand Media's eHow is still the market leader in how-to content, however wikiHow is a small unfunded company with only 7 employees. Herrick is convinced that the wiki model for producing content attracts "passionate volunteers." He thinks that the wiki way will "ultimately result in a higher quality product," compared to eHow. The other prong of Herrick's argument is that eHow gets what it pays for in terms of content quality. "When you pay $15 for an article, you get a $15 product...and nothing more," he noted archly. Wikis Aren't Perfect Either Jack Herrick admits that "wiki content typically starts out as low quality," but claims that "once it matures and receives enough edits it can be amazing." And that is really the crux of this argument. A quality wiki article, whether it's found on Wikipedia or wikiHow, will generally be one that has received a number of edits from people who know the topic well. wikiHow itself has done research which shows this. Herrick told us that in previous research, wikiHow found that "the more people who edit an article, the more readers it attracted and the higher quality the article became." The problem is, there's no guarantee any given article will attract passionate volunteers to edit it. Wikipedia is a non-profit organization and so it's more likely to be attractive to volunteers - they're contributing to the world's knowledge base and no corporation is profiting from that. wikiHow, on the other hand, is a commercial enterprise. It calls itself a "hybrid organization," meaning a "for-profit company focused on creating a global public good." But it's a company nonetheless. While the content of wikiHow has a Creative Commons license , the company profits directly by it. The company vs. non-profit issue may not be a big influence on many of wikiHow's current volunteers, but it may prevent wikiHow from scaling to Wikipedia's size. Next page: We compare wikiHow to eHow and ask which is better... Comparing wikiHow to eHow Although by no means a perfect approach, I decided to choose a random topic and compare wikiHow and eHow. The topic I chose was: decorating a room using Feng Shui. The wikiHow article had been contributed to by 8 authors and it was a comprehensive, helpful article - complete with diagram and video. A comparable eHow article was helpful too, although much less comprehensive and with no accompanying media. The verdict? In this case the wikiHow article was better. But your mileage may vary per topic and article. Which Approach is Better, Wiki or Paid Content? When done on a large scale, is paid-for content (such as Demand Media's eHow) better than volunteer wiki content? Herrick makes a good case, but in reality it isn't black and white. The most famous example of a wiki, Wikipedia, generally produces quality content - although there have always been instances of contentious content on the site. wikiHow founder Jack Herrick: eHow content "lacks soul." Herrick contends that wiki content is inherently better because "volunteer writers are passionate about their topics and we allow anyone to continuously edit articles." In comparison, he claims that sites like eHow produce "static, low quality" content that "lacks soul." Herrick even used the ol' McDonalds analogy: "it's like eating a McDonald's burger vs. having your friend who happens to be a great chef cooking you a wonderful, home cooked meal." Ultimately I don't completely buy Jack Herrick's argument that wiki-produced content is necessarily better than paid-for content from "content farms." Both types of content could be either good or poor quality, depending on the quality of the people who write and edit it. How-to content needs to be precise and well-researched, which requires time. The best wiki how-to content is likely to be articles which have been edited by multiple people. But equally, well-informed writers can easily produce quality how-to articles in one go. However, the feng shui examples above showed that (in this case) multiple wiki authors produced better results than a single paid contributer. Let us know your thoughts about which is better: wikiHow or eHow? Or neither? Discuss

Visit link:
wikiHow vs. eHow: Is The Wiki Way Better Than Content Farms?