Features I want from Hulu, Netflix, Gmail and other web services
I have no major complaints about most of the web services I use*. Of course, that’s a bit tautological because if I hated them, I wouldn’t use them. But anyway, I do have some suggestions for minor improvements to the following web services:
Hulu: I would like a smarter queue that tracks what I have already seen. It’s great that you can subscribe to shows and when new episodes get loaded on to Hulu, they pop in your queue. But because episodes sometimes get taken down (after I have seen them) and then put back up (for example, to drum up excitement for the start of a new season), the queue oftens clogged with episodes of a show that I have already viewed on Hulu. I want an option to only show ones I haven’t viewed already — and for re-uploads to recognize that I saw them on the first go round.
Netflix: I would like a queue that’s just like the current queue but is for tracking purposes only, and I want to be able to subscribe to actors, directors, writers, studios, awards lists, certain critics picks, sub-genres and sub-sub-genres and when something new is acquired by Netflix that features the keywords and individuals I’ve subscribed to, I want those titles to appear at the top of that tracking queue.**
Gmail: I love Gmail. I’m one of those who immediately took to thread conversations and tags instead of folders. There is one feature I’d like though: the ability to tag an e-mail before (or as you go to) send it.
Google Docs: Yes, you can export Google Docs in a variety of formats, but there are occassions where I like to simply publish a Doc. For those instances I’d like to be able to have the option of auto-pagination (and be able to specify how many paragraphs or words for each page).
Twitter: I know this is supposed to be on the way, but, imo, the ability to RT from the web interface can’t happen soon enough. Yes, I use Tweetdeck and Hootsuite fairly often, but sometimes the web interface it just easiest to use, and I’d like to be able to easily retweet from it.
YouTube: I want 20 minute video uploads. Some better metrics tools (and even integration with Google Analytics) would be nice too.
Flock: I want it to open faster.
Flickr: I want the ability to batch organize sets and collections without going in to Flickr’s Ajax (sometimes browser resource heavy) Organizer e.g. just using titles of everything without thumbnails and the drag and drop feature — a light version, I guess, of the Flickr Organizer.
GoodReads: I want the ability to easily order titles on shelves (both drag and drop and enter number) and the ability to select multiple shelves and only show the titles that match all the selected shelves.
*Facebook is the Big Exception, but I’m not going to go in to all that in what is intended to be a light, quick post.
**I also want Linux supported Netflix On Demand, but that’s not a feature improvement, per se.
Why the media doesn’t get Twitter
I find it interesting that the mainstream media doesn’t seem to understand Twitter (and I’m being reductive here — obviously some MSMers get it). In particular, I’m amused that the words inane and superficial tend to come up a lot (or even if those exact words aren’t used, the impression of what Twitter is always seems to head in that direction).
The media doesn’t get Twitter because it obsesses over the contents of the tweets (and in many cases because the commentator has only experienced Twitter as the content of the tweets). This is a completely understandable mistake to make. But it misses what Twitter is — or at least the Twitter I know. I’m sure that there are parts of Twitter that are completely inane.
The comeback from many of us who use Twitter tends to be: it’s all about the conversation and the community. I agree, but also think that it’s a bit more complex than that. After all, there are much better platforms for having meaningful conversations — FriendFeed, e-mail lists, blogs with threaded comments, and web forums all provide a better way of managing the flow of conversation.
In addition, the business press has gotten all hot and bothered lately with the idea of real-time search. I think that’s an intriguing direction, but except for certain topic areas, it’s not quite there yet.
Here’s what Twitter really is: a stream of triggers. It’s not so much the content of individual tweets that matters as the effect a tweet has on a reader. Or to put it another way — each tweet is an invitation.
Each tweet provides one or more of the following:
- A link to click on
- A reminder to do something related to your life or job
- An opportunity to ask a question
- A recommendation
- An amusing tidbit to brighten your day
- Another piece of info about a person that may become an important part of your personal network
- An invitation to interact, to reply ,or re-tweet, or direct message, or comment on a blog, or donate, or take a survey, etc.
A lot of the negative reaction to Twitter follows from the platform itself. In particular, the 140 character limit and the fact that the platform name itself suggests a certain superficiality. And really, it’s interesting how much of the reporting/commenting on Twitter revolves around the name* and the character limit as if that really said it all about what happen on Twitter. There is an immediate negative reaction to the idea that anything could be communicated in that amount of space.
I say the focus on content — on what’s being communicated, the story being told — is understandable, and it is. But let’s be clear that when it comes to print journalism (as well as TV/radio), the obsession with content, on a certain method of storytelling and how that is defined as good or important or successful is a product of its own set of (not 140 character) limits.
On the one hand, you have the content creators — the reporters, editors, producers — who tend to measure the success of content for how well it would communicate with/appeal to an ideal reader/viewer.
On the other hand, you have the sales and marketing people, where the measure of success is ratings and ad rates — e.g. the response of the readers/viewers in aggregate.
Neither measure of success necessarily has a whole lot of meaning to the real flesh-and-blood individuals who are consuming the content. Certainly, news stories and advertisements can be triggers, invitations, calls to action. That’s the whole Faustian bargain of the old business model, right? The ads are meant to influence behavior but are tolerated because they subsidize an informed citizenry, the two sets of triggers living side-by-side, not holding hands, of course, but always twinned.
Twitter is also a medium for delivering content, but by focusing solely on the nature of that content, the meaning of each individual message, you miss out on why the content — whether you think it is inane or not — is important to those who create and consume it. Simply put, Twitter affects your day (or night).
With Twitter, you choose who you follow — you choose who you allow to send triggers your way. And in return you create triggers, some that are calculated to speak to all of your followers, some a sub-set (hashtags!) and some to just one person. And you choose when to dip in and out of the flow of triggers, and how they are delivered to you — mobile, web, widget, app, feed reader, etc.
So, of course, the mainstream media doesn’t get it. Just like they didn’t get blogs at first. The audience isn’t only talking back, it’s going off on its own and creating networks of people that enrich each others lives. Sometimes that expresses itself in superficial and inane ways, but here we get to the real genius of Twitter: every trigger, every invitation has to happen in 140 characters or less. Which means that skimming, processing, reading, in short, consuming a call to action takes very little time at all. Not every tweet is a hit for every Twitter user. But if you get the right collection of people you follow, enough are that, corny as it is, your life is better because of it. And really, that’s what all human interaction should be about.
* And I can’t help but note that the riffing off of the name and the claims of superficiality are a bit rich when they come from the nattering nabobs of the chattering classes (yep, I’m not afraid to smugly combine alliterative insults).
What do we mean by authenticity?
Social media gurus tell us that social media privileges authenticity. We PR people are told that if we want to engage, we need to do so with an authentic voice. And we tell our CEOs and such that if they are going to blog or tweet or, heck, communicate with anyone other than other CEOs then they need to be real about it.
This call for authenticity is entirely understandable. The language of work has been horribly abused and calcified (and yet has been absurdly prone to faddishness e.g. buzz words) ever since managerial capitalism ascended in the mid 20th century.
But what do we really mean by authenticity?
In my experience, what is generally meant is a mix of informal (conversational) grammar and syntax, hip vocabulary and pop cultural references, strong undercurrents of irony and self-deprecation (but with doses of sincerity) all combined with an opinionated, knowing approach to whatever field is being discussed. It is the lingua franca of educated Gen Xers. It is best represented these days by Twitter, I think, (previously blogging) but it has its roots in the bulletin boards, usenet groups, listservs, etc. of the early (rather libertarian in tone) years of the Internet. Thus, authentic discourse is strongly anti-authoritarian, anti-hierarchal, anti-ignorance, and anti-consumerist (or at least anti-mindless consumerism — it’s hip to what’s cool, though).
To be authentic is to mix the expert with the personal. It’s not the wholly personal — there must be some level of skillz exhibited; otherwise, it’s merely a puerile discourse of self-indulgent display (c.f. the incomprehensible entirely ungrammatical ramblings of MySpace comments), and I don’t believe that most marketers, social media gurus etc. value stuff that’s wholly puerile. After all, the authentic can only gain social currency when it shows that it provides something of value — either it’s entertaining or informative or interesting or preferably all three.
So what happens when this type of authenticity becomes the status quo?
Perhaps it never will considering how slow corporations and other organizations are slow to embrace it or how ham-fisted the results often are when they do. And perhaps authenticity is a broad enough concept to encompass and value a range of discourses. But it’s not entirely clear to me that the authentic voice as it is presently constituted is going to last and going to appeal to multiple generations even though it’s the mode of discourse I (being one of those educated, blogging Gen Xers) feel most comfortable working in.
(And perhaps what comes next is some sort of neo-formalism. If so, I’m screwed.)
Wm’s Twitter stream- morriswm: @dub_jeff I don't think that's a mere suggestion, Jeff. Steve used JJ and LG in the keynote. That means you too are required to follow. September 2, 2010
- morriswm: If iPod Touch includes a video camera, then it becomes a great portable, content creation tool w/out data plan & perfect for higher ed use. September 1, 2010
- morriswm: Fantasy Football draft verdict: I did the opposite of all the things I was planning on doing. The result isn't pretty. August 30, 2010
- morriswm: RT @dunwoodycollege: Yes, it's Camille Paglia, but you gotta love the notion of "revalorizing the trades": http://ow.ly/2wJjj August 30, 2010
- morriswm: @andygifford This is why I advocate for aggressive ice cream management. Also: milk shakes. August 29, 2010
- morriswm: @yelvington There you go. Although if you are going to mess around with that -- might as well do the whole hobo meal in foil. August 29, 2010
-
