Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: New social software blog

Expand Messages
  • Danny Ayers
    Dave is of course right when he says that the ideas aren t really new. NNTP news, email, the web itself etc etc are all arguably Social Software. Specifically
    Message 1 of 19 , Apr 26, 2003
      Dave is of course right when he says that the ideas aren't really
      new. NNTP news, email, the web itself etc etc are all arguably
      Social Software. Specifically in light of recent developments, there
      was at least one blog around 10+ years ago [1], and XML
      news/syndication formats date back at least 6 years [2]. But the
      difference is these things are now joining up like never before. The
      infrastructure (hardware, protocols, languages) really is now ready
      for the multi-way web.

      A case in point: just now I got a comment from Dave on my blog.
      Clicking on the link attached to his name took me to his blog. There
      I read a post referring to this list. A moment or two later I
      clicked "Join this Group" - and here I am. Hi folks!

      This couldn't/wouldn't have happened a few years ago. IMHO it is an
      extremely good time to reevaluate what we've got and where we're
      going in the context of 'Social Software'.

      Cheers,
      Danny.

      [1] http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-
      hypertext/hypertext/WWW/News/9201.html
      [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CDFsubmit.html
    • Dave Winer
      ... Excuse me while I faint. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 19 , Apr 26, 2003
        >>Dave is of course right

        Excuse me while I faint.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • marccanter
        What excites me about the budding SSA, and this new blog, is that both seem to be moving towards more dialog in these areas. - Liz My hope is that we re done
        Message 3 of 19 , Apr 26, 2003
          What excites me about the budding SSA, and this new blog, is that
          both seem to be moving towards more dialog in these areas. - Liz

          My hope is that we're done with technology as a flash in the pan, as
          a way to make marketing hypesters rich at the expense of users
          waiting for an upgrade to a product that's never going to get
          upgraded. - Dave

          Social software isn't a new thing. XML isn't new. Does that mean that
          we should stop talking about them? - Liz

          ----------

          Clay made it clear (during his keynote at ETCON) that basic human
          behavior patterns not only influence, but in fact dictate social
          software. The phrase he's using - connotes not just technology but
          also human behavior patterns.

          This intermix and recognition of the sociological aspects of social
          software is what's different now. Clay went on to quote numerous
          books and studies which have disclosed classic group versus
          individual conflicts that we all know well.

          So what's new now?

          A balance between the technical and sociological factors.
          Technologists need to take into account these basic human behavior
          patterns and sociologists need to learn about what's possible, and
          request features and capabilities.
        • Dave Winer
          If I may present an alternate point of view -- what s different now is that Clay is hyping it, and it s exclusive.
          Message 4 of 19 , Apr 27, 2003
            If I may present an alternate point of view -- what's different now is that Clay is hyping it, and it's exclusive.

            http://www.picpix.com/brad/gallery/0008kcbx?page=1

            In that way it's very much like the hype balloons of the past.

            To me it looks like a way for you to raise VC money and for Clay to get consulting contracts.

            Too bad for the users of current products, I guess -- they have to wait for Clay and his friends to reinvent all the wheels, right?

            Remember the CD ROM business, Marc?

            Tell us about how stupid that was.

            Dave

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Marc Canter
            You re absolutely right. But I don t think we ll be reinventing the wheel as much as making sure our software is usable by humans. ... From: Dave Winer
            Message 5 of 19 , Apr 27, 2003
              You're absolutely right.

              But I don't think we'll be reinventing the wheel as much as making sure our
              software is usable by humans.
              -----Original Message-----
              From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
              Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 2:03 AM
              To: blogrollers@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [blogrollers] Re: New social software blog


              If I may present an alternate point of view -- what's different now is
              that Clay is hyping it, and it's exclusive.

              http://www.picpix.com/brad/gallery/0008kcbx?page=1

              In that way it's very much like the hype balloons of the past.

              To me it looks like a way for you to raise VC money and for Clay to get
              consulting contracts.

              Too bad for the users of current products, I guess -- they have to wait
              for Clay and his friends to reinvent all the wheels, right?

              Remember the CD ROM business, Marc?

              Tell us about how stupid that was.

              Dave

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Dave Winer
              The only part of that sentence that I would ask you to take a look at is our software. That s the problem with manufactured trends. Some stuff is inside the
              Message 6 of 19 , Apr 27, 2003
                The only part of that sentence that I would ask you to take a look at is "our software."

                That's the problem with manufactured trends. Some stuff is inside the circle, and some is outside.

                And whether you're in or out does depend, as Andrew Orlowski posited and Clay dismissed with a joke, whether Clay likes you or not.

                Clay is a smart guy and he sure is easy to get along with, but he's not *that* smart, and easy-to-get-along-with is over-rated. Most goodsoftware is made by people who are not very easy to get along with because they are perfectionists, you have to be to get any quality to come out the other end. How much energy was wasted in the late 80s trying to get AI into your software. I saw that from the outside (I refused to jump on board) and then from the inside after merging with Symantec (an AI company, heh).

                Hey Symantec actually did do some AI software, and it wasn't bad. The funny thing is that the pundits had lost interest by the time they shipped, and the users never placed that high a value on software that understood what they meant. ;->

                Dave

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Marc Canter
                To: blogrollers@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 5:11 AM
                Subject: RE: [blogrollers] Re: New social software blog


                You're absolutely right.

                But I don't think we'll be reinventing the wheel as much as making sure our
                software is usable by humans.
                -----Original Message-----
                From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
                Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 2:03 AM
                To: blogrollers@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [blogrollers] Re: New social software blog


                If I may present an alternate point of view -- what's different now is
                that Clay is hyping it, and it's exclusive.

                http://www.picpix.com/brad/gallery/0008kcbx?page=1

                In that way it's very much like the hype balloons of the past.

                To me it looks like a way for you to raise VC money and for Clay to get
                consulting contracts.

                Too bad for the users of current products, I guess -- they have to wait
                for Clay and his friends to reinvent all the wheels, right?

                Remember the CD ROM business, Marc?

                Tell us about how stupid that was.

                Dave

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                ADVERTISEMENT




                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                ADVERTISEMENT




                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Danny Ayers
                ... Not so. I don t think I have ever had any direct communication with Clay, but his writing on social software rang some bells for me. So I put my name on
                Message 7 of 19 , Apr 27, 2003
                  > The only part of that sentence that I would ask you to take a
                  > look at is "our software."
                  >
                  > That's the problem with manufactured trends. Some stuff is inside
                  > the circle, and some is outside.
                  >
                  > And whether you're in or out does depend, as Andrew Orlowski
                  > posited and Clay dismissed with a joke, whether Clay likes you or not.

                  Not so. I don't think I have ever had any direct communication with Clay,
                  but his writing on social software rang some bells for me. So I put my name
                  on the list (on the Wiki, in actual fact). I wish to associate myself with
                  this work because I think the ideas are good. I will try and ensure that the
                  software I write is interoperates well with other software, is usable by
                  humans, etc etc. I am declaring *myself* inside the circle.

                  > Clay is a smart guy and he sure is easy to get along with, but
                  > he's not *that* smart, and easy-to-get-along-with is over-rated.

                  He's getting a great Extended Winer Number...

                  > Most goodsoftware is made by people who are not very easy to get
                  > along with because they are perfectionists, you have to be to get
                  > any quality to come out the other end.

                  Twaddle. I've seen loads of good and bad software over the years, and if
                  anything the better software came from people that were easy to get along
                  with - probably because they were better listeners.

                  How much energy was wasted
                  > in the late 80s trying to get AI into your software. I saw that
                  > from the outside (I refused to jump on board) and then from the
                  > inside after merging with Symantec (an AI company, heh).
                  >
                  > Hey Symantec actually did do some AI software, and it wasn't bad.
                  > The funny thing is that the pundits had lost interest by the time
                  > they shipped, and the users never placed that high a value on
                  > software that understood what they meant. ;->

                  I don't really see what point you're trying to make here.

                  Cheers,
                  Danny.
                • David Weinberger
                  Self/blog-promotion is ok on Blogrollers, isn t it? If so: I live-blogged the first Wolfram conference yesterday and will live-blog the morning sessions today.
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jun 28, 2003
                    Self/blog-promotion is ok on Blogrollers, isn't it?

                    If so: I live-blogged the first Wolfram conference yesterday and will
                    live-blog the morning sessions today. The entries start here:

                    http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/001700.html

                    And I write here about why I find Wolfram interesting:

                    http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/001701.html

                    If self/blog-promotion isn't ok on this list, then:

                    1. Let me know.

                    2. I won't do it again.

                    3. I'm sorry.


                    -- David W.
                    -----------------------------------------------------------
                    David Weinberger* 'zine: www.hyperorg.com
                    self@... blog: www.hyperorg.com/blogger
                    cluetrain: www.cluetrain.com
                    new book: www.smallpieces.com
                    speaking: www.hyperorg.com/speaker
                    *Elevator statement on file with building supervisor
                  • Dave Winer
                    David, as founder of this list, imho it s totally appropriate. That s what the list is for, back-channel information sharing between weblogs, of exactly this
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jun 28, 2003
                      David, as founder of this list, imho it's totally appropriate. That's what the list is for, back-channel information sharing between weblogs, of exactly this ilk. Dave



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.