Comments by Taylor Davidson

It's interesting to think of the change in the "free" debate (or perhaps, the mass media's realization of economics) in light of Facebook's intent and plans to fundamentally change privacy defaults: an example of a company realizing they need to get more serious about pimping out their users to make money from "free".

Reply | Original | Permalink | Tweet

Alan: ah, agreed. Old paper journos knew how to cover themselves because they knew it was a long-term, multiple-term game, whereas most newer entrants (bloggers, etc.) are newer to the game.

I was thinking about how there always used to be inaccurate information spread within social groups, but since it was hard to dip into those groups we couldn't "see" or "hear" about the inaccuracies and faulty logic; but now we can. I always try to think about if the behaviour is truly different, or if we're just now more aware of what's always existed.

But that's beside the entire "free" debate. I'm glad the debate is re-emerging, simply because it's been fundamentally misunderstood for a long time.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Tweet

But was the Age of Old Media really the age of reason? Has broader access to media distribution channels really changed the dynamic or merely applied it to a larger scale?

Meaning: there has always been an uneven distribution of megaphones, why does this new distribution lead to less reason (on the average, at the median, overall)?

Reply | Original | Permalink | Tweet

Thank you for starting the revolution :)

Reply | Original | Permalink | Tweet

Very cool indeed; instead of changing the entire system, he's creating a new system that works around the existing; it will start in current un-served and under-served segments and spread to the currently mis-served segments once they realize how much better the solution is; a "quiet" revolution from the quiet masses; I'm excited.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Tweet

Why must it be a question of experience OR collaboration? Isn't the biggest opportunity to find ways to blend the two?

"I predict the death of experience as the defining decision factor in who gets what job in our workforce within the next 10-15 years"

I acknowledge you're not saying it "should", just that it "will"; and while it may indeed happen, that would be terribly sad, unfortunate and misguided. I'm the first to acknowledge that experience should not be the sole gatekeeper for positions of power and influence, but I still believe that the real change (authentic, sustainable change) will be driven by those able to blend experience and collaboration.

"But what I have observed so far is that collaborating groups in this age band tend to make collectively moral decisions which include the social best interests of most players. "

High collaborators are not immune from mob behavior, group-think and social proof; to suggest this ignores much of the research into the fundamental nature of how humans work in groups.

I understand (and in many ways agree) with many of your points about control v. doing, over self-organizing and self-optimizing, of reducing transaction costs between groups, of the power of combining multiple minds v. a single person, of the ability for crowds of young people to do things previously reserved for older people; but I think we're over-correlating the *opportunity* to create change rather than the *ability* to create change.

This clash between generations, cultures, styles and methods is going to be one of the most interesting challenges for business and society in the near future (as all generational changes are); I believe the true winners will be those that can blend the cultures and methods most appropriately for their task, situation, culture, company, organization. And I sincerely hope we're able to find better ways to integrate experienced workers into the core of driving change rather than reducing them to "reference encyclopedias".

Reply | Original | Permalink | Tweet

Thanks; done...

Reply | Original | Permalink | Tweet

Quoted: "The problem is much more basic than that. It's that newspapers (and the Marburgers, apparently) are confused about how people communicate and what business they're in. They think -- incorrectly -- that newspapers are in the business of delivering the news. But that's just a small part of it. They're really in the business of building a community of folks, who they then sell to advertisers."

Reply | Original | Permalink | Tweet

That's not that different; all you really want is something that tells you what you should read, based on what you like, or what you might like (serendipity). Techmeme kinda does that, it's just more simplistic in that it assumes that if you do to Techmeme you'll like enough of the posts there to make it worth your while (marginal benefit > marginal cost, basic attention economics).

As far as the mybloglog + blogrollr combo goes: maybe. But there is something move valuable lying underneath. Forget publishing what we read, that's not valuable: instead, use what we read to tell (signal) to other people what they should read. We don't need more apps to publish information :)

Reply | Original | Permalink | Tweet

Completely with you, Richard. And I thought John Harrington hit it spot-on that the “clarification” won’t be nearly as well-read as the original, horribly misleading article.

John’s post: http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/06/ny-times-ame-mcnally-we-apologize-over.html

Reply | Original | Permalink | Tweet

It was pretty saddening to read the article, and the resulting anger from the photography community was expected (and deserved). But the odd thing is that I’ve heard the idea expressed before by people that should understand the basics of copyright law.

The sad thing is that I bet many Flickr photographers would be OK with someone printing and framing their work without compensation (not that they should, or have to, but I think many would allow it, simply for the joy of having their work displayed). But there is a big, huge, monstrous difference between asking and taking.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Tweet

The funny thing is that if we’re not passionate about what we’re doing professionally, we probably won’t be great at it. Surely we can be good enough to be a success, but perhaps not as a great a success as we could be doing something else. I often use my own mantra to help me make decisions, “Is this how I want to be remembered?

I idea of living in perpetual beta is something that struck me; the greatest hindrance to moving forward is often indecision caused by an inability to predict our future perfectly (the full, long-term benefits and costs from our decisions). We often subscribe to this fallacy that all we have to do is decide what we should be doing, and then do it; I believe that we can only find what we should be doing by simply doing it, by testing and stepping into our decisions. Perfection is overrated
Taylor Davidson´s last blog ..Embracing the lure of travel (and hullo, London).

Reply | Original | Permalink | Tweet

Oddly, I was preparing a post about the same subject myself. Returning from trips, enjoying the offline life, is a natural time for us to re-think about the amount of time we spend digging for information online. We all have a different point where the marginal benefit of reading and searching for more information and insights is equivalent to its marginal cost, yet I think few of are confident that we regularly find this point.

Perhaps we just have to assume that "if it's important I'll see it"; probably not in real-time, but eventually :)

I've been using Blogrollr to track my own web reading, but I've found that if you use an RSS reader, the tracking results don't really match what I read.

The real issue: Blogrollr solves the problem of displaying what I read (far better than a static blogroll), but it doesn't really tell me what I should read. That would involve more of a Reader/Netvibes + Twitter search + bit.ly + twiturls + Postrank + Yahoo Pipes mashup...

(consider this a relevant example: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_to_bui... )

Reply | Original | Permalink | Tweet

Perhaps the question is less about how to go out and find information, and more about how information should find you... http://twitter.com/josephdee/status/2349991918

Reply | Original | Permalink | Tweet

Whenever I find the paranoia creeping in, I repeat my mantra: "I'm
exactly where I need to be", physically, mentally, emotionally.

It's impossible to attend all "meetings", and I know that if the
meeting / conversation is particularly important it will come to my
attention at some point; I just hope I'm not an agenda on too many
meetings I miss :)

Reply | Original | Permalink | Tweet

1. « Previous
2. Page:
3. 1
4. 2
5. 3
6. 4
7. ...
8. 88
9. Next »