<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Next Evolution of Social Media&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html</link>
	<description>Canada's Search and Social Media Authority</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:01:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grace</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-149636</link>
		<dc:creator>Grace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:58:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-149636</guid>
		<description>Great post, Jennifer. I completely sympathize with your concern about social media promoting &quot;popular&quot; as opposed to quality content.  It seems to me that many social media networks run the risk of deteriorating into what eerily resembles a high school popularity contest.  The process of improving your website&#039;s position has become more about collecting votes &amp; &quot;likes&quot; and less about circulating valuable and compelling content.  Sensationalist stories that amount to little more than tawdry gossip flood my social stratosphere because they&#039;re endorsed by the masses (but certainly not me).  Who needs to make straight A&#039;s when you have the approval of the football team?  My hope is that, like our high school selves, social media will &quot;grow up&quot; and recognize that it&#039;s in everyone&#039;s best interest to promote excellence over trends.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post, Jennifer. I completely sympathize with your concern about social media promoting &#034;popular&#034; as opposed to quality content.  It seems to me that many social media networks run the risk of deteriorating into what eerily resembles a high school popularity contest.  The process of improving your website&#039;s position has become more about collecting votes &amp; &#034;likes&#034; and less about circulating valuable and compelling content.  Sensationalist stories that amount to little more than tawdry gossip flood my social stratosphere because they&#039;re endorsed by the masses (but certainly not me).  Who needs to make straight A&#039;s when you have the approval of the football team?  My hope is that, like our high school selves, social media will &#034;grow up&#034; and recognize that it&#039;s in everyone&#039;s best interest to promote excellence over trends.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Team Reading List 2.8.08 &#187; (EMP) E-Marketing Performance</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-2602</link>
		<dc:creator>Team Reading List 2.8.08 &#187; (EMP) E-Marketing Performance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:18:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-2602</guid>
		<description>[...]  The Next Evolution of Social Media&#226;&#166; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  The Next Evolution of Social Media&acirc;&brvbar; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 50 best social media links - Twitter Blogs and Bookmarks</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-930</link>
		<dc:creator>50 best social media links - Twitter Blogs and Bookmarks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 04:45:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-930</guid>
		<description>[...]  The Next Evolution of Social Media… [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  The Next Evolution of Social Media… [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer Osborne</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-929</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Osborne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:38:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-929</guid>
		<description>Elizabeth and Kimota, thank you!

Charlie, I really appreciate differing points of view.  I was referring more to the new aggregation sites where the ability to personalize would allow me to show more of who I am i.e. science and technology versus odd stuff or celebrity news.

Agreed that FB does a better job at letter your &quot;whole self&quot; come out.  I think SU has done a better job here too.

But this raises a great point.  We talk in terms of social media but the various mediums are quite different from each other.  How we interact with a news aggregater is totally different than social bookmarking, SU, FB, etc.

hmmm, maybe this should be another post?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Elizabeth and Kimota, thank you!</p>
<p>Charlie, I really appreciate differing points of view.  I was referring more to the new aggregation sites where the ability to personalize would allow me to show more of who I am i.e. science and technology versus odd stuff or celebrity news.</p>
<p>Agreed that FB does a better job at letter your &#034;whole self&#034; come out.  I think SU has done a better job here too.</p>
<p>But this raises a great point.  We talk in terms of social media but the various mediums are quite different from each other.  How we interact with a news aggregater is totally different than social bookmarking, SU, FB, etc.</p>
<p>hmmm, maybe this should be another post?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: charlie robinson</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-928</link>
		<dc:creator>charlie robinson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:13:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-928</guid>
		<description>You say: &quot;Is it possible to bring more personalization into Social Media?&quot;

I think what social media sites are providing - well, in my experience with FB for sure - is a far larger cross section of interests about one particular person. Why do we need to categorise and pigeon hole people? Isn&#039;t that the friend experience - getting all the different angles that make the whole person?

I also have to disagree with the personalising of pages eg via design etc as it DOES make me concentrate on the content.

Sorry but I guess I&#039;m not really agreeing. But that&#039;s OK!!! xc</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You say: &#034;Is it possible to bring more personalization into Social Media?&#034;</p>
<p>I think what social media sites are providing &#8211; well, in my experience with FB for sure &#8211; is a far larger cross section of interests about one particular person. Why do we need to categorise and pigeon hole people? Isn&#039;t that the friend experience &#8211; getting all the different angles that make the whole person?</p>
<p>I also have to disagree with the personalising of pages eg via design etc as it DOES make me concentrate on the content.</p>
<p>Sorry but I guess I&#039;m not really agreeing. But that&#039;s OK!!! xc</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: (EMP) E-Marketing Performance &#187; : &#187; Team Reading List 2.8.08</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-927</link>
		<dc:creator>(EMP) E-Marketing Performance &#187; : &#187; Team Reading List 2.8.08</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:55:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-927</guid>
		<description>[...]  The Next Evolution of Social Media… [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  The Next Evolution of Social Media… [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elizabeth Able</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-926</link>
		<dc:creator>Elizabeth Able</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:51:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-926</guid>
		<description>One thing I&#039;d do to SU is rename &quot;add as a friend&quot; to &quot;subscribe.&quot;  Subscribing doesn&#039;t mean someone is my friend, and calling it adding someone as a friend trivializes the human relationships that do also form independently of if I read their blog.

I will subscribe to someone I think is interesting, if they&#039;re my &quot;friend&quot; or not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One thing I&#039;d do to SU is rename &#034;add as a friend&#034; to &#034;subscribe.&#034;  Subscribing doesn&#039;t mean someone is my friend, and calling it adding someone as a friend trivializes the human relationships that do also form independently of if I read their blog.</p>
<p>I will subscribe to someone I think is interesting, if they&#039;re my &#034;friend&#034; or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Next Evolution of Social Media&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-925</link>
		<dc:creator>The Next Evolution of Social Media&#8230;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:27:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-925</guid>
		<description>[...] read an interesting post today, with the same title. Author of the article argues that the very design model of social media is [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] read an interesting post today, with the same title. Author of the article argues that the very design model of social media is [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kimota</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-924</link>
		<dc:creator>Kimota</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:02:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-924</guid>
		<description>Excellent post and one that rings true for a lot of people I&#039;m sure. This is a huge dilemma as the very nature of social media is also its undoing.

Some out-loud thinking follows...

Because networking is such an important part of social media - where we add each other as contacts because we enjoy each other&#039;s content - this function then feeds the loyalty bias in voting up posts. Maybe the algos should be adjusted to recognise the bias of these people listed as contacts on a person&#039;s profile, reducing the tendency for people to get a post hot simply by developing and actioning an active and loyal list of contacts.

The problem will then become that people won&#039;t add contacts but will find ways of networking off-site to build their Digg brigades. Hmmm... what to do...

Or... to prevent the above, if a person automatically gets added to a contact list after voting up that users content x number of times in recognition of their likely bias. X could be rated as a ratio of those votes against their overall votes against the number of users of a site so that a site with a smaller number of users would have a larger x triggering the bias algo.

Or I could simply be out of my mind.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent post and one that rings true for a lot of people I&#039;m sure. This is a huge dilemma as the very nature of social media is also its undoing.</p>
<p>Some out-loud thinking follows&#8230;</p>
<p>Because networking is such an important part of social media &#8211; where we add each other as contacts because we enjoy each other&#039;s content &#8211; this function then feeds the loyalty bias in voting up posts. Maybe the algos should be adjusted to recognise the bias of these people listed as contacts on a person&#039;s profile, reducing the tendency for people to get a post hot simply by developing and actioning an active and loyal list of contacts.</p>
<p>The problem will then become that people won&#039;t add contacts but will find ways of networking off-site to build their Digg brigades. Hmmm&#8230; what to do&#8230;</p>
<p>Or&#8230; to prevent the above, if a person automatically gets added to a contact list after voting up that users content x number of times in recognition of their likely bias. X could be rated as a ratio of those votes against their overall votes against the number of users of a site so that a site with a smaller number of users would have a larger x triggering the bias algo.</p>
<p>Or I could simply be out of my mind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer Osborne</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-922</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Osborne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:02:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/the-next-evolution-of-social-media.html#comment-922</guid>
		<description>Hi Kim, I agree it&#039;s a tough one.  The submitter is critical to the equation and quality is definitely defined by the user.  I really appreciate you adding to the conversation by providing a different point of view!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Kim, I agree it&#039;s a tough one.  The submitter is critical to the equation and quality is definitely defined by the user.  I really appreciate you adding to the conversation by providing a different point of view!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

