Tag: Theories

Stamm Genilem sous les projos [fr]

[en] Spoke briefly at a networking event this evening. Almost froze up on stage (try cramming a general talk about blogs in business in 4 minutes, and then speaking with huge spotlights in your face which don't let you see the public at all). Didn't get a chance to say that if blogging is technically rather easy, mastering it as a media and a culture is more difficult. That's why blogging classes make sense, particularly if you're looking to use your blog "seriously" (business, politics) and can't afford to mess up too much as you learn.

Il y a un peu plus de deux mois, je découvrais ce qu’était un Stamm Genilem. Il faisait froid.

Aujourd’hui, je me suis retrouvée sous les projecteurs pour un brève présentation des blogs. Quatre misérables petites minutes! Si vous me connaissez un peu, vous savez que la concision n’est pas mon point fort. Moi qui ai l’habitude d’avoir tout l’espace que je désire à disposition sur mon blog, et de blablater durant une heure ou plus lorsque je parle en public…

Quelques réflexions un peu un vrac:

  • ne pas compter sur le bon fonctionnement de la technologie pour sa présentation
  • si on fait parler des gens qui ont un ordinateur à piloter (ou pire, une connexion internet!) pour accompagner leur présentation, prévoir un micro “sans les mains” (je le mets où, le micro, pendant que je pianote à l’ordi?)
  • beaucoup de personnes présentes dont l’activité tourne autour d’un site web ou de la fabrication de sites…
  • 4 minutes, c’est court
  • un spot, c’est éblouissant
  • quand on voit pas à qui on parle, c’est flippant
  • j’ai passé très près du “blanc du bac” (= crise de panique muette accompagnée de paralysie) environ une minute après le début de la présenation, mais Dieu merci il paraît que personne n’a rien vu
  • très sympa de voir tous ces gens que je connaissais déjà, et de discuter avec de nouvelles personnes
  • blogs et Stamm, il y a vraiment un point de rencontre: réseautage (dynamique très similaire à mon avis)
  • pour savoir ce qu’on dit de vous: tapez le nom de votre entreprise ou d’un événement dans Technorati, par exemple (qui parle de Stamm Genilem)
  • toujours en encore surprise de ce que beaucoup de choses concernant l’utilité des blogs et les dynamiques qu’ils permettent de créer aillent aussi peu de soi pour la majorité des gens; ceci n’est pas une critique à l’égard des gens en question, mais plutôt une critique que je m’adresse à moi-même: j’oublie sans cesse toujours, malgré tout, à quel point les blogs représentent un choc culturel.

Qu’est-ce que j’ai dit au sujet des blogs? En deux mots, que leur importance aujourd’hui est symptomatique de l’importance du tournant que prend (qu’a pris!) le web, pour devenir un média conversationnel. L’ère de la main-mise de certains sur l’information est révolue (médias, dirigeants, personnages publics). Le blog est un outil qui permet une publication techniquement facile et à peu de frais, et qui crée des relations entre auteur du blog et lecteurs (clients, public, partenaires…) C’est un outil de réseautage via internet, une porte qu’on peut ouvrir sur le web vivant d’aujourd’hui, et qui nous permet de faire entendre ce qu’on a offrir ou communiquer. Une image: du bouche-à-oreilles aux amphétamines.

Ce n’est pas exactement ce que j’ai dit, bien sûr, mais ça allait dans cette direction. J’ai aussi parlé du tailleur-blogueur londonien. Je n’ai pas parlé de la démo foirée de reconnaissance vocale de Vista, mais si j’avais eu un peu plus de temps…

Une chose que je n’ai pas dite du tout et que je regrette, c’est que même si on met en avant la facilité avec laquelle on peut publier quelque chose grâce à un blog (et le fait que n’importe qui peut aller sur WordPress.com et ouvrir son blog — si vous me lisez et que vous n’en avez pas, filez tout de suite en ouvrir un histoire d’essayer, et donnez-nous l’adresse en commentaire), bloguer ne va pas de soi. C’est un nouveau média à appréhender, et qui l’est d’autant plus difficilement que nous en avons une expérience passive très limitée. C’est une culture à apprendre, et dans laquelle on ne s’immerge souvent pas sans choc culturel.

Tout le monde doit apprendre à bloguer. Allez regarder les premiers billets que j’écrivais quand j’ai ouvert ce blog, pour rire. Si on fait un blog pour son propore plaisir, alors on peut sans autre apprendre sur le tas. Les erreurs sont de peu de conséquence. Si le blog ne décolle pas, on se découragera peut-être, mais ça n’aura pas d’impact grave (quoique, psychologiquement, suivant la situation et nos motivations…). Par contre, si c’est son entreprise qui est en jeu, ou bien sa carrière politique, il est normal de se sentir un peu frileux.

Donc, page de pub: primo, il y a le cours du Centre Patronal sur les blogs. Inscrivez-vous.. Rectification: le cours sur “comment faire un site web facilement et sans prise de tête, en profitant de surfer sur la Vague 2.0 le Web 2.0 pour augmenter sa visibilité en tirant parti de la puissance de réseau d’internet” (c’est bon, vous pouvez respirer). Oui je sais, je la ramène souvent avec ce cours (vous pouvez donc en déduire qu’il reste des places). Si vous avez des idées plus originales pour le faire connaître, je suis preneuse.

Deuxio, c’est pour ça qu’on loue les services des gens qui s’y connaissent (bibi entre autres) quand on se lance dans l’aventure, bêtement. N’hésitez pas à prendre contact, et on verra si je peux vous aider ou vous aiguiller vers quelqu’un qui peut.

Voilà, fini la pub. Vous pouvez aller vous coucher. (Et moi aussi, accessoirement.)

Bad Sector in Memory [en]

[fr] Je recherche un billet sur lequel je n'arrive plus à mettre la main, qui disait (ou en tout cas me faisait penser) que le blogueur-consultant qui fait du "consulting gratuit" sur son blog par moment (critiquant tel ou tel service) est en fait en train d'encourager ses clients potentiels à lui donner un mandat avant qu'il ne l'ouvre en public (enfin, si son blog est assez connu), puisque son feedback sera ainsi traité en interne.

Quelqu'un voit lequel c'est?

Maybe you can help me. I read this recently but unfortunately did not file it in either my shared reading items or my del.icio.us links. It was a piece, written by a blogger who is also a consultant (I thought it was Euan or Stowe, but I can’t find the post on either of their blogs)), which basically said that one possible (perverted?) effect of giving “free consulting” on one’s blog (like I’ve done a couple of times) is that if your profile as a blogger is high enough, it could be an incentive for prospective clients to bring you in before you start blogging about their flaws/faults in public.

This was based on the realisation that as a blogger/consultant, one tends to not be so public about stuff the client has to improve, as the input goes to them internally and gets treated there. I’ve clearly noticed that since I’ve been working for coComment.

So, can anybody tell me where I read this? What is my source?

Cours de psychologie féline — euh, humaine [fr]

[en] Most efficient way for dealing with humans who complain that your cat is excerting revenge on them by peeing on doors: don't try to explain that cats don't have human feelings or attitudes. Instead, tell your cat sternly off in presence of the complaining person (just talk normally but firmly, of course, no being nasty), and say something like "Now, Puss, have you heard that? You can't go on peeing on doors like that. I want you to behave, understood?" And tell the person that you're going to have a serious discussion with the guilty feline about the situation.

Un truc infaillible pour régler le sort des personnes bien intentionnées qui se plaignent de problèmes avec votre chat en l’anthropomorphisant à outrance (concierge, voisine du dessus, etc.) Exemple: votre chat se venge des gens qu’il n’aime pas en allant marquer sur les portes des appartements quand il les voit. Tenter d’expliquer que ce genre de comportement ne correspond pas à la psychologie féline se solde en général par un échec cuisant et du temps perdu (conversation tournant désespérément en rond).

Remède

Ramasser le chat, qui durant la conversation est venu voir de quoi il s’agissait. Regarder ensuite sévèrement le coupable qui ronronne dans vos bras et lui dire: “Bon, Bagha, tu entends ce qu’elle dit, hein? Ça ne va pas du tout. Faut vraiment que tu apprennes à te comporter correctement, c’est compris? A partir de maintenant, plus de marquage sur les portes que la concierge vient de nettoyer, d’accord? Sinon, je vais me fâcher!”

Et préciser à la personne qui se plaint que vous allez avoir une discussion sérieuse avec votre chat et que vous comptez bien lui faire entendre raison.

A problèmes humains, solutions humaines.

Weak Ties [en]

[fr] Plus que de savoir quels parfaits inconnus sont à l'endroit où je suis, je voudrais savoir quelles personnes avec lesquelles j'ai des liens faibles ("weak ties") sont dans le coin. Quelqu'un qui a commenté sur mon blog, par exemple, ou qui a participé à la même conférence que moi.

Kevin Marks says we need a Weasley’s clock rather than a Marauder’s map. I generally agree with this. Most of the times, I’m more interested in knowing where (and when) the people I know (or the people I have weak ties with) are, than in knowing which complete strangers are where I am (or in letting complete strangers know who I am).

Unfortunately, in most systems, it’s too much work to get people on your “buddy list”. Stowe‘s talk at SHiFT encouraged me to take a second look at my Plazes account, which I had more or less given up on using because it systematically placed me at the other end of the country when I logged on.

I might be very interested in knowing I’m geographically close to somebody who commented on my blog, or on whose blog I commented. Or somebody who was at SHiFT but that I didn’t actually get a chance to talk to. What if a system like Plazes was capable of doing that?

I finally understood at SHiFT what weak ties were, and I think this idea has all to do with them.

Give Us Time to Digest Talks [en]

[fr] Le format des conférences (particulièrement celles avec un public de blogueurs, donc producteurs actifs de contenu) doit changer. On nous fait écouter des choses intéressantes, il faut nous laisser le temps d'en faire quelque chose. Après deux présentations, j'ai de quoi bloguer ou discuter au moins une heure! En rajouter deux de plus par-dessus, même avec une pause d'une demi-heure, ne fait qu'accélérer la grillade de cervelle.

Talking with a couple of people during the SHiFT closing party, we agreed that the conference format has to change. If you’re putting a bunch of people in a room, particularly bloggy people who are used to producing content and thinking on keyboards, and you’re hopefully providing them with thought-provoking thoughts and speakers, you need to give them time to digest the talks.

After two talks, I’ve got enough stuff in my head to blog for an hour or talk for the same length of time with the people who were in the same room. After four talks in a row, even with a thirty-minute break in between, my brain is fried and I just stall.

That’s why I’m really excited to see how the LIFT’07 concept works out. One day with lots of small talks (select those you want to see, skip the rest), and another day with keynotes and huge chunks of time around them.

Looking at what awaits me tomorrow, I’m feeling a tad apprehensive…

Culture Shock in Second Life [en]

[fr] Second Life est vraiment ressenti par ceux qui l'utilisent comme un espace physique. Preuve en est le sentiment de désorientation qui m'habite alors que je découvre cet espace -- sentiment très proche de celui qui a accompagné mes premiers jours un Inde: un choc culturel. On trouve également dans Second Life des problèmes de racisme. A mon avis, un terrain fertile pour mieux comprendre, par exemple, comment l'utilisation de jeux vidéos interactifs (comme WoW) peut agir sur nous.

After my first few hours inside Second Life, I realized that the confusion I was feeling was very similar to what I had experienced when I first arrived in India: I was suffering from a culture shock.

There were people all around me that looked like nothing I’d ever seen before. I had trouble communicating (I’d try to chat and I’d fly up in the air) and identifying what I saw in my surroundings. I didn’t know where to go. I read notes which mentioned places which ringed no bells. I just didn’t know what to do or where to start.

But what really rang the “culture shock” bells for me was that I was feeling anxious and afraid of the avatar-people around me. I feared somebody would pounce on me (well, my avatar, but by then the identification process had kicked in), or animate my avatar against my will, or start shouting obscene things at me. I felt pretty insecure and vulnerable amongst all these people with masks on their faces. I had no idea what to expect from them, just as I had no idea what to expect from people when I landed in India.

In India, I was afraid to go out by myself and explore. In Second Life, I get some of that feeling too. I’m afraid of ending up in “bad places”. Talk of griefers and guns makes me scared. So I tend to hang out in the New Citizens Plaza a lot. (Note: if you click on that URL, you’ll be shown where that place is on a map of Second Life. If you’re running Second Life, you can click on the “Teleport” button to go there. Doesn’t seem to work for me, though.) Then last night buridan showed me to Joi‘s island Kula (fun stuff there with merry-go-rounds and dancing floors).

The interesting point here is that I’m exploring Second Life space just as I do real physical geographical space. I find the same patterns in my behaviour. Same with activities that do not match anything in my life experience yet: flying, teleporting — I don’t tend to do these things much yet, just as it took me a while to start taking rickshaws on my own, queueing to get somebody else to photocopy (“Xerox”) documents for me, and fend off beggars efficiently.

Second Life is much more than “chat with graphics”. As I told my Grandma on the phone yesterday, when she asked me what on earth my last posts were about, it’s almost like an “internet inside the internet”. There are chatrooms in it, but they are informal and transient: put a few people in an open space, and if they gather and start talking, you have a chatroom-like atmosphere. But you can walk/fly/teleport away, do your hair or build/program stuff while the others talk. All that without leaving Second Life.

As a long-time IRC chatroom inhabitant, I see two major differences between what I’m used to and Second Life.

From the chatroom point of view, first of all, you cannot be in two places at once inside Second Life. On IRC, I sit in way more than one chatroom at a time, and it’s not uncommon for me to be conducting conversations in two or three chatrooms at once. In Second Life, you can send private messages in parallel to the “physical group conversation” you’re having, but you can’t have more than one group conversation.

Another “quality” of Second Life that strikes me is that it’s less “partial-attention-friendly” than text-only chat or instant messaging — or even web surfing. I find it very hard to do “something else” at the same time as I’m in Second Life. I think it has something to do with the graphical nature of Second Life, and how rich an environment it is. There’s enough material inside Second Life for partial attention as it is 🙂 — but also, the fact there is a graphical representation of the people you’re chatting with helps capture one’s attention. (Maybe I feel things this way because I’m new to Second Life, I might think differently later on.)

So, even though Second Life is an entirely on-the-computer thing, it clearly activates the pathways in our brains that we use to deal with physical space and beings. I’ve already said many times that the internet is broadly perceived as “space without space”, but it’s much more obvious in Second Life. Another element that shows us how “real” this virtual environment is to our brains is the presence of racism in Second Life. The topic came up when I was talking to a few “Furries” (ie, people with an animal-like avatar) who mentioned there were “furry areas” because Furries were often subject to discrimination from others. Even though we know the aspect of a Second Life citizen is a mask, it seems to have an impact on the way we relate to him/her.

This, to me, is related in some way to the fact that the learning experiences you make in interactive virtual worlds (think “video games”) affect your “non-game” life as well (think “flight simulators”). Which can bring us to question, for example, what effect it can have on one’s brain to spend a long number of hours “killing virtual people”. But that’s another chapter!

Nuit du Journal Intime: quelques paroles [fr]

[en] Excerpts of an interview I gave last week to the DRS with other participants to "la Nuit du Journal Intime". I speak of intimacy (what it is for me, are we losing intimacy), blogs and private diaries on the web (not viable in the long run, in my opinion), and of what I don't say about myself on my blog (a lot!)

Comme je l’ai raconté, nous avons été interviewés par la DRS après le débat ouvrant la Nuit du Journal Intime. J’ai reçu le CD et fait une compilation de ce que j’ai dit à cette occasion, avec quelques commentaires.

A votre disposition en format MP3, 3.4Mb pour 7 minutes d’audio (oui, j’ai des progrès à faire, suggestions bienvenues): DRS Interview (extraits + commentaires)

J’y parle:

  • de ma conception de l’intimité et de sa perte éventuelle
  • de la viabilité et de la possibilité d’un journal intime sur internet
  • de la mise en scène de soi dans le monde “online”
  • de ce dont je ne parle pas dans mon blog…

Si je fais référence à des choses dans ce “podcast” et que vous voulez des précisions, des liens, etc… n’hésitez pas à demander des compléments: les commentaires sont là pour ça!

(Et question subsidiaire pour ceux qui sont abonnés à ce blog: est-ce que le fichier MP3 apparaît comme un “enclosure”?)

(Et question subsidiaire pour ceux qui s’y connaissent: comment je peux faire apparaître un slider audio dans le billet pour que les gens puissent écouter juste en cliquant sur le bouton “play”?)

Power Laws, Popularity, Authority, A-Lists and the Rest… [en]

Things are colliding in my mind and slowly falling into place. A word of warning, however: contents may have settled while shipping. Here are the ingredients:

Popularity begets popularity

Neige et lune 13When the photograph you see here suddenly ranked number twelve in Flickr “interestingness” for the day it was taken, I got a bunch of very appreciative comments about it. But something bothered me: it’s a nice photograph, but it’s certainly not the best photograph I’ve taken. However, it was attracting all the attention. And as it was attracting attention, it was becoming more and more “Flickr-interesting”.

Then I stayed stuck on the WordPress.com home page for a couple of days, and watched my traffic soar up and come right back down again. I was getting visitors because I had been labeled as “fast-growing” or whatever, not because I had suddenly become brilliant. Proof being the decrease in traffic after the peak. What’s popular becomes more popular, or stays popular, because it’s popular. At some point, just being popular is enough.

And, as I was already hinting in my previous post on the subject, it’s normal. That’s the way things go. I found confirmation of what I suspected in this article on hit songs. They explain that we are more likely to say we like a song if we see that others have already said they like it. Yeah, it’s not a part of us we like looking at, but we’re influenceable. It’s human. They set up an experiment with two groups which have to rate songs. One group can see ratings of other group members, but the other cannot.

In the independent condition, participants chose which songs to listen to based solely on the names of the bands and their songs. While listening to the song, they were asked to rate it from one star (“I hate it”) to five stars (“I love it”). They were also given the option of downloading the song for keeps.

.[…]

In the social influence group, participants were provided with the same song list, but could also see how many times each song had been downloaded.

Researchers found that popular songs were popular and unpopular songs were unpopular, regardless of their quality established by the other group. They also found that as a particular songs’ popularity increased, participants selected it more often.

So, let’s say it so it’s said: it’s normal that the most “popular” blogs get the most visibility, links, and visitors. That happens because they’re popular. They don’t totally suck, of course, or they wouldn’t have got “popular enough” for the feedback loop to work in the first place, but they are helped in remaining popular by the fact they are popular. Which maybe puts pressure on some to keep the quality level up.

Popularity or authority?

Popular? Visited, linked, or some combination thereof. People hear about it, talk about it, go and see it. That’s popular. Popularity is pretty close to things you can measure, like how many visitors a site has (that’s the numbers you see in news articles), or how many incoming links it has (that’s what Technorati tracks).

But is that what we really want? People who blog clearly want recognition of some sort (otherwise, we wouldn’t take the trouble of writing in a public space), but is recognition in numbers really what we’re after? At LIFT’06, I heard Robert say that it wasn’t the number of readers of his blog that mattered, but who these people were. Is your readership going to come and leave without a word, or react, start conversations, influence the people around them? What matters is how your audience scales. But in some way, we’re still thinking about numbers, here: “how can I have the most influence?”

I think that what we’re really after isn’t recognition by numbers, because somewhere inside we know that numbers are fake. I can be hugely popular but still not feel recognized for who I am or what I’m worth or what I’m saying. I suspect that what we want to be recognized for is more along the lines of authority in a certain field (ie, what we write about). We want people to see that we have something valid to say. That we have ideas that are original or provocative or that help things move along. That we know what we’re talking about. That, for me, is authority. And that cannot be measured by incoming links, visitors, or even conversational indexes.

This is why I find it increasingly disturbing that Technorati is calling (and has been calling “authority” something which is in fact much nearer to “popularity”. It gives us the impression it’s measuring what we want (authority) when in fact it’s measuring something which is maybe more superficial (linkedness-popularity) but more measurable. So we get all worked up by the A list popularity problem, and gatekeepers, and stuff like that — when in fact being in the A list probably isn’t really what most people want. It’s confusing something qualitative (authority) with something quantitative (number of links).

Quality and visibility

Robert wrote a post giving tips for joining the A list, and Stowe Boyd responded with tips of his own, saying Robert’s were a bit superficial.

Both posts have valid tips and insights, but they run along two different lines. Robert’s post is more about “how to be more visible/become more popular” and Stowe’s is more about “being a good blogger”. Both are important. You can be a good blogger, have a good blog, but stay in the shadows more than you deserve because you’re not visible enough. And you can make yourself visible all you want, all that agitation isn’t going to bring you recognition if you don’t have “good content” (in the wide sense).

A list thoughts

People often think that getting mentioned in some high-traffic blog will automatically bring visibility. Not true. Robert mentioned me twice in his blog during the last week (and he actually said really nice things about me), but that just made a bump in my stats. Not a huge peak with server overload and comments pouring in and hundreds of other links. Just a little bump. (And it’s not like I already have 5’000 readers anyway.) On the same day, Robert talked about coComment, also saying really nice things , and as a result, all hell broke loose and in a matter of hours, coComment was all over the blogosphere. Well, that’s because coComment is a major advancement for the blogosphere, and I’m not. It’s not being linked which is important — it’s what you are. (So, if you’re a post or a blog, whether you’re an interesting post or blog.)

Another interesting thing about most of these so-called “A list blogs” is that I barely read them (OK, I barely read any blogs, but that’s another story). The only reason I drop by on Boing Boing every now and again is because it’s “blog number one” and people talk about it all the time. It’s not on my A list. (Which isn’t to say it’s bad — it isn’t — it’s just not a compelling read for me.) Robert’s blog was exactly the same for me until recently. I’m reading it now, but that’s because I met him at LIFT’06 and discovered he’s a really sweet person. I read his blog because I appreciate him as a person, and I’m generally interested in reading what people I like are writing.

Maybe I’m a weird blogger who doesn’t know how to recognize a great blog and only reads blogs of people she knows. I see this trend in my reading habits, I’ll be honest about that. I think Random Acts of Reality is one of the rare exceptions to this rule. I remember when the “A list complaining” was about Megnut, Evhead, Kottke and the like, in the good ol’ Blogger days. None of these blogs really attracted me as a reader, their popularity put aside.

Wrap-up

I’m not sure many of you will have had the patience to trudge through this long, rambling post, so I’ll try to summarize things for you:

  • being popular helps you stay popular; it’s a normal thing, because we tend to like what other people like; nothing wrong with that, just be aware of it;
  • popularity is not authority; popularity is easy to measure, it’s quantitative; authority is qualitative; maybe we think we want popularity, but what we really want is recognition for our authority;
  • being a good blogger and being a visible blogger are not the same thing, though they can work together well; different tips apply;
  • a link on an A list blog is not going to drive tons of traffic your way and put you in the limelight unless you really deserve it; A list blogs aren’t necessarily fascinating for all readers — remember part of their popularity comes from being popular, so don’t fret if you don’t understand what all the fuss is about.

As a final note, I’m pretty happy where I am:

  • in the Swiss French media, I have what amounts to “popularity which begets popularity”, and it’s not always all that great: I often feel I get called for interviews more because my name is all over the place than because the journalist has read stuff I wrote and wants to know more about what I have to say on this or that topic;
  • I’m not certain I’d like to have 20’000 readers ready to tear apart every post I made;
  • I don’t think I’d like people gravitating around me in the hope I’d “out” them and bring them their well-deserved popularity;
  • and I certainly wouldn’t like having resident trolls!

Thanks for reading (or skimming), and feel free to react to what I say here. I’m aware some of it is probably a little clumsy or beside the point. Show me where.

How Will CoComment Change Our Commenting Habits? [en]

I was really excited to be able to talk about coComment yesterday Saturday night, and I really think it’s a great service, but I never thought it would pick up as fast as it did. As I heard Robert saying at LIFT, the blogosphere is not about how many people read you, but about who does, and how things scale and can get out of hand once the masses get hold of them.

CoComment is already changing the way I participate in comments (conversations!) on other blogs. I feel more connected. I feel like it makes more sense to leave a comment on a blog I scarcely visit, because it’s not a message in a bottle anymore: I have an easy way to get back to it. CoComment makes my activity on other blogs visible, so it encourages me to be active (yeah, that’s how I am! I like the spotlights, didn’t they tell you?) and maybe more conversational.

On the other hand, this is what I see coming: more popularity for popular blogs or posts or commenters (coComment will amplify the feedback loop effect for comments). Easy celeb’ stalking. Maybe more self-consciousness about “where I comment” and “what I comment”? Comments by top commenters will have a different weight on your blog, and different consequences, because they’ll get a different visibility. A-lister X’s comment on a lowly blog may have gone unnoticed until now, but if they use coComment, it won’t anymore. Will we start signing out of coComment to retain privacy over a certain amounts of comments we make, and that we don’t want in the public eye?

I’m really happy to see coComment gaining so much popularity. I’m just a bit worried. Is this too much success/visibility to soon? I’ve seen people (gently) bitching around already about what a shame it was that coComment did not support all blog platforms, or that it only tracked comments by coCommenters. Laurent says he’s pushing to open it up on Monday night, but I wonder: is it really a good idea? What are the risks involved? What has the most potential for damage: frustrating people because they can’t yet be “part of it”, or not being able to manage the scaling, user feedback, and user expectations for a public service?

I know I’m a worry-bug, and Laurent and Nicolas are smart and know the insides of the service much better than I do — so I’ll just go and prepare my stuff for school and worry about useful things for my life just now (like, what am I going to teach this morning). All the same, guys: “Soyez prudents!”

Visibility is in Feedback Loops [en]

[fr] Ce qui est populaire le reste, et devient plus populaire encore, justement parce que c'est populaire. De temps en temps un pic de visibilité se présente à  nous (comme le montre l'illustration ci-dessous). Est-ce que ceux qui sont les plus connus le sont simplement parce qu'ils proposent un menu qui convient à  la majorité, et qu'ils savent tirer avantage de ces pics pour rester la tête hors de l'eau? Est-ce vrai? Est-ce bien? Est-ce mal? Qu'en dites-vous?

Last month, I had a jump in my Cheese Sandwich stats:

Traffic peak graph.

This was because the post Get an iBook! had for some reason or another made it to the “Fastest growing weblogs” list which appears in every WordPress.com dashboard. And it stayed stuck there. I think there was a bug or something and it got stuck there, but it might also have been a little feedback loop: what is popular becomes more popular because it is popular — I’ve discussed this briefly regarding a photograph of mine which suddenly became ‘interesting’ in Flickr.

So, let’s first note one thing: this little peak of traffic finally had no long-term effects for me. My traffic is back down to what it was before. Sometimes a feedback loop can send you into another playground, but most times it doesn’t. So either you try to create another popularity burst, or you just keep plodding along your way.

My second thought is that popularity, visibility, fame, or whatever-you’ll-call-it mainly has to do with feedback loops. If something is very visible, you’re more likely to know about it. Sounds stupid, doesn’t it? I think I’m coming to accept it’s a rule of the game. But to stay in the limelight once the feedback loop has put you there, you need certain qualities. Which ones? Look at the latest interesting photos on Flickr. What do they have in common?

I think you can have a great mind, great style, great many things, and still stay in the shadow if the right feedback loop doesn’t come along. Is being successful just a case of managing feedback loops and getting them to work for you? Is this bad?

I know nothing about feedback loops, actually, so what I’m saying here might very well be a lot of BS. I’ll let you decide. I’m feeling very conversational after LIFT.