Back to Blogging Challenge Wrap-Up [fr]

[en] Retour sur le challenge "back to blogging".

So, a good ten days after the end of the Back to Blogging challenge, how are things going?

Well, first of all, I’ve been putting off writing this article because I’m setting myself constraints which make it a big pile of work. For example, the last two days of the challenge I was too busy to link to the articles by other participants (arguably the longest part of publishing those posts). So I’m thinking “ah, I need to do the wrap-up, but before that I should complete those articles”. Well, nope. Obviously it’s not going to happen. Maybe somebody else feels like putting a list together for those two days?

I’ve also been thinking “ah, I should make a list here of all the bloggers who successfully did the 10 days”. Participating is great, and I’m sure many of those who did not complete the challenge got something out of it, but hey, sticking to it is even greater!

So, congratulations to all those of you who stuck through the whole ten days. I’d love to hear feedback on what participating did for you!

For me, even though I feel myself sliding back into “long blog post” mode (this is an attempt to break that) I kind of got into the habit of “a post a day”, which means that when I skip a day, I notice it, and blog the next day. So I’ve been publishing pretty much every couple of days I’d say, which is pretty good.

The other thing I got out of the challenge is a sense of community amongst bloggers — something I hadn’t felt for years and really miss from the early days of blogging. I was really amazed at the sheer number (about 20!) of people who took on the challenge!

At the root of this sense of community, in my opinion, is reading what other people write. A blogger is not an island. In my last post musing about what makes a blog a blog, one of the criteria that comes up is that a blog is in the network. It links to others, is linked to, commented upon, the blogger has contacts with other bloggers or readers. A blog cannot thrive in a vacuum.

Let’s try and keep that alive, shall we? Or we’ll be overrun by the fashion bloggers 😉

C'est quoi un blog? Quelques réflexions à défaut d'une définition tranchante [fr]

[en] What's a blog? Thinking about it.

Deux articles sont apparus sur mon radar cette dernière semaine:

Les deux posent des questions de catégorie, limites, définitions. Elles sont liées: si on sait ce qu’est un blog, on sait ce qu’est un blogueur — et vice-versa. Ou bien…?

Durant mes études d’histoire des religions, j’ai appris que les catégories rigides ne fonctionnaient pas trop quand on commence à toucher aux sciences humaines. On a plutôt des définitions ou regroupements par affinité. Je crois qu’il est illusoire de vouloir dresser une liste de critères à la “si et seulement si” pour définir ce qu’est un blog. De même, je crois qu’il est illusoire de vouloir faire une distinction nette entre blogueurs et journalistes, dans le cadre des RP ou d’accréditations pour une conférence.

Il y a très longtemps, j’avais fait une page sur SpiroLattic intitulée “C’est quoi un weblog?“. Vous imaginez bien que ce n’est pas aujourd’hui la première fois qu’on se pose la question. Plus récemment, j’ai écrit ici un article (en anglais) sur les relations blogueurs, dans lequel je tente de poser quelques distinctions entre journalistes et blogueurs qui justifient de traiter ces derniers différemment.

Je vais tenter de démêler un peu ces termes. Ce qui suit n’engage que moi, ce sont mes définitions, mes conceptions, et elles n’ont pas la prétention de faire autorité (ou pire, parole d’Evangile). Tiens, d’ailleurs, en passant, à Coworking Europe j’ai l’impression qu’on a passé une bonne partie de notre temps à nous demander ce qu’était le coworking. Quelques débuts de réflexion de ma part là-dessus.

Donc, un blog — ou un weblog, comme on les a appelés durant des années — c’est quoi? Je vais essayer de partir avec une définition minimale sur laquelle tout le monde (je l’espère) sera d’accord:

  • un blog, c’est une sorte de site web
  • un blog, ça contient des articles datés (billets, posts) organisés en ordre chronologique inverse.

Je pense que si on a affaire à un truc qui n’est pas un site web, ou qui n’est pas une collection d’articles datés en ordre chronologique inverse, on aura de la peine à appeler ça un blog. Par contre je pense pas que ces deux caractéristiques soient suffisantes pour définir un blog. Nécessaires, oui, mais pas suffisantes.

Allons un cran plus loin: voici certaines caractéristiques qui sont généralement partagées par tous les blogs. Mais elles sont plus discutables. On pourrait hésiter, face à un “blog” qui ne les a pas toutes.

  • un blog permet de laisser des commentaires sur les articles
  • chaque article du blog est archivé à une URL stable permettant de faire un lien direct vers celui-ci
  • on sait qui écrit: il y a une personne ou des personnes identifiables derrière le blog, même si c’est sous pseudonyme
  • les anciens articles du blog restent en ligne, archivés chronologiquement
  • un blog facilite et automatise la publication grâce à une technologie spécifique (outil de blog/CMS) côté serveur
  • un blog est intégré d’une façon ou d’une autre dans quelque chose de plus large que lui, à travers des liens vers/depuis d’autres sites/blogs (intertextualité), ou des échanges entre le(s) blogueur(s) et d’autres via commentaires ou blogs interposés (communauté de lecteur ou e blogueurs)
  • un blog contient principalement du contenu original
  • la mise en page d’un blog consiste en une colonne principale présentant les x (généralement 10) derniers articles les uns sous les autres, généralement accompagnée d’une ou plusieurs colonnes latérales avec du contenu secondaire.

(Et hop, petit article en train de se transformer en tartine.)

Rapidement, pour chacun de ces points, un petit argumentaire expliquant pourquoi je ne les considère pas obligatoires.

Commentaires: clairement, la plupart des blogs aujourd’hui permettent les commentaires, mais il faut savoir que durant les premières années des weblogs, les commentaires n’existaient pas. Historiquement, c’est un peu restrictif. C’était pas des blogs qu’on avait? Le blog de Seth Godin, c’est pas un blog? Alors oui, un blog en général ça a des commentaires, mais l’absence de commentaires ne permet pas de dire “c’est pas un blog”.

Permaliens: pour moi, c’est une caractéristique importante du blog. C’est ça qui fait que le blog fonctionne, comme format de publication. Ça attire les liens. Chaque article est archivé pour toujours, avec un lien stable, le paradis! Mais on trouve encore des gens qui disent avoir des blogs, et qui ont des trucs qui ressemblent à des blogs, mais où il est impossible (ou très difficile) de faire un lien vers un article. Exemple: Solar Impulse. C’est un blog ou pas? (Alors oui, quelque part caché j’avais réussi à trouver comment révéler le permalien de l’article, mais on peut pas dire que ça encourage les liens.)

Auteur(s): ça, je crois que c’est super important. Il y a un être humain derrière un blog. Même si on ne sait pas son nom, il est là. Il a une personnalité. Une agence de comm’ ne blogue pas — ses employés le font. Le ton institutionnel, désincarné, impersonnel: c’est peut-être des news publiées avec un outil de blog, mais pour moi ce n’est pas un blog. Vous savez des edge-cases à proposer pour ce critère?

Archives: le format du blog est fondé sur l’organisation chronologique inverse du contenu. Les catégories sont venues bien plus tard, font à mon avis partie des “bonnes pratiques” pour un blog mais ne sont pas une fonctionnalité obligatoire. Si la première page est en ordre chronologique inverse, on s’attend à pouvoir “remonter le temps”, et trouver des archives temporelles. De plus en plus aujourd’hui, on voit des blogs (“blogs”?) qui s’en passent. Pour moi, on tombe dans le blogazine quand le thématique prend le dessus sur le chronologique. Edge case? Le Rayon UX, qui est à mon sens toujours un blog (t’en dis quoi, Fred?) même si il manque furieusement de chronologie dans l’organisation de son contenu.

Technologie: quand blogger.com a débarqué, une des choses géniales que faisait ce service était d’automatiser l’habillage répétitif des articles et leur transfert sur un serveur web. De façon générale, les blogs modernes utilisent un outil ou service de blog qui épargne au blogueur bien des manipulations techniques. Par contre, je refuse de poser ça comme une exigence. Il y a des blogs cousus main. Zeldman l’a fait pendant de longues années (disant même “c’est pas un blog!” pendant longtemps), et à moins que je ne me trompe, Karl fait toujours son blog à la mano.

Réseau: souvent, quand je regarde un “blog” en me disant “ça ressemble à un blog, mais ce n’en est pas un”, c’est cette dimension qui manque. Le blog qui blogue tout seul dans son coin, ignorant la multitude de pages du web et de gens qui les fréquentent. En général, le blogueur fait des liens vers d’autres pages (si ce n’est d’autres blogs), on (= d’autres blogueurs) fait des liens vers lui, s’il y a des commentaires il y a un minimum d’interaction — ou via articles interposés. Il y a une “culture blog”, et c’est celle du réseau, de la relation, et de la conversation.

Contenu: oui bien sûr, le blogueur produit du contenu, ajoute de la valeur quelque part. Est-ce qu’un blog sous Tumblr qui ne fait que republier sans commentaire ce qui a été trouvé ailleurs est toujours un blog? Si Digital Crumble était mon seul blog, j’avoue que j’aurais du mal à me dire blogueuse.

Apparence: j’avoue être assez vieux jeu sur ce coup. Une mise en page magazine, pour moi, ça transforme le blog en blogazine. Un blogazine, ça peut être bien — mais ce n’est plus un blog. Le chronologique a cédé la place au thématique. Et ça se voit dans la façon dont l’information est organisée sur la page d’accueil. Sans articles les uns sous les autres, j’ai du mal à appeler ça un blog. On voit d’ailleurs des blogs qui étaient partis dans une direction 100% blogazine revenir vers quelque chose d’un poil plus chronologique, même si c’est pas un long défilé d’articles les uns sous les autres. Exemple: celui de Tara Hunt.

Alors un blog, c’est quoi? Un blog, c’est plus ou moins ça. C’est cet ensemble de caractéristiques. Mais on va trouver des choses qui n’ont pas toutes ces caractéristiques et qui sont quand même des blogs, tout comme on en trouvera qui remplissent tous les critères mais… n’en sont pas. Signe qu’il faudra réfléchir plus et affiner. Définir, c’est un grand travail de va-et-vient.

Un blogueur, alors? Quelqu’un qui blogue. Mais je m’attarderai un autre jour sur ce qui le sépare du journaliste.

The Problem With Being an Early Adopter [en]

[fr] A force de grimper dans le train super tôt (et d'y rester), j'ai des fois l'impression de rater le train suivant, plus rapide, où s'installe la majorité des gens. Est-ce que tous les pionniers sont condamnés à devenir un jour des has-been?

I’m an early adopter. Not as early as some, but much much earlier than most. And I’m a quick adopter: once I’ve adopted something, I tend to use it a lot. I also stop looking, when I have a tool that does the job. I try to behave a bit more like a satisficer and a little less like the maximizer that I am deep down inside.

One of the problems with being a pioneer/early adopter is that you tend to remain stuck with the first versions of things, and miss out the second wave implementations.

I open a francophone coworking space in 2008, relying on the anglophone coworking community for support, and when I come out from under my rock in 2012 I realize that there is a whole world of francophone coworking that has grown in the time being.

I’ve been using WordPress forever, but completely missed the switch to automatic updates — because I’ve been doing it by hand for so long that setting up FTP on my server seems like too much overhead.

I’ve been running my own server for a long time, and it was recently brought to my attention that Linode existed (thanks Bret).

I’ve been using Google Docs forever too, and the other day I discover Hackpad, and realize that maybe I’ve stopped being cutting-edge.

Is this what happens? Do all early adopters turn into has-beens at some point?

A Conference Where I Hardly Knew Anybody! [en]

I had a really lovely time at Coworking Europe — it was actually very relaxing to be at a conference where I hardly knew anybody to start with. I got to know the two people I’d already met a bit better: Ramon Suarez of BetaGroup Coworking in Brussels, and Linda Broughton who founded and ran Old Broadcasting House coworking in Leeds, and was also one of the speakers at Going Solo.

It was really a change to not have the pressure of wanting to catch up with an inordinate amount of people I already knew and liked and would end up spending only a few minutes with, as it often is when I go to my “usual” conferences Lift and LeWeb.

A conference full of “new people” is like a library full of unread books. I certainly missed out on getting to know some other great people, but I did get a chance to hang out with and get to know some really lovely people I hadn’t even heard of before coming to the conference.

I love how the world is always ready to present you with new stimulating encounters. I personally like taking the time to know people a bit and tend to hang out with the same crowd throughout the conference. This is fine if you don’t know too many people. It can be very frustrating if the people you’re not hanging out with are also people you already know and appreciate and aren’t spending time with during the one occasion in the year where you have a chance to. And then I end up writing posts like this one.

It was also really nice to be in an uncommercial conference. To have a day of unconference included (I ended up hosting a session, something I absolutely hadn’t planned to do, and did on the spur of the moment because I wanted us to question the assumption that “more” is always “better” (more people, more money, more networking). I got the same kind of “high”, inspiration and remotivation that I got from my participation in Startup Weekend Lausanne earlier this year. I think I need to start going to slightly geekier events again. Like Paris Web.

Some of the people I met and got to spend a little time with, in addition to Luis and Linda: Rebecca, Stefano, Julie, Philippe, Anna, Tony, Adam, Pierre, Nicolas, Pascale, Anna… and a few more of you whose names I can’t recall right now or never learned. Say hi in the comments!

Les journaux se meurent — et les livres? [fr]

[en] Found a book by a Swiss publisher I want to buy. No way to order it online. And the publisher's contact e-mail mailbox is... full, and bounces.

Ce matin sur Facebook, je lis ceci (merci Charly):

Les journaux se meurent. Des centaines de journalistes perdent leur emploi. Mais que cache réellement cette situation sans précédent qui n’épargne pas non plus les médias audiovisuels? La crise du modèle basé sur la publicité n’explique pas à elle seule pourquoi certains groupes disparaissent et d’autres émergent jusqu’à étendre leurs tentacules sur l’ensemble d’un pays. En Suisse, les journaux gratuits font la loi et l’emprise de Tamedia ne semble plus connaître de limite après le rachat d’un autre géant, Edipresse. Pour la première fois, un groupe contrôle l’information de Zurich à Genève, sans que l’opinion publique ne bouge le petit doigt. Parallèlement, les médias perdent le goût de l’analyse. Soumis au tout économique, ils glissent hors de la réalité, fabriquant du rêve ou relatant du fait divers anxiogène. Comment en est-on arrivé à une situation qui comporte des dangers pour la démocratie? Deux journalistes d’investigation disposant d’une longue expérience professionnelle, l’un alémanique, l’autre romand, démontent le mécanisme d’un système d’information qui réduit le citoyen à un simple consommateur.

C’est la présentation d’Info popcorn, un livre que je lirais bien. Que j’achèterais bien, en fait. Malheureusement, sur le site de l’éditeur Eclectica, pas de magasin en ligne. Dommage.

Alors je leur écris, il y a une adresse e-mail sous “contact”, pour leur demander où je peux commander le livre. Parce que “disponible en librairies”, c’est gentil, mais je ne suis pas chez moi, là, je suis à l’étranger, et même si j’étais chez moi, je fais venir les livres à moi en 2012, je ne prends pas 1h pour aller voir s’ils sont dispos quelque part en ville.

Message en retour: e-mail pas livré, mailbox pleine.

Gros fail.

Le livre ne va pas mourir, ça j’en suis sûre. Les éditeurs, par contre… ça reste à voir.

Coworking: Fixed Desks or Hot-Desking? [en]

[fr] A l'occasion de la conférence Coworking Europe, j'ai pris part à un panel discutant des avantages/inconvénients des postes fixes ou mobiles.

I was on a panel at Coworking Europe about fixed desks versus hot-desking. When I opened eclau, I had a vision for it based on how Citizen Space had been set up. Mid-2008, Citizen Space was my ur-coworking-space. I was in contact with Chris and Tara and had spent a little time at the space over the summer 2007 during my stay in San Francisco.

It quickly became apparent to me that eclau’s architecture (and possibly Lausanne’s business culture) was not working out well with my desire to have a heart of fixed-desk resident coworkers.

Eclau has very few walls that are not interrupted by pipes, radiators, or windows, making it difficult to install desk+bookcase combos that most people needing a fixed desk required.

Also, people who came to visit for a fixed desk often turned out to be either people who wanted to store a lot of stuff in the space, or who wanted a “real office” and were just trying to save on the costs.

After a year or two, eclau counted only a couple of fixed desks, and way more “hot-desking” members. Roughly two years after opening, eclau 2.0 re-focused the offer on free seating, making fixed desks an extra option available to existing members. So far, nobody has actually got around to taking the fixed desk option.

That’s for my story.

One interesting idea that emerged from the panel was that coworking space managers are trying to maximize the returns for the space they have. This is kind of an alien idea to me, as I don’t earn a living with eclau — I just want it to “not cost me anything”. The debate over fixed vs. flexible desks brought us to speak of our price plans and business models, which tend to reflect how important revenue is to the space manager. Clearly, if you’re trying to make a living out of your coworking space, or if you’re making a living doing something else, the way you approach these issues will be quite different.

At eclau, I don’t really worry that summer months are “empty”. Or Fridays. Of course it’s nicer when you’re not alone when you come to work at the coworking space. But from a financial perspective it doesn’t change anything for me, because I don’t sell desk space, or time in the space, or services. People sign up to be members, for six months or a year minimum, and the yearly membership fee is spread over 12 months. So people still pay for the space in July/August, even if they’re on holiday. They’re paying to be part of the community. Not because they occupy a seat.

This fits with my vision of coworking as “community/people first”. For me the desk renting business is the business that business centers are in.

Some argue that the type of price plan I propose is not flexible. On the contrary, I see it as very flexible. The membership fee is low, because all I’m looking to do is cover my costs. Once you’re a member, you have a key, and come whenever you want. Complete flexibility.

And the rather serious commitment required of full members is balanced with an “occasional member” offer which is virtually free (tip jar) for those who want to come less than three times a month.

I also believe in keeping things dead simple. Want to be a member? Here’s how it works. You don’t need to agonize over which price plan to choose, or wonder if you want to drop in at the coworking space today and use up some of your credit. Once you’re a member, the only thing that determines whether you come or not is your need of a place to work for the day.

Now of course, if I were trying to make a living (or at least money) out of eclau, I would be doing things very differently. Because on a given day, there are a lot of empty desks at eclau. So clearly, I’m not maximizing my revenue from the space. But that’s not my objective. (Which brings us to the other session I co-held at Coworking Europe, about the criteria of success for coworking.)

My Trick for Paris Metro Tickets [en]

If you’re traveling to Paris, you probably have to deal with those pesky metro tickets. Here’s what I do to stay sane.

  • I buy 10 tickets at a time. They’ll still work next time I come if I don’t use them all.
  • I hold them together with a paper-clip.

I store my current metro ticket on top of the stack with the same paper-clip. No drama if I bump into a ticket check, because I know where to find it.

Tickets de métro

This means that each time I go through the ticket doors, I:

  1. take the stack of tickets out of my bag (!)
  2. remove the ticket from the last trip and throw it in a bin (or in my pocket so I’m ready for the next bin
  3. take a new ticket from the stack and use it to go through the door
  4. immediately place that new-used-ticket on the stack with the others, and back in my bag

You can identify a used ticket because it has something printed on it (often illegible, but still). With this technique finding my “last used one” is easy, as it’s either the top or the bottom one. And I avoid the drama of stray tickets in my bag or pockets, used or not.

Coworking Musings — Why is More Better? [en]

[fr] A Paris pour Coworking Europe. Trois jours pour penser au coworking et à l'eclau! Là, je médite sur le fait que la mesure du succès pour un espace coworking semble être "plus de coworkers" ou "plus de revenu". Je ne suis pas d'accord, comme vous imaginez, si vous connaissez un peu l'eclau...

Here I am in Paris for Coworking Europe. Three days to think about coworking and talk with other people who are also running spaces or participating in the coworking movement one way or another.

Rather than live-blog, I’ve decided to take a few notes and write more synthetic posts with my thoughts and take-aways.

One of the first things that strikes me is how success seems to be measured by numbers here. More members, better space. I’m not sure I agree. That is in any case definitely not how I manage eclau.

More members means more connections. But at what point do more connections start being “noise”? Do we always need more connections? Is this the single only indicator of success? Take the Hub Melbourne. 700 members. Mind-boggling, but is it still a community? Also, how do you count members? Are they people who have signed up to be on a list, or people who actively and regularly come and work at the coworking space?

I know I’m very careful about how I count numbers. It’s simple at eclau: a member is somebody who shells out the monthly fee. And for that, they have to have signed up for six months minimum. Yes, six months! When I give numbers, I don’t count occasional members, who can come up to 3 times a month and are on the e-mail discussion list. Many of those who sign up for occasional membership never come. Or come once. Counting them feels like cheating.

On the other hand, I see other coworking spaces boasting large numbers of coworkers but which are not “fuller” than eclau on a normal working day. Maybe we should count people actually present in the space instead. Coworker-days or something.

Something else to take into account is the size of the city the coworking space is in. You don’t have the same scale in Lausanne, which counts barely over 100K inhabitants, or London or Paris or New York. The pool of possible coworkers just cannot compare. A space with 700 members in Lausanne? That is the size of a major company for our part of the world. 12 full-time members in London is probably laughable.

Peace. I like small numbers, small groups, small communities — at least offline. I’ve been holding monthly blogger dinners for many years now, and our record attendance is less than 20 people. Despite that, these dinners have allowed countless people to meet and get to know each others, and there are many friendships and business relationships who can boast some kind of Bloggy Friday connection.

The question of numbers, and therefore connections, is probably also different whether you’re catering primarily to entrepreneurs or freelancers. Most established freelancers have their own networks. What interests them (as far as I can see at eclau, at least) is more the network of peers than a network of possible clients and business opportunities. Of course those exist and are there, but I think it’s the peer support that is at the core of eclau’s success.

These observations might be biased as there is certainly some self-selection going on. People who need more connections might go somewhere else.

For the moment, I’m quite happy for eclau to stay “small” — a coworking space where there are sometimes more cats present than humans. 😉

#back2blog challenge (10/10)

Personal, Social, and the Shortcuts [en]

[fr] Je me demande si toutes ces fonctionnalités pour nous "simplifier la vie" dans notre utilisation "sociale" des outils ne vide pas partiellement ceux-ci de leur "socialité".

Yesterday, as I was gathering the links to the posts of the other #back2blog challengers (bloody hard work if you ask me), I remembered that I had left a comment on one of Delphine‘s posts.

I’ve been leaving quite a few comments on blog posts since the challenge started. Often, with “modern” blogging tools, you can check a little box to receive an e-mail alert when somebody responds to your comment. (Not on this blog. I run WordPress, but my server doesn’t send e-mail.)

It’s nice, because it relieves us of having to remember that we left a comment, and if conversation erupts (reward!) we will be informed.

Having to remember I had left a comment at Delphine’s reminded me of the time before RSS readers were popular, before coComment, before Facebook Connect, before WordPress even. Everything was much more “manual”. And with that, I believe, more personal. Part of what goes in to create a relationship is time, and effort. Time to find that blog post. Effort to remember.

Now, JP is arguing (and I’m with him here) that when you try and scale personal, you get social.

I am wondering, though, what it is that you do lose on the way, if you scale far enough.

Mass-everything did not come up from nowhere. As I learned the hard way while promoting Going Solo, shortcuts have a price. Send an e-mail copied to 100 people, or send 100 personal e-mails, and you won’t have the same efficiency. That’s why Americans take the trouble to make house calls or phone up people to convince them to vote.

And while I immensely appreciate all the features of modern social media which make it so much more easy for us to be social, I’m starting to think that some of what I find distasteful with some uses of social media is not just those who are stuck on the other side of what I think of as the “Cluetrain paradigm shift”, but maybe also what happens when we wind up taking too many shortcuts to make it “easier to be social”.

Are we headed for a form of “mass social media”? Are we already there, sadly, for some part?

Even if this is true, that does not mean that we have to give up on the “true” social, or even “personal”.

I remember a few years ago one of my friends (Suw if I’m not mistaken) saying that she didn’t get why so many people were complaining that “Twitter wasn’t what it was”.

On Twitter, one has complete control over who one follows. You don’t have to go and follow all the new-styled social media gurus. Or the annoying self-promoting people. You can stick to those who rock your world, and have a Twitter experience that doesn’t change so much over time. (Of course the people you follow change, but that’s another thing.)

You can use Twitter like mass media, or you can use Twitter like social media, or like personal media. The choice is yours.

#back2blog challenge (9/10)

Pseudonyms on Facebook [en]

[fr] Vrais noms, faux noms, Facebook. Oui, je suis un peu crispée là-dessus.

I have to admit to a bit of a hang-up: I don’t like pseudonyms in real-names-only spaces.The first time I realized I disliked them in that context (and in that context only — I have no problem in general with anonymity/pseudonymity, except that it’s fragile and potentially dangerous to the one who tries to hide, and is bound to be discovered someday) a very long time ago, in another life, when I was very active on an e-mail discussion list called webdesign-L.

At the time, I was still suffering from the paranoia of the newcomer on the Internets: nobody shall know who I am, nobody shall know where I live, nobody shall know what I look like, nobody shall identify me. (Yes, my real online life started in the murky chatrooms of Chatplanet, in 98. I was completely freaked out about these “anonymous strangers”. I’ve come a long way.)

Until I registered climbtothestars.org, I used a pseudonym as my “real name” in all my online dealings: Tara Star. My coming-out as Stephanie Booth was not difficult, because by that time I had become increasingly uncomfortable about the fact that

  1. I was misleading a whole bunch of really nice people about my identity, when they were being honest about theirs
  2. I was starting to build a reputation for myself which was disconnected from my civilian identity.

So, on Facebook it’s different. The few contacts I have who use “fake names” use “obviously fake” names. I knew them offline before connecting to them on Facebook (you won’t find me connecting to people on Facebook that I don’t already know previously somehow or other, by the way).

But it bothers me that Facebook explicitly says “Real Names Please” and that not everyone plays by the rules. Now, I understand the rationale behind the need for anonymity/pseudonymity in some cases. That’s why I say I have a hang-up, because my position is not 100% coherent. It bothers me when people willfully “go against social norms”.

From a more practical point of view, it really annoys me to have to remember that this or that person is using this or that pseudonym on Facebook, when I know them under their real name in meatspace. It makes looking them up and inviting them to stuff complicated. And when they have two accounts, it’s even worse. Which of them do I invite? Thank goodness it’s only a small handful of my contacts that makes me think overtime 😉

This is an old topic for me — we discussed it at length on Spirolattic.

So, Facebook? Well, my hang-up makes it really difficult for me to say “yes” to friend requests from people who don’t use their real identity (or some minor variation thereof) on Facebook. But well, there are exceptions. So, dear friends-with-two-accounts-or-fake-names, consider what you mean to me if you’re in my contacts!

Thanks to Jon Husband for his question on Facebook, which prompted me to produce this dormant post.

#back2blog challenge (8/10):