For the past few months, I have been a part of the private beta of TheGoodBlogs.  Today they opened the public beta.

TheGoodBlogs is a blog link aggregator that displays links to other topical blog posts via an easy to use and highly configurable widget.  You may have noticed the widget in the right hand column at Newsome.Org.

One of the benefits of TheGoodBlogs is exposure.  Your blog posts get rotated through the widgets on other blogs.  This results in new traffic and new readers.

But the benefit I enjoy the most is the ability to spot and click to other people's blog posts via the widget on my blog.  I first noticed a number of the blogs I currently subscribe to via TheGoodBlogs widget.

Vernon and Tony have a really good thing going, and I recommend TheGoodBlogs to any blogger looking to find and be found.

Kate Trgovac (a regular read I found via TheGoodBlogs) has a good write-up on TheGoodBlogs.  Mathew Ingram, Mark Evans, Laurence Timms (creator of Chuquet) and Ian Delaney are other blogging pals of mine who have been a part of TheGoodBlogs beta.

I have reluctantly concluded that in order to take my new passion for photography to the desired level, I am going to have to learn Photoshop.  I can't adequately describe the dread inherent in that phrase.

About 8 or so years ago, I took a deep breath and bought Photoshop.  At the time, I found it to be about 65,000 times more complicated than I thought it needed to be.  I gave up and decided to learn Pascal, Latin and Chinese instead.  At the same time.  While jumping rope.  It was much easier.

But having seen so much of Thomas Hawk's great photography and having read a few tutorials on the various photography sites, I have to jump back into that great ball of confusion.

What are the best books to read to learn Photoshop?  Are there better ways to learn it?

I need something that is easy to follow, but comprehensive enough to allow me to know what can be done with photos, as well as how to do it.

Suggestions will be appreciated!

A beautiful irony is when some self-impressed cat like Steve Gillmor talks about the "stupid blogosphere" in a blog post.

Another beautiful irony is when I am forced to agree with someone whose entire internet persona I find utterly irritating.  But, sadly, Steve is right about TV.  He's just wrong about the reason.

It is dead.  When shows like Deadwood can't make it and Deal or No Deal can, TV is dead.  When I have to find out about a show as perfect as Firefly after it has been off the air for almost 4 years, TV is dead.

When I can watch the entire season of Firefly in a week via Netflix, TV is dead.

When there are no network shows that I would allow my kids to watch, TV is dead.

But it's not about the internet.  No one other than a honking nerd wants to watch TV in a little window on a computer, when a big screen HDTV plasma is sitting 20 feet away.

Podcasts are too hard to make and no one listens to them.  I do a podcast, but it is becoming more chore than pleasure.  If someone can put their favorite songs on an iPod and listen to them on the train, why in the world would they download and listen to the nasal rants of some geek talking about technology that no one cares about?

It would be more productive to have open Skype calls once a week than to do podcast after podcast and toss them into the ether.  But most podcasters are doing it for themselves, not for the audience, so that doesn't happen.

It's not about Digg or MySpace either.  Grownups don't use those sites.  And most of the 20-somethings I know who do still watch plenty of TV content.  Sometimes they TIVO it; sometimes they wait a season and watch the episodes on DVD.  But in no way, shape or form has some butt-ugly MySpace page or the geek-o-river of news at Digg replaced TV.  The fact that some people think they have tells you how completely out of touch with the real world some bloggers are.

It's not the content of TV that is dead.  It's TV as a medium for that sort of content that's dead.  The networks should just release their shows straight to DVD.  It would save them money and us time.

Crappy shows that cater to some imaginary brainless demographic and a better, ad-free alternative in the form of DVDs and TIVO killed TV as anything other than a screen on which to view carefully selected content.

Ed Sullivan and the important half of the Beatles are gone.  I don't see anyone rushing in to make TV relevant again.

James Kendrick responds with his list of travel gear.  If JK carries it, you know it's good.

Om Malik on the overuse of 2.0.  Amen, brother.

A Brief History of Computer TV Ads has some must-see videos. (via Robert Gale)

Mathew Ingram has a post today about the role of proximity in the Web 2.0/internet arena.  He laments that fact that the west coast, and particularly Silicon Valley, seems to be the hub for everything Web 2.0 related.

Mathew's post was inspired by an article in the New York Times about the need for proximity in business and financial relationships.  The article talked about the many benefits to startups of being near Silicon Valley. 

Fred Wilson jumps in to defend the other coast.  Fred lives in NYC, which also has a lot of proximity advantages.  Silicon Valley and the Big Apple arguing about who has more proximity to money is like Halle Berry and Scarlett Johansson arguing about who's prettier- it's largely an academic exercise and the loser is still mighty pretty.

To those of us who live in the hinterlands between the coasts, the proximity issue is the 900 lb gorilla in the room.  We can try to ignore it, but it's always sitting over there waiting for us to capitulate and say the words it wants to hear.

"You know you're wasting your time," whispers the gorilla.  "They are never going to let you in the club, because they don't know you."

The indisputable fact is that proximity has always mattered, and it always will.  Why?  Because every meaningful business deal depends, at least in part, on relationships.  Granted, technology has significantly reduced the need to travel, but it has not reduced to need to look someone in the eyes.  Technology and cost notwithstanding, I find that most senior executives want to discuss major points of a large deal across the table- not across the country.

And it's not just business deals.

The music industry is another example.  Technology being what it is, it shouldn't matter where a new artist lives.  If he is good enough, he should get discovered and become a star.  Nope.  Where you live has a ton to do with your chances of getting the star maker machinery behind you.  No honest person who knows anything about the music business would deny this.

Blogging is another example.  I've talked a lot about how hard it is to build a blog if you don't live in an area where there is an active blogging community.  It's a lot harder to develop a relationship with someone via cross-blog conversation than it is by showing up at some dinner or event.  And once you know someone in the real world, it's a lot easier to get included in the conversation.

It's also harder to ignore someone who you see every week or two than someone in some place you've never been who keeps trying to discuss issues with you while you're busy trading links and inside jokes with the guy a few notches up from you in the Technorati 100.

"Did you say something," whispers the Gorilla as he mutes the latest last edition of the Gillmor Gang?  "I was listening to Steve Gillmor talk about stupid people and trolls."

In fact, proximity is probably the most important factor in the creation and maintenance of the caste system that makes the blogosphere so frustrating.  Many of the so-called gatekeepers know each other in the real world.  Some of them have business relationships.  Money or the prospect of money is a recipe for exclusion.  Ironically, so is the human need to belong.

If the rest of us had any sense, we would have long ago banded together and created a rival kingdom.

But it doesn't happen.  Because of proximity.  We are scattered all over the world.  That, and the false hope of future inclusion, keeps us at the bottom of the hill and the so-called blogging elite at the top.

"Those bloggers you try to talk to are highly incentivized to maintain the state of attention asymmetry," the gorilla sighs, as he flips through a worn copy of Freakonomics.

Proximity matters.  No matter how much those of us who call out from the wilderness wish it didn't.

That sound you hear is the rock tumbling back down blogger's hill.

Brad Kellett has a post about the tech gear he takes on the road.  He asks Richard Querin and me about our travel gear.

Here's Richard's response.

Now that I am so into photography, it makes picking gadgets for a trip tougher than it used to be.  My current digital SLR is a lot bigger than my old point and shoot, plus I have to choose and pack additional lenses I might need.

Given all of that, here's my current travel gadget list:

1) Blackberry 7130e.  This is my everyday cell phone and PDA- plus it serves as a wireless broadband modem.  This allows me to connect to the net from airports, hotels and even out of the way places like Bandera.

2) Thinkpad X41 Tablet PC.  I have an HP laptop at my office, but I travel with the X41.  It's smaller and the tablet form allows me to use it more easily on planes.  It has a memory slot where I can stick a memory card full of MP3s to listen to on the plane.  It's not a perfect laptop, but overall I am very happy with it.

3) Linksys WTR54GS Travel Router.  If I am going to stay somewhere for more than a night or so, I generally buy the in-room internet access and then set up my travel router so I can use my X41 wirelessly.  This little router kicks ass.  I highly recommend it.

4) Canon EOS 30D.  I love this camera.  It's big, though and once you add a couple of lenses, a charger and an extra battery, you've got a load.

5) Extra Lenses.  Typically, I take a wide angle lens and a zoom lens in addition to my primary lens.  If I am driving, this is not a problem, but if I am flying, the lens threshold becomes a bit higher.

6) Tripod.  If I am driving, I take a tripod for my camera.  If I'm flying, I don't.

7) Assorted Memory Cards, Adaptors, Cables and Headphones.  I usually take 1 6GB memory card and 2 1GB memory cards, some cables to connect my gear and a memory card adaptor that lets me move my photos to my X41.  I also carry a set of headphones (full size- not earbuds) so I can listen to MP3s or watch movies on my X41.

8) Garmin StreetPilot 2620.  If I am driving, this is my handy co-pilot.  I sometimes take it on planes if I plan to rent a car in a city I don't know well.  I have been a little frustrated with Garmin, but once you get it set up, this device works really well.

That's my travel gear.  What's yours?

Hey JK, Dwight and Claus- what do my fellow Houstonians carry around?

Tags: mobile technology

Dave Winer edition.

What he said:

"[T]here's no point, imho, in responding to people who disagree with things they say I believe but I don't. If you can't quote me correctly, don't expect a response."

What he meant:

There's no point in trying to engage me in a discussion, because I will either ignore you if I think you are somehow beneath me or I will engage in self-exegesis to redefine my position.

Tags: blogging, citizen media

DirecTV launches another satellite. Too bad it's not for more national HD programming. I am starting to like DirecTV less than the cable companies.

Here are lots of old Apple II games online. (via John Dvorak)

Kevin Burton announces Tailrank 2.0.

Digital Photography School has some Halloween photography tips.

Gizmodo has a chart of what the earth would look like over time if all humans vanished.

Mark Evans doesn't get the virtual world phenomena. I think Second Life is cool, but like everything else at the crossroads of business and the web, people keep trying to make it more than it is. A Reuters office and dedicated reporter in Second Life? Sounds like a momentum play at some new readers to me. I'll be curious to see if it's still there in a year.

Warner is right about the latest Walmart/Edelman fiasco. I called it on Sunday and, other than Tony Hung, no one responded (including Steve Rubel, even though I was one of the few not to get on the bash wagon). Why? Because Steve not knowing anything about it wasn't as juicy as some great conspiracy.

Back in the day, I played a lot of basketball.  In fact I remember this one reverse move I put on my lifelong buddy Tommy (who, unlike me, played basketball in college) at some court in Ocean Drive circa 1980.  He called it a "made miss," but it was sweet. If I had a video of that shot, I'd move back to SC just to taunt him with it.  The fact that he owned me on the court for the rest of my life would conveniently be omitted.

There is a hoops phrase called a self-check.  It means that a player is so bad that you don't need to guard him.  He keeps himself in check by dribbling the ball off his knees or throwing up bricks against the bottom of the rim. 

There are a lot of self-checks running around the blogosphere too.  Unlike in basketball, however, there is no rim to block their pitiful attempt at a layup, and there is no referee to call traveling as they stumble into a face plant.  It's up to the collective refereeism of the blogosphere to call a foul.

One textbook example of a self-check in the blogosphere is Andrew Keen.  Here's a guy whose tired act is telling his readers until he is blue in the blood that they need journalistic lamas to help them understand the world around them.  It's not that blogs are different than traditional media.  It's not even that blogs are not as reliable as traditional media.  It's that our entire culture is about to be swept away by the horrifying egalitarianism represented by such evil forces as blogs, wikis, social networks and digital media.

The horror.

What makes Andrew an obvious self-check is not merely the fact that he is one of the people who, under his world view, should play the lama part.  After all, he's written a book- on paper.  And he's really smart- just read anything he's written and he'll tell you.  The rest of us, well let's just say that we are silly little dunces doing our little equality dance while the world crumbles before our folly.

It's not merely the blatancy of his position talking and the sweet irony that is his blog that get lost in the flood of big words, dire proclamations and extreme statements.

It's mainly the fact that he actually makes some good points along the way- points that are completely lost on his audience thanks to unbridled arrogance and condescension.  Part of being smart is knowing how to communicate your message to people who don't agree with you.  To persuade, you must first connect.

Andrew makes no effort to connect.  Which tells me that he is writing for himself and, perhaps, a few self-important eggheads who already share his views on how stupid everyone else is.  When someone is talking solely for themselves or their devotees, there is neither the intent nor the desire to enlighten or persuade.  There is only the desire to be heard.

That is a textbook definition of a self-check on any court in which communication is the goal.

I did a new podcast Friday night.

I played some great songs by 5 Chinese Brothers, Asylum Street Spankers, the Bodeans, Blaze Foley, Traffic, Utopia and others.  I also played the most beautiful instumental song I have ever heard.  The finale was a blues jam by Taj Mahal.

No tech talk, but I did make some book and video recommendations.

Click here to listen or download. Or just click this play button for a quick preview. Podzinger users can get it here.

Tags: podcasts, ranchocast

Tony Hung on another Walmart, Edelman, sponsored blogging mashup.  Here's his follow-up.  I don't know what if anything Steve knew about all of this, but I can tell you from experience in working at a large organization that (a) he may have known nothing about it, (b) he likely had zero ability to control what senior management at his company did or didn't do, and (c) no one should try to make him accountable just because he works there, because unless it was his idea, he is not.

Matt Craven on growing a blog.  He's spot on when he says the key is to write a lot.  Some other bloggers will reciprocate when you link to them, other won't.  My advice: stop trying to embrace the ones who don't and pay more attention to the ones that do.  Bonus link: Google Blogoscoped on good blog writing style.

Hugh has captured the essence of blogging when you aren't trying to make a living off of it.  Blogging is so much more fun when you aren't sitting around hoping for a link from Scoble or Doc or Hugh or Kent.

I don't like Google Reader either.  And I find the sharing feature (discussed here by Richard Querin) to be too dilutive of the blog and feed reading experience for me.  If you see a link you like, just link to it.  The 30 seconds it takes to link to it in a real post serves as a de facto filter to make sure people are sharing interesting content.

Charles Cooper on why he still loves Star Trek.  Me too.

Here's how to carve an amazing jack-o-lantern.

Rick Mahn on the move to online applications and the home network.

Dwight Silverman on the Sony Reader.  This is the first post I have ever read that makes me the least bit interested in an e-book reader.  The company that puts one in a book-looking form will be the one that gets my money.  I read the DiVinci Code on a Tablet PC and it was OK, but I haven't read a book that way since.

Extreme positions are scary to me, because there is no willingness to see the other side of the argument.  I am big on animal rights, but PETA is making all animal rights people look like idiots.  I'm going to go find a cockroach...and eat it.

I meant to write an entire post agreeing with Seth Godin's excellent take on museums and marketing, but I never got around to it.  Museums are losing the mindshare of our kids because they feel too much like school and not enough like fun.  I say amen to this:

I can't remember the last time a museum visit made my cry, made me sad or made me angry (except at the fact that they don't try hard enough).

Nick Carr and Dave Winer are arguing about something having to do with bloggers, Iraq and murdered journalists.

I think blogs are important ways to distribute certain kinds of information, but they are not even close to being a substitute for traditional media for certain news topics.  People have a distrust of old, established media when it comes to political topics- do you really think people are going to embrace a bunch of online diaries by people they don't know as a reliable substitute for the Washington Post and CNN?  Of course not.  It's farcical to suggest they will.

I think the idea that blogs, as important to a few of us as they are, will replace traditional journalism is straight out of Monty Python.

"Go away or I shall blog about you a second time."

I also think it's ironic that Dave is taking the role as the champion of citizen media.  One of the oft-cited benefits of citizen media is the interactive nature of blogging.  Dave rarely engages people outside of his inner circle, which makes him more like the old media he is trying to replace than the new media he claims to embrace.

The other fact that seems to be overlooked here is that people who risk their lives going to Iraq to write news are generally getting paid for it.  There is an assumption by some of the blogging evangelists that making a living is less important that spouting off about the latest Google acquisition.  It is a whole lot harder to make a living blogging that some people want to admit.

Which means that most of us who blog don't do it as a living.  As Nick points out, it's one thing to toss up a post or two about Iraq from the comfort of our living rooms, but it's another ball of wax to risk your life in the name of a blog post.  I wish more people read my blog too, but I'm not quite ready to risk my life to make it happen.

Blogging as a content management platform may, in fact, be the future of news distribution, but it won't be guys like Dave, or Nick, or me writing the content.  It will be the same journalists who get paid for doing it now- they'll simply be doing it in a different, more immediate way.

Ben Metcalfe has a thorough analysis of Deutch-gate.  I have no personal knowledge about this situation and have never read Barry's blog, but it seems to me this is just another case of using value generated by customers to make a buck in true Web 2.0 fashion.  Do all the Google hating YouTube users have similar grounds to complain?

David Krug has a series on the disappearance of David Krug.  If this is true, this is an amazing and frightening story.

Wolfgang's Vault has acquired Tower Records' Tower.Com domain.  If you like classic rock, you simply have to listen to Vault Radio.

Mashable on the distribution of spyware via social networks.  This is another reason why I do not like these social network sites.  The main reason, of course, is that but for the desire of developers to centralize our content so they can make money off of it, the blogosphere would be the only social network needed.

Robert Gale links to video clips of the best of Homer Simpson.  Funny stuff.

Wally Bangs found a very cool album shootout on YouTube.

In a lawsuit that should be required reading for bloggers, a Florida jury has awarded $11.3M in damages to a woman who says she was defamed on an internet message board.

Legal scholars say this verdict could have an impact on bloggers.  From the Washington Times article linked above:

"This case sends a signal that if you were going to write blog entries, that you need to, like any other journalist, be aware of what you write," said Michael J. Songer, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a partner at D.C. law firm Crowell & Moring LLP. "It could have a chilling effect when people have to sit down and worry about losing their house."

There is at least some potential good news for bloggers.  According to experts, there is a distinction between content written by a blogger and content posted by readers in comments.

Robert O'Neil, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law and director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, said in the article linked above that while newspapers are liable for all published content, bloggers and Web site operators are liable for only their own content and not that of those who post comments.

 There are circumstances that mitigate against the implications of this case for bloggers, such as the fact that the defendant, who had been driven from her home by Hurricane Katrina, didn't appear in court to defend herself.  Nevertheless, this is a relevant factor to consider as the distinction between bloggers and traditional journalists continues to blur.

I just started watching the Firefly season one and only DVDs.  This is a great show- one of many great shows that seem to get cancelled too soon.

It's odd, since Firefly is a science fiction show, but it reminds me more than a little of Deadwood.  The music is very similar.  The titles are similar, and the cinematography is similar.  There are horses in both opening credits.

David Boyd is the cinematographer for both.

I highly recommend Firefly.  It's available via Amazon and Netflix.

Nick Carr has a fantastic post today on the tension between bloggers and traditional print media.  He discusses in great detail some of problems and perspectives that make it difficult for bloggers and traditional journalists to appreciate and trust each other.

Read his post, and think about what he is saying.  Regardless of which side of the illusory fence you think you're on, no one can deny the truth of this:

When it comes to conflicts of interest, or other questions of journalistic ethics, the proper attitude that we bloggers should take toward our counterparts in the traditional press is not arrogance but humility.

To do otherwise is to claim a position of superiority that is ludicrous on its face.  Blogs have many advantages over traditional print media.  Let's not obfuscate them with illusions of grandeur.

If we, as bloggers, want to be taken seriously, then we have to act seriously.  We cannot ignore the standards that "evolved over the years in order to temper the freedoms that could lead, and sometimes did lead, to the abuse of the public trust" just because we have the freedom to post whatever we want whenever we want.

As the traditional press moves online (I haven't subscribed to a newspaper in years), it will bring those standards along.  At that point, the issue becomes not hard copy verses on-screen, or even now verses tomorrow morning.  It becomes reliable and self-governed verses unreliable and chaotic.

With freedom comes responsibility, and with progress come challenges.

Some way, somehow, bloggers need to develop a code of ethics that legitimizes blogging as a reliable, and conflict free, information medium.

Once that happens, the real-time and distributed nature of blogging will turn what is now perceived by many as a disadvantage into a tremendous advantage.

I hope this happens sooner rather than later.

Tags: blogging, blogs, citizen journalism

Christopher Carfi on MySpace Facebook [UPDATE: as Christopher mentions in a Comment, he was talking about Facebook.  I had MySpace on the brain- apologies for the typo] and its suitability, or lack thereof, for business use.  Of course my question is why any real world business would want to launch a MySpace Facebook page as opposed to its own web site.  Not to mention that business pages popping up on social networking pages sounds a lot like spam to me.

Dave Taylor on the statistics of blog comments.

Donna Bogatin asks a good question- one that I have talked about before: "Isn't it time we started thinking about the long-term consequences to businesses and individuals of a consolidation of every piece of public, private, and personal 'information' within one $122 billion (and growing) market cap corporation's 'cloud' and worldwide server farms?"

Here's a handy chart that tells you how many megapixels you need to print various size prints.  Richard Querin has more good info on print size.

While I am generally apolitical, Ethan Johnson has a good read on the Texas gubernatorial race.

I was going to sit out Google/YouTube day in the blogosphere, beyond my cautionary post last night about using Google as a standard for wise spending.

But then I read Ed Burnette's take over at ZD Net.  Lots of good stuff there, and it got me thinking about where things go from here.

A year and a half ago some guys started a video sharing web site.  One leaves to go back to school.  A year and a half later, Google, nervous about getting left behind in yet another space, ponies up $1.65 billion to buy it.  $1.65 billion in Google stock of course.

Tell me this story wouldn't have fit right in back beneath Bubble 1.0.

Be that as it may, Google is the king of shared video- at least for the moment.

So what now?

There's still MySpace lurking out there.  I don't use MySpace and I think it's silly for grownups to have MySpace pages.  But I am seemingly in the minority as far as that goes, and MySpace is certainly a player in the video, music and awful looking web pages race.

And there are all those other video sites that will get launched and/or funded based on the ripples of the Google/YouTube deal.  Give away money to one person and before you kow it everyone has their hand out.  Questionable acquisitions create the opportunity for endless questionable acquisitions.  In sum, buying out the competition doesn't work when there's a low barrier to entry.  Can anyone say Soapbox?

And, finally, there's the bullseye that TDavid correctly notes is now on Google's back.  It's one thing for some kid to make a music video of his girlfriend dancing around on the beach and toss it up there like love graffiti on a fence.  But $1.65 billion is a lot of money.  And where there's a lot of money, there will be a lot of people with their hands out demanding their share.  Content providers, lawyers and telecos will line up outside Google's door. 

Waiting, watching, suing, lobbying.

It's a big, big win for the guys that made YouTube.  I'm sure that none of them can really believe this has happened.  They must feel like Jed Clampett every time they wake up and realize how rich they are.  Or maybe they feel like Marc Andreesen.

We won't know for a while how good or bad it is for Google.  The content deals they're making- and announcing the day before the acquisition- help calm some of the trouble that's brewing over copyright issues.

Copyright lawsuits will come, you can count on that.  Once someone wins, then they'll come in waves.  Some will be merely distractions, but taken as a whole, they could have a significant effect on YouTube's business model.  If the ad buyers start getting nervous about placing ads on the back of pirated content, things could get very complicated.

Yes, the content deals reduce the universe of potential plaintiffs.

But deals require that the content provider get some revenue, which means that the almighty ad dollar is being spread even thinner over the Web 2.0 landscape.  At some point the ad flow will slow down, like an empty bottle of ketchup.  Empty.

And red.

What then?

Maybe there's a secret plan.  Or maybe one will be dreamed up in the meantime. I hope so.  I enjoy YouTube.  I pay zero to use it, and I have never once clicked on an ad.

But it's fun.  And free.  Web 2.0 users are very used to free.

This Google acquisition still feels backwards to me.  Like trying to give away more and more stuff in the name of more and more traffic.  Traffic that goes straight to the cost side of the ledger.

At some point they have to deal with the revenue side.  Ads all by themselves are a band aid at best and smoke and mirrors at worst.

Whether it's search engines or videos, the content providers are ultimately going to demand most of the juice.  Apply a cap rate to $1.65 billion and you will quickly see that this deal assumes a whole lot of juice.

A whole lot of juice.

I'm 46 years old today.  That looks old, even as I type it.  My dad died when he was 46.  Thank goodness for my kids, who keep me young- even if Cassidy does think I'm "fifty something."

Mike Arrington has an interesting tale about his trip to speak at an Online News Association (there are about ten times too many associations, but that's a topic for another post) conference.  Old media doesn't trust bloggers because they are afraid of moving cheese, and because bloggers are not viewed as objective and reliable (which is fair criticism in light of all the conflicts, rumors, pay per click issues, etc.).  Bloggers don't read papers (I haven't subscribed to a newspaper in 8 years) because the news is stale and traditionally non-interactive.  Arrogant old media tries to ignore or co-opt new media, while forward thinking old media, like the Houston Chronicle, embraces it.  Arrogant bloggers do too little thinking and too much spouting off about this and that.  It's not a good blend if you're looking for cooperation.  Speaking of the Chronicle, Dwight Silverman has a good take on Mike's Washington experience.

Steve Rubel on the end of an era.  Like Steve, I used to love browsing the racks at my local record store.  But I stopped doing that once Amazon allowed me to browse from the comfort of my home.  Mike at Techdirt has more.

IP & Democracy has a post responding to Mark Cuban's latest YouTube slam.  Here's the part of IP & Democracy's post I found interesting:

Mark Cuban is obsessed with dumping on the idea that YouTube might be worth billions of dollars. He publicly labeled any serious prospective buyer of the site a "moron," but then along came word that Google, founded by two certified geniuses, is interested in paying $1.6 billion for the video sharing supernova.

While I won't quarrel that the Google guys are geniuses, at least in hindsight, anyone who has followed Google lately would be hard pressed to argue that Google is the gold standard of spending money wisely.

In fact, Google has been throwing money in all corners looking for the next big thing.  So far, we're still waiting.

It's no wonder that Google may be considering making a big play to buy YouTube and its vast advertising space.  While I'm still waiting for a YouTube business plan that makes long-term sense, Google has either decided to become or been relegated to an advertising agency.

Given that happy or sad fact (depending on your perspective), a YouTube acquisition is not surprising.  Note that I said it was not surprising- I did not say it makes sense.

Whether it makes sense or not depends on whether you believe the entire universe can subsist on ad dollars.  Anyone who has read this blog for more than a day or two knows that I do not believe that it can.

But if I'm wrong, it could be a good acquisition for Google.

I just hope it isn't a short-term plan to ride the ad hype for a few more quarters while Google waits anxiously for more lightning, bottle in hand.

If I were a Google shareholder, that's what I'd be worried about.

Stowe notes that Jason Calacanis didn't ask him for his opinion on the ridiculous pay per post business and then gives his opinion anyway.  Good for Stowe, as he has a long track record of (mostly) finding the right side of an argument.

Jason didn't ask me either, but like Stowe, I'm always interested in adding my two cents, and here it is.  All you need to know about this pay per post nonsense.

When someone is engaging you solely in the hopes of making money, then the entire basis for a meaningful exchange of information is nullified.  No one trusts people who are trying to sell them something, and no one should.  There is an irreconcilable conflict of motives.

When you walk into a store, you, in effect, are inviting the people who work there to try to sell you something.

But when your so-called friends try to leverage off of your friendship to sell you tupperware or Mary Kay or whatever, you have not invited that selling opportunity.

When you fire up your email and some dumbass somewhere has sent you spam, you have not invited that selling opportunity.

When a blogger you read posts about something for pay, you have not invited that selling opportunity.  It's even worse when the payment is not diclosed.

This pay per post business is the worst of both worlds.  It's using a preexisting relationship to make money off of you, without even telling you.

Even the friend hawking tupperware has to eventually show his hand.  It seems that the pay per post folks can hide their motives- thereby disguising commerce as journalism.

So ask yourself...

So what do you want the blogosphere to be, a place for the open exchange of ideas and information where no one is secretly trying to make money off of you, or an online free-for-all where anonymous people are paid to write bullshit they may or may not believe in exchange for a buck?

Dave Rogers has thoughts on the season premiere of Battlestar Gallactia.  It is the best show on television, but, like Dave, I wasn't completely satisfied with the season premiere.

The U.S. government becomes the RIAA's puppet and demands that Russia shut down AllofMP3.  The result is a ton of free publicity that increases AllofMP3's business.  That's good stuff.

Here's a collection of Weird Al Yankovic videos.  He is a very clever guy.  Numbers 9, 7 and 2 are particularly funny.

Ever wondered what the inside of a hard drive looks like when its working?  This is cool.

Tags: kents news, links

I have been consistent in my criticism of the combination of the traditional VC mindset and the Web 2.0 developer.  The traditional VC mindset has been furiously trying to stuff Web 2.0 into the framework of the 1990s.  These Web 2.0 developers, most of whom are not MBA types by training, are all too happy to have someone try to turn their glorified high school science projects into a billion or so dollars.  It's hard to blame them for dreaming.

The problem, of course, is that those billion or so dollars have to come from someplace.  And one of the likely places is our pockets via IPOs that should never happen.

The result is that you have some old school VCs trying to find a billion dollar exit strategy where one doesn't exist.  Their efforts are, in turn, supported by a bunch of nincompoop bloggers, many of whom have skin in the game, talking about how many billions of dollars this site or that is worth, in the hopes that enough people will start believing their bullshit to cause Google to stupidly throw away more of its money and buy it.  The fallback plan of course being to toss an IPO out there in the hopes that you and I, or more likely the people who manage our investments, will bail them out and make them richer and us poorer.  That plan worked in the 1990s, when the average investor got caught up in the greed and hype of Bubble 1.0.  Now, however, we have realized that the internet is not quite the evolutionary force we thought it was going to be, and that everything that touches the internet is not necessarily gold.

In sum, it is a system that may have worked in the 90s, but thankfully doesn't work now.  It's a greater fool game without scale.

Today, Fred Wilson has a post about the future of the VC business.  He asks "is the traditional VC model broken?"

His conclusion is that the VC model of the past will not work in the future.  The business model is not broken he says, but it certainly needs to be modified in light of the changing technology business.

Fred understands that part of the problem was caused by the VC industry during Bubble 1.0:

The IPO market certainly isn't what it used to be, because of Sarbanes Oxley, because of the really bad companies we in the VC industry foisted on the public markets in the late 90s and the long memories of institutional investors.

Part of what's needed, according to Fred, is a little scale.  Something I have typed about until my fingers hurt.  Fred says:

Maybe they can't get us the valuations "that venture investors expect", but that is the venture industry's fault because we've overfunded our companies to the point where we need a half billion dollar exit to produce a decent return.

Fred suggests a few tweaks, including that the VC industry figure out how to make great returns on $100 million to $250 million exits and limit IPOs to the very best companies.

All of that sounds like inspired gospel to me, even though I still think $100 million to $250 million is too rich for 98% of Web 2.0.  Still, I wish I read more stuff like this in the blogosphere and less psychobabble about how valuable the latest YouTube clone or MySpace wannabe is.

The ironic thing is that the cheerleaders and con men who keep spouting off about billions and zillions and YouTube and MySpace and all that nonsense are doing the Web 2.0 space a lot more damage than good.

Good is smart and logical and reasonable.  With a plan that actually makes sense.

That's what Fred is talking about.  And to that I say amen.

Tags: web 2.0, venture capital

I did a new podcast last night.  No particular theme- just great music.

I played two by the Stone Coyotes, one by the Spud Puppies, a classic duet by Conway Twitty and Loretta Lynn, one by Mojave 3 and more.

The finale was a great, live two-fer by Thin Lizzy.

Click here to listen or download. Or just click this play button for a quick preview. Podzinger users can get it here.

Tags: podcasts, ranchocast

Mark Evans has announced that he is leaving his job at the National Post to jump into the blogosphere full time by becoming vice president of operations at b5media.  Congratulations to Mark and I wish him well.

b5media, despite the irritating non-capitalization problem that someone a few years ago incorrectly decided was techy and cool, seems like a pretty solid network.  I read and enjoy quite a few of its blogs.

I have never been involved in a blog network, but I've been a part of several other internet-related networks, and I suspect the challenges are largely the same.

On the one hand, a consolidated group of people can often accomplish more together than the individuals could do alone.  Ad sales, sponsorships, cross-selling and recruiting new members are among the many benefits of such an association.

On the other hand, I suspect there are some common problems that have to be managed (I know nothing about b5media's structure; these are just my thoughts based on some of the networks I have been involved with).  One is the fact that the people at the top of the hierarchy generally make some of their money, directly or indirectly, off of the efforts of those below them.  There's nothing wrong with this- it's the same sort of pyramid that applies at law firms, accounting firms and many other businesses.  And like those businesses, I suspect blog networks will have trouble keeping their up and coming bloggers happy. When there is a pyramid of any sort and a limited supply of money to pass out, there is always an unhappy camper in the next tent.  Someone always thinks they're getting too little or the other guy is getting too much.

Another problem is the structure that comes with being a part of a network.  Some networks have a lot of it, and some have only a little of it, but a blogger who has been his own boss with nothing but his whims to direct him may chafe at the structure of a network.  Not all bloggers will find the addition of a little structure problematic, but some will.  And others may find that what seemed like useful structure at the time starts later to feel a bit oppressive.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not anti-blog network.  I just think they will face a lot of challenges as they- and the blogosphere- mature.  Some of the challenges are common with other businesses, and some will be specific to the young and evolving blogosphere- and the effort to monetize the same.

I think Mark is a great addition for b5media, and I'm looking forward to following his, and its, progress.

Tags: blogs, blog building, b5media

There were some interesting posts today about the return on investment of blogging. Like always, far too much of the focus (being, in this case, all of it) was placed on blogging as a way to separate readers from their money.

This never ending effort to treat blogging as some new age business plan continues to read to me like someone furiously trying to stuff a round peg into a square hole. But sometimes you take the conversation where and as you find it, so let's take a look.

First, about blogging as an extension of a business (note the words "an extension of" between the words "as" and "a business").

I've said many times that a blog is a natural extension of just about any business that otherwise spends time and money taking its message to current and/or potential customers. A blog is to a company's marketing what a web page with mp3s is to a musician's creative endeavors- a way to take your message directly to the ultimate consumer. By cutting out some of the middle, you create a more direct, less expensive, real time and somewhat interactive method of distribution of both your product and information about that product.

If you do it right, your blog becomes more than just a living marketing brochure- it becomes a portal for marketing, customer service and personalization. It becomes a public relations home run.

That's good.

But what about the rate of return for blogs that aren't about making money? Certainly, the best measure of that rate of return is the satisfaction you get from the blogging experience. But just because a blogger isn't trying to separate his readers from some of their cash doen't mean than merely sending a post out into the vast blogosphere is the be all end all of blogging.

Almost all bloggers are looking for something in return from their blogging. Let's think about this some more.

In her article, Charlene Li talks about measuring the benefits of blogs by looking at certain factors like conversion rates, traffic, etc. She is trying to couch something very subjective in more objective terms, and I'm not sure she convinced me of anything common sense wouldn't already dictate.

But let's talk bout some of her factors, from a conversational blogger's perspective:

Consumer self-education: From a conversational blogging perspective, this would translate to reader participation. Are your comments and trackback numbers increasing over time? If so, then you have attracted readers who want to engage in conversation about the topics at hand. If not, then even if you have a lot of traffic, you are not advancing your conversational goal.

Greater visibility in search results: While I get a ton of traffic via search results, I have no ads to click. So traffic for the sake of traffic only benefits my conversational purpose if that traffic expands the conversation onto other blogs. The only way to measure cross blog conversation is by measuring the links that are a part of cross-blog conversations. If you become visible via search engines, but no one engages you in conversation, then, once again, you have not advanced the conversational goal.

As an aside, I believe this is why some of the bloggers who look to profit from their blogs focus so much on traffic (and say links are of less importance), while so many conversational bloggers focus more on links (and the interaction which they, at least to some extent, measure).

Lower the cost of public relations: I believe this translates to lowering the geographical obstacles to conversation. One of my primary blogging goals is to find people who are interested in interests (tech, music, etc.) not generally shared by my real world friends. I largely measure my return on blogging by the number of people I "talk" to regularly about those topics.

If you are eliminating the geographical obstacles to conversation, you are getting a good return on your conversational blogging.

Reach an enthusiast community: While not as clean a translation, I would measure this by how sustainable your cross-blog conversations are. Are there are other bloggers who regularly reply to your posts? Do you do the same for them? Is that group growing at a satisfactory rate? The larger and more interesting that group becomes, the more likely it is to thrive over time.

Building a susta