I noticed that Tabblo is one of Techmeme's sponsors this month.  Tabblo has a blog where you can learn more about it.  Since I am an avid user of Techmeme, I want to support the service by checking out its sponsors from time to time.

So here goes, in real time.  I do real time reviews by writing them as I go.  If I miss something, it gets missed in the review just like it does when I'm using the product.

First, Tabblo has a Web 2.0 sounding name, which I don't like.  But it's "blo" name allows for less abuse than Weblo.  So it has that going for it.

Signup was as easy as possible.

Now I have to fully understand what Tabblo does.  From the FAQ:

A tabblo is a collection of photos and words brought together by a stylized template that can be customized to your heart's content. A tabblo lives at a permanent URL and can be private, accessed by whoever you invite, or public for the whole world to see.

Tabblo doesn't have ads, which is wonderful.  The FAQ says they make money by selling the posters and other stuff you can buy (more on that below), and that Tabblo will introduce premium services in the future.

We went to the Texas Renaissance Festival a few weeks ago, and I took a bunch of photos.  Sounds like a good subject for a tabblo.

There are a bunch of ways to upload your photos- browse (slow, as always), a Java uploader, a Flash uploader and, oh happy day, an integrated Flickr import.  I'll eventually use the integrated Flickr tool the most, but let's try the Java uploader.

The Java uploader seems pretty quick, but there's no way to view your photos as thumbnails.  Let's try the Flash uploader.

It seems ever faster, and it allows you to see the thumbnails.  The box is tiny on my computer which makes it hard to select the best photos, but it works well enough.  I wish you could drag and drop from Windows Explorer, but you can't.  I uploaded 18 photos in about 23 minutes.  You can set the privacy levels and tags before you upload.

All in all, the uploading functions are pretty good.  Since I will likely use the Flickr import function more than the direct uploading, my uploading experience will probably get easier in the future.  I wish Tabblo had a Zooomer import feature.  Thomas Hawk had pretty good things to say about Tabblo.

Now to make my tabblo.

When your photos are uploaded, you are prompted to make a tabblo out of them.  I named mine "Texas Renaissance Festival."  I had to log back in to see the results, but once I did, my photos showed up in the work space.  The first step is to pick the photos for the tabblo.  Since I did that after the upload, my photos were already in place.  You can drag the photos to reorder them.

Then, you click on "Make Tabblo" and are prompted to select a style.  There are several to choose from.  I chose Magnolia.

Next you get an opportunity to edit your tabblo.  You can add and edit captions.  I didn't like the way they looked, so I chose not to show captions on my first tabblo.  I like the way it looks when you add text to a separate area better.

After all was said and done, here is my first tabblo.

After you make a tabblo, you can purchase posters, postcards and prints from Tabblo.  

I configured a 16" x 20" poster for my tabblo, which I can buy for $19.95.  In the preview format, my text runs over into the photos below, likely because of the text size I use in Firefox, so this probably doesn't occur on the final product.  The preview box says "posters have been scaled for viewing on this page," but it was still a little disconcerting not to know for sure whether the text would display properly on the final product.  In the interest of fairness, many, many pages on the web display goofy when you increase the text size beyond a certain point.  I have a 24 inch monitor running at it's native 1900 x 1200, so I use the excellent Text Size Toolbar extension to jack up the text size.  You can configure a poster of the photos only, which solves the problem, to the extent one exists.

I have ordered posters from QOOP, via Flickr, and have been very impressed with the quality.  If the Tabblo posters are of similar or better quality, then most buyers will be delighted.

My initial impressions are that Tabblo is a pretty cool application, that likely has more features than I have discovered so far.

I'll play around with it some.  Will it become a regular tool for me?  It's too early to tell.  But so far I like what I see.

There's an interesting article in today's New York Times about Yahoo and its efforts to close the revenue gap between it and its arch-rival Google.

Among the financial numbers tossed around, including Yahoo's ridiculous PE ratio of 34.1 and Google's vintage Bubble 1.0 ratio of 63.3, is the fact that Google has found a way to better monetize its traffic.  Google generates 11 cents per domestic web search, while Yahoo generates only 4 cents.

The bull side of the Yahoo debate argues that since Yahoo has a ton of traffic, it only needs to better monetize it.  The argument is that it's better to have a monetization problem than a traffic problem.  Hello, Web 2.0.

I can relate a little to Yahoo's problem.  As I have mentioned before, I am generally a fan of Second Life as a business platform.  It has a business plan that doesn't rely strictly on ads.  More and more businesses are looking to Second Life as a way to connect with their customers and potential customers.

But I have grown bored with my personal Second Life experience.  I'm not big on chatting with strangers, and there is no Second Life collective for tech bloggers- at least not one that I have been invited to participate in.  I have been thinking for months about canceling my account.

In the meantime, I decided to do an experiment.  I installed a music player and a bunch of dance pads (where visitors can get paid Linden dollars for dancing) in my Second Life home, configured the dance pads to pay out at a slightly better than market rate, and mostly stayed out of the way.

A funny thing happened.

Traffic to my parcel went off the charts.  I constantly have people hanging around my place, dancing for Linden dollars.  In fact, I have installed more dance pads, and have to rest them twice a week, after they pay out their maximum.

I initially thought that your Second Life stipend (the Linden dollars you get every week from Second Life) went up if you had a lot of traffic.  I checked last night and realized that I was mistaken about that.

So that leaves me with some land that has a ton of traffic, but no plan to turn that traffic into money.  In the meantime, my Linden dollar "burn rate" continues to accelerate.

What to do?

I don't know, but I'm not sure all my traffic makes my parcel any more valuable than the empty land next door.  It costs a lot of Linden dollars to operate my parcel, and nothing to operate the empty land.  And our revenue (the Second Life stipend) is the same.

Without a viable monetization plan, I think Yahoo and I are screwed.  Fred Wilson seems to agree, though for a different reason.

Come visit my Second Life establishment at Sibine 03 (106,33).  Suggestions to turn my traffic into revenue would be welcomed.

Maybe Yahoo will buy me before Microsoft buys Yahoo.

I'm listening to the "Video Gang" edition of the Gillmor Gang while I watch my fantasy football team continue its downward spiral.  It's time for my first mashup.

Mark Benioff of Salesforce.com is the guest.  This part is sort of boring, although the net profit vs revenue analysis could, and should, be applied to many other companies.

Chad Johnson (Bengals), who used to be on my team, already has 10 points (fantasy football points are a combination of yards and TDs) in the first 5 minutes of the 1st quarter.  I should have protected him in the expansion draft.  I think he has lots more net profit than Salesforce.com.  But Mark sounds like a much nicer guy, although he is slamming Microsoft the way Chad slams other teams.

One problem with the Gillmor Gang is that I can't always tell who's talking.  Someone is asking Mark some good questions, but I don't know who- maybe Dan Farber.

Chester Taylor (Vikings) just scored a TD for me.  I am getting really bored with all this Salesforce talk.  Drew Brees (Saints) just scored a TD for the other team.  I'm winning 23-9 early.

Steve Gillmor says that Microsoft Office is dead.  Mark thinks it is too.  One of the gang (again, I can't tell who) put a bullet between the eyes of this argument by talking about the tremendous amount of revenue generated by Office compared to zero generated by the online office applications.

I think hell will freeze over before the majority of big non-tech business, accounting firms, law firms and hospitals move their data online.  Office could be a lot better, but it's not dead.  Sorry guys.  In the alternate universe where I am a Gillmor Gang participant, we would be arguing about this issue right now.

The Ravens, my defense, just gave up a TD (which makes me lose some of my points).  My lead has shrunk to 15-9.  Not looking good.

I've heard all I want to hear about Salesforce.com.  Can we get back to the free-for-all Gillmor Gang please?  One gang member is asking some hard questions.  It sounds like several members are just listening.  Even Jason Calacanis is quiet.

Marc Bulger (Rams), my QB, has 0 points at the end of the 1st quarter.  He used to be good for 25-30 points a game.  I need him to get it together.  On the other hand, Lee Evans (Bills), who I dropped to the waiver wire, has 33 points in the 2nd quarter.  That's never been done before.  He plays for the same guy who has Chad Johnson.  That pisses me off.

Finally, we're done with Salesforce.com.  Looks like Jason hung up, because he didn't answer the bell (he may have been writing his resignation letter to AOL).  It sounds like Lou Reed, who I sort of like, played a short set at the Web 2.0 conference, and got irritated that people were talking during the songs.

The gang talks about Bill Gates for a while and then it's over.

It was not classic Gillmor Gang, but it was still fairly interesting.  I prefer the free-for-all segments where the guys toss out topics and then debate them.

I hope this wasn't the last Gillmor Gang.

I also hope my team rallies.  I'm losing 26-19 at the moment.

Shelley Powers has a thoughtful post in response to my question and other comments on her Techmeme post.

She makes some good points, and I agree that popularity as a proxy for authority is flawed. The problem is that, at the moment, there is not a better mousetrap.

I would also note that the substitution of popularity for authority is not limited to the blogosphere. The number of celebrity endorsements in TV and print ads is evidence of that. More and more, we see the flaws and inefficiencies of society at large manifest themselves in the blogosphere.

While I look to Techmeme for the sort of blogosphere headlines that it generally delivers, the substitution of popularity for authority creates an inefficient blogosphere that is not conducive to conversational blogging.

Take the Technorati rankings for example. Your ranking depends on the number of distinct blogs that link to you in a rolling 6 month period. This rewards those who are popular (more people linking to them) over those who engage in regular cross-blog conversations with a regular group of people. For example, Newsome.Org has over 1,600 inbound links, yet it has links from only 275 distinct blogs in the past 6 months. To make matters worse, 6 month old links fall out of the equation every day, making the climb up the Technorati ladder seem more like an encounter with George Jetson's Astro-treadmill. In other words, if you want to climb up the Technorati ladder, you must choose quantity of interaction over quality. That seems backwards.

And the Technorati ladder is only one of many aspects of the blogosphere that favors popularity over most other attributes.

This system leads to link baiting, manufactured blogospats and other engineered writing. And it discourages the sort of interaction that leads to interesting dialog and meaningful relationships. It also reinforces the artificial standing of popularity in the blogosphere- since a one-off link from a blogger with lots of readers is given greater currency than a series of links from a blogger with less traffic.

And all of this propagates the chasm between the so-called haves and the so-called have nots. It's the wanting to be over there that keeps us over here. It's hard to have a conversation with someone who constantly glances at the popular group across the room, hoping they'll waive him over

That's the ironic part. To an extent, we are held captive by our own weaknesses. If a group of bloggers with similar goals decided to band together and support each other, they could easily reach critical mass and almost float up blogger's hill. But that takes commitment, hard work and discipline. It seems easier to keep linking to the popular bloggers and hope they will reach down, take you in their hands and hold you to their breasts. This, I think, is part of what Shelley is getting at. While I don't direct this argument at Techmeme, I completely get it with respect to the larger blogosphere.

But I still believe you can get there through hard work and patience.

The blogosphere is an imperfect place, frustrating at times.

But it's the only one we have, so far.

Shelley Powers has a post complaining about Techmeme and its secret formula algorithm for inclusion.

Specifically, she doesn't like the fact that traffic resulting from inbound links to Techmeme plays a small role in getting a blog considered for inclusion.  Here's Gabe's post about getting included on his memetrackers, in which he describes the inbound traffic effect.

I have a comment and then a question for Shelley.

First the comment.  What is so wrong with either the way Gabe has historically approached inclusion or the decision to give a little weight to inbound traffic?

I have talked a ton about Techmeme, and my love and occasional frustration with it.  For a while, my eligible posts would show up for weeks and then disappear for weeks, only to later reappear and restart the cycle.  Over time that problem has gone away, either due to a change in the secret formula or due to the fact that, in blog years, I have been blogging for a long time.  In a semi-perfect world, I'd like to see more of my posts picked up as lead stories (as opposed to in the discussion clusters).  I'd love to be included in the pool, with Scoble and some others, of blogs that get picked up semi-regularly as lead stories, not merely for the sake of seeing my posts up there, but because lead stories generally invoke a lot of conversation and conversation is my primary reason for blogging.  Having said that, however, I am grateful that my posts get picked up regularly as discussion links and occasionally as lead stories, so I'm not going to complain (although if Scoble would resubscribe to my blog, that might help a little- hint, hint).

Plus, I know that operating Techmeme is like drinking from a fire hydrant when it comes to filtering content and I'm sure every other blogger would like to tweak Techmeme's secret formula in their favor.  You can't please all the people all the time, and all that.

And isn't inbound traffic one of the primary blogosphere currencies?  When someone links to you and you link back, that's the blog equivalent of a handshake.  In other words, traffic is generally a shared goal and every other web site in the world gives at least token weight to inbound traffic- so why shouldn't Gabe?  And if some hard working newish blogger gets picked up by Techmeme thanks to sending some traffic, that sounds to me like a net flattening.

Now the question for Shelley.  How should Techmeme work?  I understand what you think the problem is- that's the easy part.  How would you fix it?

I mentioned the other day that I thought we'd be hearing more about Nick Douglas's departure from Valleywag, and now we have.

I got an email from 10 Zen Monkeys today pointing me to a very interesting post.  It seems that the New York Times has published an internal email from Gawker Media's Lockhart Steele (who, with a name like that, has a second career waiting for him in the WWF), explaining why Nick was sacked.

What's especially interesting about the 10 Zen Monkeys post is that it was apparently an interview with that site that led to the sacking.  In the interview, Nick talks, obviously (at least to me) tongue in cheek, about trying to get sued.  Here is the question and answer that led to the current state of affairs:

RU: So what levels of outrage or prickliness have you run into?

ND: It's usually just really uncomfortable conversations at parties. I’m learning that it's a great art — defusing conversations. I never had that skill before. I was too passive-aggressive to actually have someone confront me at a party. But now I'm able to at least make someone like me for a half hour. And that's all I really need.

We haven't gotten a serious legal threat so far. Well, a couple of minor ones, but we're still waiting for a good solid cease-and-desist and a good lawsuit. We're really trying to get News Corp to sue us. They tried to stop the publication of some article [ed: originally intended for publication by someone else] calling MySpace a spam factory. And the author was revealing some of the background behind the company – that it wasn't really started by these two guys in their basement. And, since News Corp went to such lengths to stop the original publisher from publishing the article, we were hoping that if I actually published it on Valleywag, we could finally get sued. (Sighs) It didn’t happen yet. I'm really disappointed about that.

The Steele email indicates that Gawker had "repeatedly spoke to and warned" Nick about whatever it was he was doing wrong, and there may be more to it than what is mentioned in the email.  As a commenter to the 10 Zen Monkeys post points out, "while this internal email might be closer to the truth, even this could be heavily sanitized, so only the firer and perhaps the firee know for sure."

Regardless, the precipitating event seems a little suspect.  Combined with the stated desire to make Valleywag less about whatever it used to be about and more about traditional tech and money topics, it still looks to me like there is more going on than meets the eye.

The latest developments are certainly interesting, but I don't think we've heard the final chapter in this story.

Daniel Terdiman on a threat to Second Life's virtual economy.

Ed Bott busts some Vista myths.

I can't believe Marc Canter was turned down by SXSW.  I'm all about democracy and whatnot, but sheesh.

Mark Evans on the growing house of cards.  Basically, the myth of endless online advertising gives all of Web 2.0 an excuse to forego a real business plan.  A few people, like Jason Calacanis, will get rich in the meantime.

Bigger than Freddy vs Jason?  YouTube sends TechCrunch a cease and desist letter.

DownloadSquad has their 15 essential Firefox plugins.  I use BugMeNot, FoxyTunes, Imagebot and IE Tab regularly.

Pronet Advertising has their 50 favorite blogging resources.

Doc and Nick on Ted Leonsis' blogging approach.  I suspect there are a lot of CEOs and big companies who's main internet objective is to show up first on Google.

Frank Gruber on FanPop, the rebirth of the sports-oriented community.

Steve Rubel on Edelman's recently announced Second Life business.  More from The Electric Sheep Company.

And finally, Engadget has a detailed look at installing Microsoft's Zune media player.

Mirriam-Webster defines puffery as "exaggerated commendation especially for promotional purposes."

As I mentioned earlier today, the manufacture of slogans and phrases are, unfortunately, central to traditional marketing theory, and I don't sense that is about to change.

Mike Arrington says puffery is a recipe for being ignored.

For as long as I can remember, likely due to my mathematical approach to most things, I have been irritated by hype.  Even my kids know that I call out for a footnote every time I hear an ad claiming to be "America's number one" this and that.  Not only do I ignore unsubstantiated claims, I mentally penalize the offender.

But I also know that my complaints are drowned out by decades of marketing where the lack of hype is seen as doubt.  Lots of purchases are emotional ones, and a scientific study is less emotional that an authoritative voice telling you what to do.

So can we collectively demand a higher standard in the Web 2.0 space?  Certainly Mike can as far as TechCrunch goes (and that's not an insignificant hammer).  Sending out a reconstituted and hype infested press release as an email seeking coverage is ineffective and disrespectful to the recipient.

I'm not selling anything, but if I were, here's how I would approach bloggers and other web authorities.  I'd simply tell them what my product does, factually and briefly state what distinguishes my product from other similar products, give them a link, and ask them to take a look.  If I wanted to go into more detail, I'd put it onsite, in a guided tour or tutorial.

Oh, and I would avoid stupid, Web 2.0 sounding names, but that's a topic for another post.

The winners and losers get separated for many different reasons.  You only have one chance to get someone interested in your project- don't blow it with bullshit.

Tags: web 2.0, marketing

I like Valleywag.  Partially because it's often funny.  And partially because it makes fun of people when they take themselves a bit too seriously.

Today, Valleywag announced that Nick Douglas, its former editor, is leaving.  It's not clear whether he's leaving for a better gig, or leaving as in sacked.  Nick Denton, Gawker's top dog and publisher, will step in for Nick Douglas until a permanent replacement is found.

There is always a lot more unknown than known when it comes to employment and business arrangements, but barring something very significant that we don't know about, it was a mistake for Gawker to let Nick Douglas go (regardless of who initiated the movement).  He is a good and funny writer.  Based on a few email exchanges, he seems like a nice guy, too.  He was quick to reply with helpful information when I wrote him looking for background on a post I was working on.

One passage in the post announcing Nick Douglas's departure sticks out like a flashing neon light in a pitch black room:

I suspect we're going to tone down the personal coverage of civilians, because they haven't done anything to seek out attention, and their personal lives aren't that interesting. Unless they are. Anyway, more money, a little less sex: that is Valleywag's new gossip mantra.

Hmmm.

As Thomas Hawk points out in his take on these developments, that's a departure from Valleywag's past, and probably not what most of its readers secretly want. 

It sounds to me like Gawker bending to the will of some unhappy industry insiders who don't like to pop up on Valleywag.  I can tell you from first hand conversation and emails that there are a lot of established bloggers and tech industry names that don't like Valleywag or Nick Douglas.

But isn't that part of what made Valleywag popular?

Can it suddenly change course and become a part of the establishment that it previously poked fun at?  Is the money-obsessed crowd going to suddenly look to Valleywag for industry news?

More money inspired stories?

We don't need Valleywag writing more about money.  The entire rest of the blogosphere, not to mention most of the old media, already obsesses on money.  Saying we need more focus on money is like saying we need more ads.  Or more root canals.

What we need is more fun.  There is a reason why Borat is kicking ass at the theaters.

And as far as gossip is concerned- I don't think the true story of Nick Douglas's departure will remain shrouded in mystery for very long.  I have a feeling we'll be hearing more about this in the coming days.

Regardless, I can't wait to see where Nick Douglas ends up.

Tags: blogging, valleywag, nick douglas

Memo to Stowe and Scott (and many others, and I guess me now): by writing about this Web 3.0 business, you are propagating the needless jargon you want to bury.

Media and marketing are always looking for the next slogan, the next hook, the next big thing.  If one doesn't come along fast enough, they'll try to invent one.  Wikipedia summarizes this age old marketing concept:

The next big thing is a concept in marketing that refers to a product or idea that will allow for a high amount of sales for that product and related products. Marketers believe that by finding or creating the next big thing they will spark a cultural revolution that results in this sales increase.

If you can get associated with the big thing of the moment, there's authority to be had and money to be made.  That's part of why a bunch of people get their noses out of joint when they aren't invited to pay thousands of dollars to attend an O'Reilly Web 2.0 conference.

That's all there is to John Markoff's Web 3.0 article.  An attempt to get a little traction, and maybe create a religion in the process.  A little L. Ron kitchen work, web style.

Nick Carr hopes Web 3.0 will be better.  If not, someone can toss Web 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 against the wall until one of them sticks.  Nick quotes Markoff quoting some cat who's a promoter (that's a funny word in this context) of artificial intelligence.  He thinks Web 3.0 is spooky.

I think what's even more spooky is when people create needless jargon and we all jump in line to help publicize it.  I also think more than a little of the intelligence that led to the premature buzz (such as it is) about Web 3.0 is, well, artificial.  Like the plastic apple in a bowl, it looks tasty pretty from afar.  But one bite tells you there's nothing to it but artifice and air.

On the other hand, how silly is it of me to write a post suggesting that we not talk about Web 3.0?

I tried, and failed, not to write this post.  I am doing the very thing I think we shouldn't do- take the bait and run with it.  Does the fact that I know it make it any less culpable?

I don't know.  Hopefully I can resist writing another post about Web 3.0 for a long time.  Maybe forever.

Allison Krauss was right- sometimes we say it best when we say nothing at all.

Tags: web 2.0, web 3.0, web 4.0

Dwight Silverman takes a look around the net at what some folks are saying about the pending release of Microsoft's Zune media player.

Ethan Johnson on the elections.  Kent on the elections: now the Republicans can start tossing bombs at Congress.  Everybody's a critic, but no one is a problem solver.  There are only different versions of the extreme.  That's why I am bored with politics.

I really, really, really don't agree with Fred Wilson that ads are content just like everything else.  Here's why: content is meant to inform or entertain; ads are designed to separate you from your money.  Fred has a follow-up post with more of his thoughts about ads.  I like Fred, but he's way off the mark when he thinks you can feather up the dog to look like a chicken.

Ian Delaney on ReviewMe.  I don't think it's reality or a selling of the soul.  I think it's a fad.  Like pet rocks or cabbage patch dolls.  Most of us will ignore paid posts just like most of us ignore traditional ads.

Larry Borsato on going paperless.  I have been largely paperless at home for years.  Paperport (a great program sold by a clueless and customer unfriendly company) conspired with online bill payment years ago to eliminate my personal file cabinets.  It's easy to go paperless at home, but we are at least a decade away from paperless offices.

As I mentioned the other day, I was in San Francisco this week speaking at a (non-web related) conference.  I was staying at The Palace, which coincidentally happened to be the location of the O'Reilly Web 2.0 Summit.

I didn't attend any of the presentations, but I did wander around the hallway and foyer outside the meeting rooms.  It looked like there were a few hundred people there- and a lot of socializing occurred in between and after the presentations.

I only had one O'Reilly employee ask me if I was an attendee, and that was when I inadvertently wandered too close to a meeting room where some big presentation must have been in progress.  Since I was staying at the hotel, there wasn't much they could do to keep me from walking around, but I'm certain there were other non-attendees socializing and I didn't see anyone get booted.

While I was wandering around, I kept wishing peoples' names would appear above their heads in Second Life fashion, since I know a lot more people I blog around with by name than by face.  I'm sure I walked right by other people I know from the blogosphere, without even knowing it (those around the neck nametags are hard to read and have a habit of getting turned around).

But I did get to meet a bunch of people, including Robert Scoble, Stowe Boyd and Mike Arrington.  It was a truly serendipitous opportunity for me, as a guy from Texas, to meet in person some people I know a little via the blogosphere.

Best of all, I had a long and good conversation with Steve Gillmor.  We continued the conversation that began around this post.  I restated my apology in person and we talked about a lot of stuff- blogging, geography, podcasting, etc.  He explained his thoughts on links to me and, while I don't know how to fix it, it's hard to argue with his logic that there is a problem with the status quo.

Without belaboring the point, let me say two more things about these encounters.

First, while you can get to know someone reasonably well via blogging, email, etc., what you know is just the tip of the iceberg.  There is a lot more to a person than what he or she writes on a blog.  I was nosing around this issue in the comments to my earlier post I mentioned above, but meeting these guys in person, particularly Steve, really drove that point home.

Second, I'm starting to think that geography may not be as big of an obstacle to tech-related blogging as I have long thought.  I talked to a bunch of other people out there (many of whose names I don't remember).  Quite a few of them of them (I'd say less than half, but close) knew about Newsome.Org- and some of them told me they subscribe to my feed.

Having said that, I think it's still good to shake hands with someone and look them in the eye.  I'm really glad I had a chance to meet a few other bloggers.

I can't speak for what went on inside the presentations, but the scene outside was pretty neat to experience.

I'm in San Francisco to give a speech at a (non-web) conference tomorrow.

I'm staying at The Palace, which, completely coincidentally, happens to be the site of the O'Reilly Web 2.0 Summit. That conference starts with a reception tonight and, based on a schedule I saw, ends on Thursday.

I'm going to hang around near the festivities for an hour or so out of curiosity, and then head over to the Tadich Grill for dinner.

It will be interesting to see if I recognize anyone.

Depending on when they kick me out, I may have more to report later.

Ian Delaney on Second Life.  I run hot and cold on Second Life, but I'm encouraged by the number of businesses that seem to be lining up to make it more than a game.  We won't know what Second Life is for another year or so.

Kate Trgovac on the branding of Halloween costumes.  My kids were Wonder Woman, a rock star and a ninja.  I didn't see a single ghost.

Kevin Hales went 15-0 in a recent Scrabble tournament.  As an NC State fan, he needs something to pass the time during football season. (Go Deacs!)

Nick Carr on the true nature of Web 2.0.  What started out as something interesting and collective has become just another "pre-owned cars" slogan aimed at our pocketbooks.  And on that note- I want to interview anyone who paid $375 for Tim O'Reilly's latest essay out of their own pocket.

I got busy at work a couple of weeks ago and was too worn out to write anything when I got home.  A few days became a week, and then another.

In the meantime, I realized something.  I didn't really miss it much.  The easy decision became to not blog.  After all, it will be there tomorrow.

I scanned, but did not read, my RSS feeds.  Everybody was talking about the same thing.  Most of it was boring from the first post.  All of it seemed very repetitive.

All of this caused me to reexamine my motives for blogging.  As I've said before, for me it's about conversation and learning.  I did get some great tips Photoshop tips from Richard, Steve and Thomas.  Many thanks guys.  That part of the blogging experience still works for me.

But blogging as a conversational medium is feeling extremely inefficient.  Real conversations are conducted in real time.  Blogging, on the other hand, often seems like a bunch of people independently throwing rocks into the air.  Sometime those rocks collide and the resulting sparks look like conversation.

The question becomes, do the occasional sparks make up for the millions of other rocks that thud to the ground untouched?

I don't know.

I suspect blogging like many things is cyclical.  Lately I am bored with it.  Next week or next month I may be excited again by the blogosphere.

I bet there are a lot of other people who run hot and cold on blogging.  All of this makes me really admire those whose zeal for posting never seems to ebb.

I hope I get zealous again.

Only time will tell.