connecting*the*dots

our elders are often described as having beautiful souls;
aged with experience…
peppered with struggle…
garnished with the gained and lost love of family and friends.
beautiful souls whose eyes have seen beyond the boundaries,
but have not yet led to expression due to their place in time…
with time being the bottom-line for the struggle;
for the patience;
for the shift;
for the act;
time, the paradigm, encircles itself, hiding its phases of change and evolution.
so beautiful souls have been bound by time…
now, a soulful beauty can be stitched and wrapped within the construct of time itself,
in-tune with the paradigm of the real (of the moment),
more deeply than a beautiful soul might have been at any time in the past…
why?
because she is experience
because she is pepper
because she is the rough of the diamond in the state of carbon,
shimmering without compression or explicit fine-tuning at the cost of humanity
a soulful beauty transcends the constraints of time
like skin on top of skin,
five levels deep.
a timeless beauty.

The. Most. Slept. On. Soundtrack… Ever.

we bring the live to the live to bring death to the all
barrels of dark reason tells the story of the gall
100’s of men and women have the power to stand tall
’stead they just stand by and watch the march to a fall
what’s up y’all?
who’s up for an overhaul?
who’s ready for a medicine ball
dropped from way outta site,
an old found depth and a new found height?
three times left… you know i’m right.
pushing the boundaries of air tight
i’m blasting through to ignite,
even in spite…
of my in-stability,
of my new-found city,
of the pity of a fitty-
sense
of the diddy of a twenty-
pence
of the quality of kweli…
hence
the expansion of a mos def
fence
intense custom eyes gives rise
two light blue hues cutting ties…
lost in the queue.
too much to say,
too much to do,
packing in the world for a step to the chrome-
a zone…
stepping up for a push and a lift two
a tone…
stepping back down
to step right back up
up,
up,
and away…

Peter Merholz has been on a philosophical bend regarding the continued development of Web 2.0 and the role of business for a few months now, and I’m pretty much in agreement with most of his assertions.

Changing a large, old school domain’s approach to interactive product development — specifically, in the Web 2.0 arena — doesn’t occur solely through the availability of smart engineers armed with APIs, feeds and Ajax alone. Unless the business has evolved its underlying approach and culture to facilitate this paradigm shift, the resulting efforts will be futile, or to quote Peter, “they’ll fuck it up.”

The powers that be must believe in and back the philosophy behind the technology.

So when it comes to business — I mean straight up, hardcore, numbers driven business — philosophy better equate with an explicit road-map to profit, otherwise we’re not talking business, we’re talking charity. More succinctly put, corporations won’t structure their annual and long-term corporate initiatives around Web 2.0 “open” principles and the investment in the underlying technology if they don’t explicitly understand how and why it will positively affect both their brand position in the market and the bottom line — both now and into the foreseeable future.

Now, I don’t hold a MBA from Wharton, so my ability to speak to the nuances of business is somewhat limited, but I did have the opportunity to spend the last three-years of my life within the walls of a conservative corporation. During my time there, it was extremely difficult to espouse any degree of change to their approach to design, development and serving their clients without raising agenda sniffing eyebrows — even when only attempting to sell the basic concept of listening to your own users when designing user experiences.

That concept alone took years to gain traction.

So while change within the Earth’s environment is as natural as a sunrise, within traditional businesses the mechanisms that foster change often signifies a threat to both the corporate strategy and the management team alike. One cannot move into traditional areas of business looking to flip long standing product development paradigms and revenue models overnight.

A recent Economist article ("Yahoo’s personality crisis") suggests that there’s a schism developing in the Yahoo! strategic and brand position, while Google is poised to sprint light years ahead. Peter’s latest post," Yahoo!: Walled Garden or Commons," tacks onto that perspective, suggesting that Yahoo!’s internal tugging between an open and closed  web philosophy, and their imminent plans to open a Hollywood office, could become a mission critical issue if not paid proper attention. The Economist even went as far as comparing present day Yahoo! to AOL from back in the days of the first web revolution.

AOL?

If we were talking about Bob Davis and Lycos, I’d have to agree, but we’re talking about Yahoo!, a company that has always been forward thinking, willing to tackle any attribute of traditional media and turn it on it’s head to make it useful on-line. With their soon-to-be-expansion into the mainstream media bastion of Hollywood, Yahoo!, for better or for worse, continues to operate as a change agent in the information age.

Simultaneous focus on open and closed aspects of the web is a solid business approach

Yahoo! has been at this web thing for more than 154 years now (posthumous math courtesy of Dick Sabot). In that time they’ve established a huge member base around the world, while designing a majority of their domain to be accessible to non-members with zero usage fees. A person can use most of Yahoo! without ever spending a dime until coming across a service with direct, fee-based competition already in the market. This holistic business model may seem passe by today’s standards, but that’s only because Yahoo! set the benchmark years ago; they were the early adopters of such an open business philosophy on the web.

This approach has provided Yahoo! with the means to both create and promote very precise revenue streams, leveraging the continuously growing reach of their membership and platform. Simultaneously, their focus on a variety of forward thinking, open tactical initiatives, such as flickr, 360, News, Music, etc. continues to move their domain forward with the best practices of the medium.

To the naked eye, this overarching strategy hints to be a metaphorical form of iterative change management, but not on the project or Yahoo! domain level, though; it’s more like change management for entering untapped external markets and media industries. In other words, Yahoo! seems to make closed moves (i.e. extending its domain by dealing with old school industries) in order to tap and evolve an established sector into a more open and web-centric format.

So does that make cents, compared to Google’s approach? Let’s see…

Google is also made-up of a brilliant group of people, creating forward-thinking user interfaces and search retrieval algorithms, but where Google’s daily operations differ from Yahoo! is their position in the market.

Their underlying funding relies almost solely on revenue established from their AdSense program and by floating company shares into a market that has provided a whopping market evaluation, based primarily on growth potential. So who really has the edge to last, riding through and continue contributing to the infrastructure of Web 2.0?

They both do.

Yahoo! has a consistent, upwardly moving market cap SMA since the bubble burst, whereas Google is on a meteoric rise post-dotcom crash. How much do you think the assertions of this chart tie directly into the two company’s strategic approaches to extending market reach? What about their commitment to open forms of Web 2.0 development? To the non-economist (that would be me) it would seem that each company has it’s own DNA to deal with and make decisions accordingly.

• Yahoo! took its bruises, but made it through the bust and learned their business lessons
• Google’s people felt the crash, but missed it all together as a company with a bottom line and shareholder’s interests to protect, so they’re more aggressive
• Yahoo! has more than a decades worth of experience, so they operate like a surgeon
• Google swings wildly at product opportunities with brilliant, broad strokes and precise algorithms to quickly iterate change

Basically, there’s room for multiple approaches to paving and extending Web 2.0.

Crafting an interactive world, one industry at a time

Take a moment to think about your life before Yahoo! took off. Ten years ago, the average American received their daily news through a newspaper and/or a TV broadcast. Due to Yahoo!’s revolutionary efforts to establish News aggregation for the public, I can barely remember the last time I read the newspaper during the week. Yahoo! forever altered that paradigm, shifting me and countless others in front of their screen for a news upload each morning.

Since Yahoo! News launched, Google raised the bar by expanding indexed sources to include international and local perspectives, while recent feed services like Rojo have cropped up, pushing the information boundaries into gourmet concept feeds.

Yahoo! set all of this in motion and continues to play a major role in how a large number of people (members or not) receive a variety of news items at their fingertips. By iterating the open, tactical aspects of their holistic user experience (i.e. feed widgets, top mailed articles, reviews of articles, etc.) while adding content (i.e. specific opinion blogs such as the HuffingtonPost.com), Yahoo! innovates by keeping one foot in the tactical realm of Web 2.0, with the other firmly planted in the strategic realm of the business philosophy.

It takes two feet to walk the walk.

As DeWitt Clinton has recognized, Web 2.0 is also about working together to reach a common goal across company lines. Forget the feeds and the tagging and the asynchronous display of data; collaboration between progressively run web firms is the biggest open paradigm shift one can imagine. Could this concept of collaboration and strategic balance be something that Yahoo! — a former Google-type firm which did experience the market correction of all market corrections in the bust of 2001 — has mandated itself to follow? Maybe it’s not schizophrenic to play both sides of the Web 2.0 fence; maybe it’s a solid business model.

With their historical record of successful brand extension — creating and/or acquiring useful, engaging experiences to change actual industries (i.e. News, Finance, Jobs, etc.) — I wouldn’t bet against Yahoo! in convincing Hollywood, through either the front or backdoor, to operate in a fashion that is more open than not.

Will the geek-to-media employee ratio be higher in the Valley than in Santa Monica? Sure. When in Rome, hire Romans, but so what? 154 years of Internet experience isn’t going to be thrown out the window because a handful of media executives are brought on-board. Will the output of this venture be as revolutionary as Yahoo! News or Finance? That’s left to be seen, but with Yahoo!’s track record, why be pessimistic?

Yahoo! espouses the tactical and philosophical pillars of Web 2.0, yet also understands business and how to engage in change. They’re no AOL.

UPDATE: AOL bought Weblogs, Inc. Let’s see how long it takes them to assert full control.

Newsweek and Technorati are in bed together and I’m really hoping it isn’t a monogamous relationship.

I’m not sure when this started, but Newsweek is now citing "Blog Talk," creating a contextual column from the Newsweek article page (first image, click for larger image) that links to a full Blog Talk page (second image) which presents the last 10 blogs posts that have linked to the Newsweek article. This is being done automatically, sans any editorial review.

I’m currently working on a project for which I presented this exact context scenario for our blogger design persona. I couldn’t believe the serendipity. So to ensure the API and execution would support our needs, I ran a quick test and posted a response to the "I’m So Sorry" article, linking back to the story URL. Within 10 minutes of pinging Technorati, my post appeared on the Newsweek page. Okay, that’s very progressive. Sure, it’s only a glorified trackback system, but the underlying philosophy has huge implications.

We’re quickly moving to a sustainable model for presenting the individual perspective on the same level as mainstream media’s editorial-driven journalism. It’s a win-win; a site like Newsweek gets an increased blogger readership and bloggers have the opportunity to share their perspectives with people that tend to stay away from the scattered blogosphere.

From my perspective, this is the first step to truly legitimizing the blogosphere. What’s next? Well, if Google, Yahoo! and other mainstream news aggregators began to index blogs for their search queries, we’d be one step closer to breaking through the mainstream media stranglehold on information for the average American that receives their news on-line. All of this is what the promise of Community TV was supposed to provide twenty years ago, but ran into the obvious production challenges.

This is really good. It’s good for business, good for bloggers, and most importantly, good for bubbling the truth of a story to the surface. This is discourse.

So President Bush has met with more than 700 family members of 270 soldiers killed in Iraq. I’m sorry, but this fluff piece from Newsweek ("I’m So Sorry") just doesn’t cut it for me.

How is it that myself, half of this nation and a majority of the world, didn’t buy the propaganda leading up to the invasion of Iraq, yet this smug bastard was still able to Shock and Awe us into the next Vietnam? Why isn’t Newsweek writing an “I’m So Sorry” piece about that move?

That was a rhetorical question by the way.

Bush should meet with every family that has lost a son, daughter, sister, brother, mother and father due to this war. This Newsweek piece smells like one huge wristband to me. Just do the right thing and stop the media spin barrage, please. And oh yeah, one more thing: Break convention and meet with Cindy Sheehan for a second time. This is all starting to sound like a bunch of ankle biter’s complaints that the birthday girl is receiving a second slice of cake.

A few months back, I finally stepped out of my dead bolted existence within Ameritrade and began to digest the current state of this Web 2.0 explosion, and as soon as I did, the Semantic Web seemed so much closer to fruition than it did just a few years prior.

Much of the renewed push and entrepreneurial spirit that has driven this industry-wide rebirth seems to have been driven simply by our economic recovery from the dot-com crash. On the surface, that answer is sufficient, but something deeper is at at play. So, with my newly created free-time, I headed down a 2.0 rabbit hole to take me on a journey for clarity.

What I’ve come to realize isn’t anything particularly shocking (unless you’ve been a corporate slave for the past three years).

We’re living in tumultuous times. The air we breathe is being compromised more and more every day. Poverty around the world is increasing exponentially. Our country is knee deep in another Vietnam, another occupation, another struggle for gaining natural resources at any cost. People are becoming polarized by important and moral, personal and social issues, seemingly on a daily basis. All of this is occurring during the reign of an administration that has even the staunchest of conservatives questioning whether we, the people, are living within the midst of a dictatorial democracy, rather than a thriving Republic, built on the principles of political discourse, government checks and balances, fiscal responsibility, the separation of church and state and the power of the individual voter.

So where does this leave us as a people?

Personally speaking, I’ve decided to refocus my effort to publish my views, opinions, perspectives, experiences, etc., in an effort to make even the slightest dent in the discourse surrounding our roles as American citizens.

What motivates me? Pick your poison: the War on Terror; the Rove/Plame/Wilson scandal; the Bolton push-through appointment; the Cindy Sheehan vigil. It seems that every day a new flow of bullshit only fuels the righteous indignation I’ve come to hold regarding this administration.

Is it even possible to imagine a more visceral description of an Aristocracy at play?

For me, the complete disregard of the intelligence and voice of the American citizen begins to explain the groundswell of blogging that has occurred over the past four years, specifically the political blogs and mainstream media watchdog sites.

Sure, the potential for capital gains plays a large role in the motivation to advance technology or any other industry. The web, though, is a bit different due to it’s low cost of entry, so I believe that moral conviction plays a role in both driving the evolution of technology and the passion to leverage it to it’s fullest degree.

So what’s the connection between geo-political events, blogging and the tactical fervor of Web 2.0? (social bookmarking, tagging, open source, open content, etc.)

In a nutshell: everything.

Without a true social democracy in the real, we’ve evolved to create one on-line — where boundaries can be broken down, hierarchies can be dissolved, control can be minimized, etc.

I blog in order to get my voice out into the ether of this new social construct; I tag my blog posts to provide context and semantic relationships on numerous levels, yet with a similar purpose:

1. On the base object level to provide a succinct description of how I perceive this content from a conceptual perspective, perhaps creating a) a greater connection with the reader on a discernible level and b) connections on associative & relational levels with other objects (within my domain and elsewhere)
2. On the categorization level to establish context within a particularly defined category or across a faceted classification scheme. If I were an actual brand, this would be how I’d ensure my position was reflected within my editorial construct and navigation scheme.
3. On the retrievable object level to allow for more avenues of findability (four, well-thought descriptive tags exponentially increase the odds of object retrieval rather than none or even one, either in straight queries or in contextual presentation on the base object level)

These are tactical strategies in the information revolution.

The same principles apply to tagging even more granular object such as photographs, video and sound files, as well as the macro-level social bookmarking of URLs. The effort, I believe, is based on the desire of individual voices to be heard amidst the shelling of the mainstream media. While technically speaking, Web 2.0 is about the creation of richly defined object models and attributes — the more good data we entrench within our objects (be it content, files or URLs themselves), the better the chance for a semantic web experience — the movement behind it is much more compelling, much more philosophical in nature.

After leaving Ameritrade in April, I spent a month digesting Noam Chomsky’s Understanding Power, which introduced me to the specifics of his propaganda model thesis, which I fully digested by watching the documentary Manufacturing Consent. Recently, Dave Sifry (CEO, Technorati) posted a graph on the Technorati Blog displaying the impact that blogs are making within the once dominated realm of entrenched, funded, mainstream media.

I’m only guessing that if Chomsky has studied the progression of the web, he’s smiling up in Cambridge right about now.

The legitimization of the individual (creative and political) perspective is being sustained in the 21st century by the conviction of the blogosphere, passionate focus on the possibilities of 2.0 revenue models and domains, such as Technorati, taking a leadership position. The concept of social dialog, networking and organization and the elemental foundation of capitalism are beginning to shift in exciting ways.

Imagine a near future where:

• Individual perspectives can be made more readily sustainable through a common revenue model, reversing the big money/power structure of publication and media saturation? How would that impact the politics of our nation? Our wage labor practices?
• Algorithms and interfaces allow for rich, precise retrievals of topical queries, with just as precisely retrieved contextual objects presented within a usable format, based on better clustering techniques and taking richer and more valuable attributes into account? How would this impact the way we learn and connect to one another?
• Information domains allow topically defined objects to be rolled up into navigable concepts by users (through customization) instead of predefined categories by information architects? How could this seamlessly raise the bar for common folk in their efforts to research online? To manage information across numerous domains?
• Mainstream media articles and blog posts are presented on the same level (query or article), ensuring checks and balances of mis/disinformation, without a partisan bias? How important is it for check and balances to be rooted within the last bastion of traditional governmental checks and balances — the media?

And the great thing is that we’re not too far away from this revolutionary existence.

Blogs are beginning to bridge the social and communication gaps between nations. My peers are thinking differently when developing this medium, even in traditional business development circumstances. The tactical approach to producing, managing, sharing, finding and using information objects — defined from the bottom up — is finally getting it’s due.

Yes, these are tumultuous times, but they’re exciting as well.

I’m now two weeks away from moving down south and I’ve got to admit, the anxiety is starting to kick in. While I’m mad happy to be starting my life with Angela, I have a handful of conflicting feelings about moving from JC/NYC to North Carolina — from all-around accessibility issues and gas prices (I’ll have to drive with regularity for the first time in five years) to experiencing homogeneous culture shock to actually enjoying a cheaper and more relaxed/healthier lifestyle.

See? I’m conflicted, but in a very good way.

All in all, I’m ready for a change. And if you know me, when I make changes in life (or when life makes changes to me), it’s usually drastic. This time it’s a bit different; there’s some planning behind it all. And while I’ve never been one for planning life, I’m feeling pretty good about the course I’m undertaking.

In a few weeks, I’ll probably end up waxing poetic about leaving the area I’ve considered home for most of my 34 years, but for now, I leave you with the funniest worst-case scenario video montage of America; an America that’ll be much closer in proximity to me in a few weeks than ever before.

(via BoingBoing)

Dear Rod,

Remember when I asked you for a Nets squad that could in the very least compete with other NBA teams a few years back? You responded by delivering us K-Mart, J-Kidd, RJ and a healthy Kerry Kittles. Well, I don’t think I ever properly thanked you for that one. Thank you. It was huge. Watching Nets’ playoff basketball was a dream of mine for years and contending for two championships was, well, an experience beyond my wildest expectations.

Now, please don’t take the rest of this the wrong way. You’re obviously still the Man; the Mac Daddy, Pimp Extraordinaire; a true Thug. The last thing I’d ever do is tell you how to do your job. I mean, you did draft the greatest basketball player to ever play the game after two Rod-wanna-be GM’s passed him up. Over the course of your career, you’ve earned the right to be provided with the benefit of doubt for any move… and then some. Here’s my dilemma: I’m not privy to your eyes and ears.

All media reports indicated that Shareef’s knee scarring was present since high school and that it’s never been an issue during his career. You were about to sign him to a relatively cheap contract, locking him up for six years, until his 34th birthday. Couldn’t we have just rolled the dice and bet on his ROI to ring true within the next two years? I mean, J-Kidd isn’t getting any younger. By the time an arthritic condition might set in, we’d be in rebuilding mode anyway… right? See, this is me — an interactive strategist — trying to play Rod without all of the available information. It is blasphemy. But you do get my point, right? The window is closing on this J-Kidd led squad. The future is now.

So we now have Wright replacing Buford as the backup swing-man, McInnis replacing Best as the backup scoring point and Jackson replacing Smith as the backup… big scrub. Each of these moves has improved the team, but we still don’t have a back-to-the-basket PF. Remember the playoffs, when Miami doubled Vince and our offense completely shut down? Sorry, man, of course you remember. And sure, I realize that RJ wasn’t at 100% either, so maybe the results would be different this time around. But with all due respect, I don’t believe that for a minute.

So here I kneel, praying to Rod that you’ll listen to me once more. Would I take a Brian Grant signing? Sure. But he doesn’t bring anything to the table on the offensive end. Here’s my armchair GM suggestion: VC for Okafor and a few contracts. Vince wows the crowds every night in NC (with Sean Mays and Raymond Felton in tow) and we get a young, solid post-up player with great rebounding and shot blocking skills. Then, as only you could do, sign Michael Finley off waivers as our starting 2.

J-Kidd, Finley, RJ, Okafur and Nenad. Not to0 shabby.

Again, it’s your world, Rod, I’m just a squirrel trying to get a nut. My honor code is Rod, family and friends — in that order. So you go do what it is that you do so well: hustle a GM into thinking that he’s the Man and rip out his heart in the process. You do you. I’m just going to kick back and watch the story unfold with amazement.

Amen.