Facebook’s Trending Articles – adding irrelevance into my network

Facebook started testing ‘Trending Articles’ roughly a week ago, but they’ve appeared in my own account for the first time today. Now below the latest update from my network, I get a block displaying 5 articles read by someone connected to me, like so (name of friend removed as who knows whether they want it displayed publicly)

FacebookTrendingArticlesI have the vaguest idea that this might be about American Football – a sport I rarely watch as I’m not a big fan, and it’s not freely available in the UK. In fact, none of the 5 highlighted stories were particularly interesting or relevant.

Partly that’s because my Facebook network is a network of friends, family, present and former colleagues and other people I’ve met over the last few years. So many of the people on there may not share similar interests to me – I don’t keep in touch with my 2nd cousin because of her knowledge of SEO, Social Media or 3D Printing for example.

And partly it’s because there’s no way for me to indicate which stories might actually be interesting and allow Facebook to learn more about what to show me – it’s not being cross-referenced against my listed interests as far as I can see.

Not only that, but there’s no way to remove or minimise it from my stream, and it’s designed to blend it well enough I can see a mistaken click on the lone ‘Share’ button is likely to happen more than once.

 

How Google missed a trick:

And possibly the saddest part of this is that I used to have the perfect mechanisms for finding articles from people I knew which I always found interesting. In addition to Twitter, my favourite way to get stories from friends and contacts was via Google Reader – it meant that the people I followed had made a decision to publicly share something from their stream which led to a far higher signal to noise ratio as I was able to select people with relevant interests from within my network, see everything they’d shared quickly and easily, and remove anyone who wasn’t quite in sync with what I wanted.

Obviously Google dropped that to pursue Google+, but that network has emulated Facebook in providing a lot of noise around the things I actually want. And yet Google has 6+ years of data on what I actively click and share via Reader, what I search for, and what I list as my interests on my profiles.

 

The saddest thing is that as publishers are finally moving towards embracing digital more and more as their core medium, the social networks seem to be moving towards interruption as a way to force up their figures and revenue. And while everyone complains about spam and misdirection in search results, at least there is an incentive for Google and Bing to try to curb the tide of paid links and dodgy manipulation in SEO, whereas there’s no such recourse on each social network.

 

The user experience of sex…

Really interesting video of Tor Myrhen, the President and Chieft Creative Officer of Grey New York using the tale of how he lost his virginity at age 14 to compare the user experience of the process between 1986 and 2011.

It’s a good reminder of how technology may change, but at their core people don’t, and how although the core desires and motivations remain identical, the ways in which we communicate and connect do lead to different interactions and outcomes. But where it goes further for me is in the repercussions of those changes and how they may have an effect on the way our core desires now manifest themselves

Desire in the connected age:

I’m not much younger than Myrhen, so most of the references are pretty familiar, particularly skateboarding. I actually have a VHS cassette that a friend put together of a group of us hanging out and attempting to skate from around 20 years ago, and I wonder whether I’d have let myself be filmed if I thought anyone outside of the five of us would ever see it? I’d still want to be an awesome skater, and I’d still suck, so would I dare go near a board if I thought it would end up on Facebook and Youtube in minutes?

Given the public nature of connections, would I have pursued the same girls, or had the same serendipitous moments of mutual interest? And would my friends have been using technology to screw them up more effectively than they managed in real life?

And when some of those teen romances inevitably ended, what implications does it have when it’s announced publicly on social networks, with an almost micro-celebrity level of PR regarding who was dumped, whose story gets out first, and who gets blamed?

As Myhren says, all of the data that got shared on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and indexed by Google, is essentially around for eternity, or at least as long as those companies are with us, so flashing forward 20 years in my own life, what effects does that have on me now? In my 30s in 1986 it would have taken a lot of effort to track down past friends and girlfriends if I was feeling nostalgic, compared to a quick search on Google and some social networks – I’m in regular contact with three of my best friends that I met living in the U.S despite being terrible at keeping in touch before the broadband revolution really took off in the UK, for example.

Out of curiousity, after seeing this, I did a quick check to see how many ex-girlfriends I could track down with barely any effort, and without revealing my personal quantitative data, I managed about 70% success in about an hour. Does that change what happens with regards to nostalgia and ‘ending’ relationships which can be so easily resumed? Does it mean that although the desire for a quick romance still exists for many people, the reality is that it’s always easy for one party to at least attempt to resume it online, whether or not that leads to problems?

After all, the rules and guidelines of society, whether legal, religious, or community generated have all come about to enable humans to combine their core desires with the need to live, work and exist together in a fairly mutually acceptable way. So given that those rules and guideliness are changing at a faster pace than ever due to the speed of technological change, are we going to cope with the new rules and guidelines, and what does that mean for our kids? We can talk about digital natives seeing the internet and mobile as natural parts of their lives, but our kids and grandkids will still have the same core desires that we’ve had for centuries. The difference will be how they reconcile them with the world around them, both digital and physical.

 

 

What’s in a crowdsourcing….

I was going to write an eloquent and heartfelt post regarding everything that’s wrong about the attempt by Golley Slater to rebrand by a hamfisted attempt at ‘crowdsourcing’ – another example why really we should be stricter about how the term is used, and why co-collaboration should probably replace it.

But then I spotted the always interesting Andrea Phillips had beaten me to is on her blog, Deus Ex Machinatio. Worth reading the post if you’re interested in ever trying to actually achieve something productive using crowdsourcing mechanics, and also if you’re interested in transmedia and game design/mechanics etc.

So I’ll get back to working and trying not to lose myself in playing with Google +. Despite being touted initially as a ‘Facebook killer’, it actually seems more and more people are coming round to thinking of it as a potential rival to Twitter in the curation of streams of content. Similar to how Twitter might have evolved lists, or how Tweetdeck used them to create a more workable interface at scale.