Would I Ever Use BlogBurst?

I wrote this post in late April, before I left for Chicago, and initially scheduled it to publish the morning of April 25. It was replaced by something else because I wasn't sure about it, but reading it again now I think it's pretty fine. I'm writing a big post to be published in the next week or two, so this looked like a good post idea to use in the mean time.

I don't remember how I initially heard about BlogBurst. It's one of those many sites I just got in my head somehow but can't trace. There's been a post idea nagging at the back of my head for a while, and I decided to let it out now.

BlogBurst is an RSS-based syndication network, where publishers submit their content and other sites can take it and display it under their own umbrella. The content producers make money (theoretically) and the other sites get content.

So would I use BlogBurst? That's a good question. There are a few problems I see. First, I probably can't sign up. (Due to the other niggling ethical issues I haven't bothered to check for an age restriction, but one probably exists.) Second, I'd be providing content for other sites to make money off of. Third, I'd be creating duplicate content, upon which Google and other search engines frown.

Putting my writing on someone else's site for their profit -- even if I would get a cut -- isn't something I want to do. I can't rationalize creating duplicates or taking traffic away from this site (or its feed).

On the one hand, it sounds like it could be some good exposure if my posts are displayed on popular news sites like Reuters, Fox News, etc., and could generate some revenue (if my writing is picked up, of course). However, it's a lot like turning blogging into a job, and at the moment I don't want to do that. (What sites would continue displaying blog posts that aren't replenished fairly regularly? Yeah, that's what I thought. I try to blog regularly, but if things get in the way I don't have to tear my hair out over it.)

I have been considering placing ads on this site, but first of all I can't (for another year) because of my age, and second I'm not sure I want to bug my readers with ads. (I wonder if I'm one of the bloggers who don't deserve to make money -- though I agree with the counter-argument from Geek News Central. Louis? I hear most sites don't make more than a dollar or two a day, anyway, if that.)

How Should I Respond to Copied Photos?

All right, it's time to get this issue out there.  I tweeted it a few times before, many months ago, but last night I was just reminded of the issue by an entire Facebook album of photos uploaded by someone I went canoeing with last summer -- but represented as original works.  No credit, no acknowledgment, not even anything about the fact that someone else took the photos!

Fine, I did upload the photos to Picasa Web Albums and set them as public, and I did send everyone on the trip the URL of the gallery page... But still, those are my pictures that have been taken without any attribution and uploaded to a social website that claims a ton of rights to user-submitted content in the fine print of its user agreements:

By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

In short:

[...] this means you’re giving up copyright control of your material. If you upload a photo to Facebook, they can sell copies of it without paying you a cent. If you write lengthy notes (or import your blog posts!), Facebook can turn them into a book, sell a million copies, and pay you nothing. This deserves careful consideration!

Both of the above quotes were copied from a great post at Legal Andrew on the subject of Facebook.  (See?  Attribution is so easy to give, and yet it's so often left out.)

So there are issues with Facebook's terms of service.  There are also issues with the emotional connection I feel with my own photos, and my desire to be credited for my work, and my wish to be recognized by others for what I've done.  Oh, and let's not forget the horrible feeling that comes from knowing other people think someone else created your work.

I'm not going to mention who copied my photos, not by name.  That doesn't matter; I can handle that person's abuse easily enough, once I decide what course of action to take.  Which brings me to the point of this post.

Using a question as a post title isn't something I do often (despite it being advised).  That means I really want reader feedback on the post, even more than normal.  So, it's a simple question:

How should I handle this unauthorized, unattributed uploading of my content to Facebook?

Should I contact the person through the messaging system (or email)?  Or just send Facebook a DMCA notice for the images and be done with it?

I look forward to any and all opinions on this matter.

What Does "Friend" Mean?

Image by Veronica Belmont via Flickr This was inspired by a recent experience I had when I went back to Evanston, IL for the NHSI Musical Theatre extension presentation.  I'd rather not talk about the details -- I've decided not to blog about that part of my life, despite its significance, as it's rather painful -- but I did get to thinking.  This is what I came up with in the time since.

Social networking websites have really degraded the concept of friendship.  I suppose it's not their fault entirely -- other things like amateur radio have been doing the same things (namely competing based on how many contacts a person has) for decades -- but none of the previous offenders used the term "friends" for the number being compared.

See, MySpace and Facebook both have a lot of users, and substantial subsets of those users often compare their friend list size with that of other people they know, and try to get the biggest number within their social circle.  So we have people you barely know sending (and accepting) friend requests to (and from) you.

Now, I have always used the term "friend" to refer to people with whom I feel connected and with whom I have something of a relationship beyond simple collaboration and camaraderie (that is, beyond a "professional" or "working" relationship).  Those with whom I feel a personal connection, I suppose.  So now I see that there's no way for me to say that these colleagues, classmates, or whatever are just those; everybody I know (including family) is a "friend" in the eyes of a social networking site.  That's annoying, very annoying.

See, it all boils down to this: I left Cherubs nearly two weeks ago. (And I still haven't written down all my experiences... I know, for shame.)  I had thought I made a lot of friends there, but that was really wishful thinking as it turns out.  In fact, I was fooling myself into thinking I had fit in much better than I had in reality.  Sensing that I had been an outsider, I didn't want to accept that fact -- or admit it to myself -- and so I began thinking of all these people who greeted me courteously, professionally, in passing, as "friends".

The Facebook definition of "friend" has invaded my thinking, and it's probably affecting a lot of people.

Those aren't "friends" I made at Cherubs; what had seemed like real connections were really just the superficial, cordial niceties of working together in a focused group.  They are acquaintances at best, strangers (yes, I managed to avoid even learning some people's names) at worst.  The strangers are the ones I recognize as having been in the program but can't name or put in a role from the shows we did the last week of July.

Suffice it to say I was pretty disappointed, after the presentation ended, at the lack of warmth from those who had been my colleagues and cohorts for five weeks.  More importantly, one boy who had seemed like a friend seemed more interested in the videos I took for him than in me.  By him in particular I felt used.

So a "friend" is not a friend.  Not even if you mentally drop the quotes.

I suppose managing relationships is a skill that comes with experience, and isn't innate to the human mind.  My parents aren't exactly what you'd call socialites, and really nobody in my family is.  So far as I'm aware, everyone I know can count the number of friends (not "friends") they have using ten fingers or less, and probably use less than five.  I know I can.  Unfortunately I have been unable to connect with any of my real friends for most of the summer, since we've all been busy and/or out of town.

My point here is that I've learned the hard (emotionally) way to not think of everyone as a friend, and not even as a "friend".  Facebook may use the term.  MySpace and Twitter can (though Twitter uses the word "Following" now).  I most certainly won't.  (I think I put more detail than I wanted to in this post, but it really does help illustrate what I'm talking about, so...  I'll leave it all in.)

Hampton Inn Internet Issues

Image via Wikipedia All right, so obviously I managed to get online.  But it took about half an hour.  Let me begin the saga... (And this was after something of a disappointment at the NHSI Musical Theatre extension's presentation... but I don't think I'll blog about that.)

We checked into the hotel around 22:00, then got up to the room.  I set up my computer and started looking for clues as to how the Internet access was delivered (RJ-45 plug or Wi-Fi).  I finally figured out that it was wireless (the amenities book gave the impression that it was wired) and tried to find it.  No luck.

So I called the front desk.  Duh.

DC: "Guest Services."

Me: "I'm having trouble accessing the Internet.  Is it wired or wireless?"

DC: "It's wireless."

Me: "I can't seem to find the network."

DC: "Have you entered the code yet?"

Me: "On a Web page or in Windows?"

DC: "On the authentication page."

Me: "I haven't even managed to find the network yet."

Now she figures it out. (I am not dissing girls -- there are plenty of geeky girls out there -- it's just that the guest services employees at hotels never seem to know anything about technology.) After a few more sentences, she gives up and transfers me to the Internet support call center.

One would think they'd know what's up, right? By this point I've deduced that it was an out-of-range network, but I figured I'd see if the support tech knew something I didn't. After getting in all my hotel info, I was asked what the problem was.

Me: "My computer can't find the network."

ST: "Is your connection wired or wireless?"

Me: "Wireless."

ST: "Are there any networks in the list?"

Me: *Rattles off the two that were in the list the last time I refreshed it*

ST: "Is it plugged in?"

Me: "The computer's power cord is plugged in, yes."

ST: "Can you reboot your computer for me?"

I waited on the line for a good chunk of time while my computer rebooted in its slow, cautious way. During the wait, I was asked what kind of computer I had. Foolishly I answered, "Windows XP". I thought she meant the operating system, which is what most people mean when they ask "what kind" about a computer. But no, she wanted "Gateway". Anyway...

Me: "I have access to the network properties."

ST: "Is it in the list now?"

Me: "No." (after checking the newly-updated network list)

And that was it. The tech suggested that it was a weak wireless signal in the room and said she'd have the front desk send up a bridge. (The bridge is pretty cool; it gets the 'Net from the power socket. Nice!) And the call was over.

So, all they can do is send me something to plug in?  I like wireless Internet, thank you very much.  Oh well.

I'm not really complaining about the support tech; I know she's just reading from a script.  The woman at the front desk should be able to figure out that if I can't find the network, that means I haven't gotten to the authentication page.  But maybe the average traveler isn't too bright, and refers to the Internet as "the network"...  I don't know.  I suppose my point is that the hotel's wireless nodes aren't placed too well.  And the last hotel we stayed at (same chain) had an Ethernet cable right on the desk.  Never mind the fact that I was bumped over to the table by my mother's suitcase...

Travel is such fun sometimes...

Google, Please Don't Disrupt the Continuity of Google Page Creator Sites

Don't worry, I'm working on a post about my summer at Northwestern University. It's just a lot of writing, thinking, and recalling, so it'll take some time. Meanwhile, this post has a very important message I wanted to get out.

All right, someone needs to think. Hard. Someone at Google, that is. Why? Because a lot of people, including me, will be potentially made unhappy when Google Sites takes over for Google Page Creator.

Google Blogoscoped published "Google Slowly Closing Page Creator" a few days ago, which got me thinking. How much do I use Google Page Creator? For its intended purpose (creating pages), not much. But I use it quite a bit for hosting miscellaneous images and bits of XML (like gadgets and FeedFlare units) that I use all over the Web. So what will happen if Google migrates me to Google Sites?

The Bad

The bad possibility -- one that I sincerely hope they avoid -- is that I will be moved from http://voyagerfan5761.googlepages.com/ to http://sites.google.com/site/voyagerfan5761/. Links all over the place will break. Images will be missing. My blog feed will be missing FeedFlares. Countless emails will no longer look right. Sure I can fix much of the damage, but that assumes Google will migrate my files, too.

The Hope

My hope is that, using the custom domain feature of Google Sites, migrated Google Page Creator users will simply have their back-end replaced, while the public-facing part of the site (pages and files) appear to remain the same. No broken links, no discontinuity, no user aggravation.

Conclusion

I guess my point in writing this (there are other discussions, too; here's one from FriendFeed and one from Labnol) is to try and get Google's attention. Please, Google, please let us know more details about your migration plans. If migration is going to break links and change URLs, please tell us now so we can begin preparations!

Update (12:51): I nearly forgot about files! Of course accessing existing files is covered under not breaking links, but I totally forgot to mention that there's a possibility of them being deleted in the move or (worse, I think) migrated but hidden in the interface, making deletions, changes, and new uploads impossible. (Thanks, Tony!)

Update (17:46): Ionut at Google Operating System posted on this a few hours ago, and I see he found a Google Groups thread that explains in a bit more detail what will be happening. Google Page Creator sites will be redirected to their Google Sites counterparts. However, it still doesn't mention how files will be handled...