Comments on: Distributed Conversations and Fragmented Attention

By: Distributed Conversations and Fragmented Attention « Paedra's Blog

Distributed Conversations and Fragmented Attention « Paedra's Blog — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:05:27 +0000

[...] via Distributed Conversations and Fragmented Attention. [...]

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:38:00 +0000

Illuminating post. While the actual impact of each new, more social than the last big step forward communication technology can be confusing, the underlying principle seems the same: conversations on the internet will change, evolve, and move beyond their creator’s original intention.

How do you maintain quality? That remains a mystery. At least to me.

By: jitendra

jitendra — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:45:00 +0000

Brian,

I fully agree with you...With developments such as these Services like SezWho that aggregate conversations (not content) are becoming more and more important.

-Jitendra

By: Ethos3

Ethos3 — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:47:00 +0000

Thank you for this enlightening post on social media. We are broadening our understanding of it and we look forward to gaining some insight with the articles you provided. Thanks again!

By: Brian Block

Brian Block — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:06:00 +0000

I’ve seen this conversation go on in a million different places. As mentioned above, Todd Defren discusses it as does Daniel R. I commented on Todd’s blog along with several others, asking for someone to create an app that tracks it all. The need to track ideas and conversations is reflected in those old computer commercials where two people have the same idea in different buildings but no way to discover each other. Maybe, sadly, that’s just how it is. Until we reach a Star Trek type way of tracking information, we may need to accept that online conversations will mirror half of real life conversations. We’re all passing ships in the night that never crash into each other.

By: Meryn Stol

Meryn Stol — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:39:00 +0000

This is a great post. Could you please fix your blog template? The title of your post is missing in the page title.

By: Anita

Anita — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:54:00 +0000

I agree with Isabella, this sort of thing has been happening since the Internet began.

When I started my archaeology discussion lists back in the mid-90's, discussions often wandered from list to list and even into other forms of media.

The feeds that you mention here do not include discussion lists, nor older types of groups. There really isn't one way of tracking discussions online (yet).

By: Daniel R

Daniel R — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:35:00 +0000

Brian,

Like I mentioned on my twitter, I find it interesting that there are two major conversations going on:
1. How conversations are fragmenting
2. How to track these fragmented conversations and if we should (Todd Defren).

I've written on the second point here:
Social Media Monitoring: Broken Conversations, Broken Tools

I'm curious what all the people writing about the fragmentation think about the social media monitoring aspect of it.

By: isabella mori

isabella mori — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:02:00 +0000

just to add to the confusion, there's also a similar conversation going on at profy.

i don't see the reason for the big hullaballoo. maybe i'm myopic. but this whole scenario isn't exactly new. how many conversations do you think are going on right now, as we speak, about, say, oprah winfrey's telecourses? dozens if not hundreds. why would those conversations NOT happen at more than one location?

let's face it, once we put something out on the net, we've lost control. if people like shyftr make money from our content, well, that's a completely different story but that's not what we're talking about.

the bottom line: ideas and conversations cannot be controlled - neither by the "good" guys nor by the "bad" ones.