Google's text-based Ads

In general, do you pay attention to Google’s text-based ads? If you do follow them, tell us why. If you don’t, tell us why. Should Google keep these “sponsored ads”? Tell us why or why not.

When searching for things on Google, for the most part I don't pay attention to the text based ads. Unless they are ads that have words that really pop out, it is highly unlikely that I will look at them, nonetheless click on them. The main reason that I do not follow the text based sponsored ads is because they are, in fact, sponsored. Because these ads are sponsored, it says that the organic results in searching for that product category would not have included the advertised page. By this, I would say that I trust the organic search results more because the reason that those links appear at the top of your search results is because they are clicked on by other people. If other people trust the page and/or the product, and it becomes a popular search result on the 'organic results', there is more of a chance that I will find what im looking for in those pages as well.

Although I steer clear of the sponsored ads, I think it would be a bad move on Google's part to remove them. They do not distract customers from their website and Google is still making money off of the sponsored ad. Even if people do click on those ads, it will not hurt google at all (I believe that they are all pay-per-click ads? ). Some people see the ads on the side and top as annoying but I don't think that their feelings are strong enough to deter them from the Google search engine.

Should ALL Medical Information be Disclosed?

The official website for the drug Olanzapine probably didn’t mention the fact it might cause diabetic symptoms in patients. Another website obviously did. Commercials on TV now are required to mention possible side effects. Should drug companies be required to come clean about situations like the one with Eli Lilly’s Olanzapine in their commercial websites? Why or why not?

In this case, we again come upon the issue of once something is put on the web, it stays on the web. "The world is a different place from a time when the judge could have ordered the return of all copies of offending materials" says Abelson. In the Olanzapine case, the Zyprexa website did not inform its viewers of the possible side effects of the drug and it wasn't until the information leaked that people found out about it. Once the information was up, it was out there for everyone to see and the reputation of the drug was then diminished. I think that this is absurd and if someone is looking into taking a drug, they should know all about what it does, good or bad. The drug companies and the research companies are really the only people who know the complete list of symptoms that occur after taking the drug and if they do not disclose this information, who is going to? It could be fatal before any doctors or patients find out about it.

Ken Zeran & AOL - 1995

What might you have done differently if you were in the position of artist Ken Zeran, mentioned in this chapter?

After reading the Ken Zeran story, I felt bad for him and was enraged at the same time. It was absolutely absurd that AOLtook no action in helping him get rid of the post. He had contacted them multiple times and even though AOL knew thatthese posts were hurting his reputation and were false posts, AOL did nothing for a week. If I were Ken, the first thingI would have done differently was to change my phone number. Although his art business needed constant contact with him,I think his clients would have understood the situation. For him to leave his cell phone number, I think that it hurt his reputation even more because his story went public. By changing his phone number, he could have avoided the situationbefore it affected him even further. This story was interesting because this could happen to anyone at any time.People's information has become so public and once it gets on the internet, it is out there for anyone to see.

Apple's Choice of AAC Formatting

Research the differences between the MP3 and AAC audio formats, then explain why you think Apple chose the AAC format for music in their iTunes store.



For the general music listener, as long as the music is not screeching, scratching or making any other weird noises, I cannot tell what format the audio file is in. In fact, even if someone were to tell me which was which, I probably still couldn't tell the differences. When it comes to avid music listeners, there are slight differences in the music which can impact the way they hear it. Two types of files for audio formats that iTunes had to choose between were the MP3 format and the AAC audio format. In the end, Apple chose the AAC format. After reading the article posted below, it seems that AAC format was a better choice in general because it had a better quality track and the file actually took up less space. One of the main reasons that the quality of the track is better is because MP3s are a 'lossy' file transfer. This means that when the compression of the file takes place, the track looses some of its quality while it is being transferred. It seems that for the average listener, you will not be able to tell that the MP3 track 'lost' some of its data, but to keep up with Apples reputation of having high quality in everything that they do, they chose AAC format to keep customers happy.

Collective Causes & Groups

What kinds of collective causes have you become a part of? Did the cause have a website? How did you learn about the cause? How did you participate? What kind(s) of technology were used to communicate re: the group forming or group action?

Shirky could not be more dead on when he describes that our 'social urge to share information isn't new.' - page 149. He then describes that "Prior to e-mail and weblogs, we clipped articles and published family newsletters. Recalling these older behaviors, it's tempting to conclude that our new tools are merely improvements on existing behaviors; this view is both right and wrong." There has always been an urge to share information yet with the development of the web and networking sites, the ease of sharing information has broadened those urges. These sites make it quick and easy to share opinions and interests, which attracts others of the same interests and can then form a network or a group.

As for a personal example, one group that I joined that was a in high school in support of a friend's sick mom. She had been fighting ALS for a few months and many people in the town came together to help raise money, awareness and especially support for the family. Although people had constantly been supporting the family, the group became 'official' on facebook, which turned out to be a great way to communicate with the members. Eventually, by word of mouth, many more people came to her support.

"JMU-pedia" & The Power Law Distribution

The “power law distribution” or “long tail” phenomenon, as seen in behavior online on the Wikipedia, suggests that the concept of an average user of wikipedia is meaningless. Support your answer: how do you think a local, “JMU only” version of the Wikipedia would compare to the worldwide version? Would it be very similar? Higher quality? Less quality? Why?

I think the idea of a 'JMU only' version of wikipedia is an interesting idea. Although I don't think the knowledge would be as extensive as sites that are open to the world, the JMU site would hold great information that students could create, access, and comment on. The topics on the site would be much more focused to JMU events, current events and local news but I think it would be a great resource for people to have in the Harrisonburg community. And, just because the topics will not have such a range, it does not mean that the quality of the JMU site would be any less. In fact, JMU's site may even have a higher knowledge of certain topics compared to Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, people can completely fabricate topics, information and news, but at JMU I would hope that most of what people post is truthful. In Shirky's article, he discusses the power law distribution. "the gap between the first and second position is larger than the gap between second and third, and so on." - page 125. This theory would definitely hold true if JMU were to have a wikipedia-type site, yet it may not be as visible because there would probably not be the 'n-th' degree of users. At most, maybe 2 or 3 people would probably edit a particular topic, in which the theory could be visible but not as clear as a site like Wikipedia.

Media Goes Digital...

If Shirky is right, and we’re headed to a period where social media tools like YouTube, Flickr, and social networks like Facebook become “invisible,” what’s the impact on things you spend money on as consumers? Books? Movies? Music?

I really don't think that the amount of money people are going to spend on media will change too much. The only thing that will impact that is if sites and programs like limewire continue to draw users to illegally downloading free media. Otherwise, people are going to continues to spend their money on media, yet in different formats. Instead of going to the book store to buy a book, with the click of a mouse, people can log onto amazon and buy the digital version and have it on their kindle within minutes. Instead of going to the music store, consumers can log onto iTunes and immediately download the newest hit to their iPods. These social media tools are not only beneficial in the quick delivery and immediate gratification of the item being purchased, but also allow consumers to read reviews about the purchase before they actually commit. Although authors and music artists will still be earning the benefits of their media being purchased...Printing companies and record labels beware. Media is going digital! Shirky describes this perfectly at the end of chapter 4:

"Our social tools are not an improvement to modern society; they are a challenge to it. A culture with printing presses is a different kind of culture from one that doesn't have them. New technology makes new things possible: put another way, when new technology appears, previously impossible things start occuring. If enough of those impossible things are important and happen in a bundle, quickly, the change becomes a revolution."

Communities of Practice

Consider the concept of a “community of practice.” How can such a community offer opportunities for learning?

Communities of practice have been up and coming since the phenomenon of websites like myspace, youtube, wikipedia and especially facebook. These sites provide an outlet for users to share media and information that they believe to be interesting or of use to anyone else that is interested. "Communities of Practice are inherently cooperative, and are beautifully supported by social tools, because that is exactly the kind of community whose members can recruit one another or allow themselves to be found by interested searchers." says Shirky on page 101. These communities basically market themselves to others who would like to become involved in the knowledge and share their own thoughts. People can learn great things from communities of practice because they are focused on the exact topic which people are interested in. They are also places where people can share information about certain topics and dispute their opinions on those topics as well.