A new friend sent me a very very funny Web 2.0 link… but before you click, please read the warning:
I think this is funny. BUT: It also has strong language and descriptive imagery. Some may find it offensive. It is probably not work-safe and my former employer’s software likely would have blocked it. If you take this Web 2.0 stuff really seriously, you definitely won’t like it.
You have been warned.
Forget about A-lists, Web 2.0 and all of that jazz. Here’s what we did today:
View from mid-trail, Mt.Wachusett
My son Douglas learning to ski
Take a break… it makes all the difference in the world.
Thanks for all the comments on my A-list bloggers post. I’m going to wrap up my comments here in this new entry. Then I’m moving on.
First, as I have said before, I don’t actually care about the A-list too terribly much. I think it is a bit silly, and have mostly been trying to ignore the whole thing.
However, I have a personal, deeply held belief that if you make it to the top (the top of whatever, mind you, not just blogs) you have a responsibility to your constituents/audience — the ones that helped you get (and keep you) there. Like it or not (and most do), you stand for something and you have to make it count. Perhaps that makes me an idealist. Oh well.
In the case of blogging, I think it means keeping your listening ears on, and the lines of communication open. Especially if you are a communications professional. Yes, it’s a lot of work responding to tons of email, which is why it is always smart to be careful what you wish for.
And I wholeheartedly agree that asking for links is bad practice. The person sending the email has an equal responsibility to provide good information that will be of interest to the recipient.
But don’t shut people down. And regardless of the intent, that is how Steve’s post came across.
It is because Micro Persuasion has such a huge audience — it is often a "first stop" for new bloggers — that I posted. And I’m glad that Steve posted today that he is open to receiving emails. Shows he is listening, and that is a very good thing.
And on a far more humourous note, Hugh over at gapingvoid has neatly summarized this whole conversation in a new cartoon. Just my .02, but I think that should be one of the next t-shirts. I’ll put my order in today if you’ll do it!
For a change of pace (no A-list or Web 2.0 here) I thought I’d share what I did this weekend to avoid the NFL Playoffs.
Understand a couple of things: my husband is a HUGE football fan. All football. He was raised in Pittsburgh and we now live outside Boston. I on the other hand, just don’t get it. I much prefer hockey and basketball. I will watch the Super Bowl, for the ads as much as anything, but all the games leading up to it? YAWN!
So, Saturday night I took my mom out to dinner at Number 9 Park and then to see Little Women at the Boston Opera House. The play was very good, although I agree with the Boston Globe reviewer who said that none of the songs was a break-out hit (I’d link to the review online but the Globe.com site is so hard to navigate, I can’t find it). And you needed to know the story; without the knowledge from the Louisa May Alcott book or at minimum one of the movies, it would be hard to follow. Good news of course is that most girls in the US read Little Women as a matter of course, and this was definitely a "chick play."
Sunday: Brokeback Mountain finally made it to the local theatre, and away I went. If you haven’t seen it yet, GO!!!! It was one of the best films I have seen in years.
One thing that occurred to me after seeing both of these: the folks that adapted Little Women took a pretty fat book and condensed it to about 2-1/2 hours. And the folks that adapted the short story by Annie Proulx took a slim story and made it into a film just about as long. Luckily, neither seemed too long 🙂
Next week, I’ll be taking my son to see Chronicles of Narnia.
I’m glad to know that I’m not the only one confused/concerned (previous posts 1 and 2) about the term Web 2.0.
Tris Hussey points to an exchange between Jeneane Sessum (for) and Halley Suitt (against), and comes down on the for side.
If I have to pick, I’m still against. And not so much against the ideas as I am the hype potential.
It’s not that I don’t understand the concepts that are being included under the Web 2.0 term. Or even disagree that many of the changes in the online world that have and are occuring as a result of "social media" are as revolutionary as they are evolutionary.
I just have an inherent dislike of labels. I also see too much old-style jockeying for position, influence and prestige (A-list anyone?) to believe that companies won’t use this label to hype products that really aren’t revolutionary or even evolutionary. Things have changed, but not as much as (yes) the hype would have us believe.
