Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Stolen Once Again... the Top 100 Web 2.0 Services

Not precisely Library 2.0 related, but many of these sites and services overlap. Besides, this item was linked from American Libraries Direct - Tech Talk.

Webware.com in its recent survey of supposedly 489,467 votes (probably from 20 unique users with spam bots), found the follow as being the best of the best for 2007. i'm not sure why they didn't decide to wait until the end of the year, but i digress...

"Browsing - Fundamental Web access tools: Browsers, extensions, widgets, and security."

And the winners are: Firefox, Google Reader, Internet Explorer, MyYahoo!, OpenID, Opera, Safari, StumbleUpon and Yourminis.

Umm... something seems screwy already. Google Reader? As a webbrowser or a pdf viewer? Google Reader... beating out Internet Explorer...
>.>
<.<
If you say so.
Glad to see Firefox took first: hands down, the most powerful. Opera has really fallen by the wayside. Too bad so sad. Oh and Safari bites everyone's dust, no surprise there.

"Communications - Person-to-person communications platforms: E-mail, chat, voice"

And the winners are: AIM.com, Gmail, GrandCentral, Meebo, Skype, Trillian, Windows Live Hotmail, Windows Live Messenger, Yahoo! Mail, Yahoo! Messenger.

Obviously the fact that AIM still has such a ridiculous following is more than a little disappointing. It's nice that Gmail came out 2nd but... Google Talk didn't even place? Google Talk was beat out by... Skype? Gimme a break. Jabber is Jabber so far as I'm aware. i was happy to see Meebo and Trillian place well. Oh yeah, and those of you who voted for Hotmail and Yahoo!, wake up--your decade ended a while back.

"Community - Online gathering places and group-powered content."


And the winners are: Bebo, Deviant Art, digg, Dogster/Catster, facebook, friendster, Gaia Online, Linked In, Me.dium, MySpace.


Wow, this is sad. Of those listed, I only have a Deviant Art and a Facebook account (against my better judgement, for the express purpose of helping my friend with her BFA pottery show). Who the heck are those other people? I thought friendster was a flop? Dogster/Catster? Umm... i don' t know who you are, but your name is utterly retarded and you should be drug out into the street and shot. Fortunately, MySpace came in dead last, there may be hope for the world yet.

"Data - Tools for finding online info, and storing and sharing files."


And the winners are: AllPeers, .Mac, Bittorrent, box, ChaCha, Google, Pando, Windows Live Search, Yahoo! Search, YouSendit.


Fascinating. There's really no excuse for Bittorrent not taking first place. It's apparent to me that this survey was only given to techys who like to try out stuff, not the average end users who actually knows what the heck she or he is doing. Bittorrent is used, oh, i don't know, about a thousand times more than the rest of these people. .MAC beating out Bittorrent. HAHAHA~ *begins to hold stomach and cry from the excess tears* In your wildest dreams Apple. That'll be the day. Oh, and people who voted for Windows Live Search and Yahoo! Search may in fact be living in a cave ten miles beneath Antarctica. In terms of sheer usability and practicality how could Google not stomp them completely off the list?

"Entertainment - Tools for taking time off: Games and contests."

And the winners are: Desktop Tower Defense, Eventful, GameGum, Homestar Runner, Lime Rider, Newgrounds, Revision3, Stardoll, Yahoo! Bix, You Don't know Jack!

I'll be the first to admit, i know nothing about online games. What i do know is that Newgrounds is older than most people who use it. Same goes for You Don't Know Jack! but at least that has some semblance of intelligence behind it. Homestar Runner...? What can I say: people are immature... and they always will be. The rest are of little consequence.

"Media - Places to consume and share videos, photos, and music."


And the winners are: Flickr, Fotki, Last.fm, Netflix, Pandora, Photobucket, uStream.TV, Yahoo! Video, YouTube, Zooomr.

I am beginning to think the couldn't have been real voters for this, perhaps a program was written in VB to generate random votes in all categories. Millions and millions of people use YouTube everyday, both views and posters. In what universe would that not justify it taking first place? Flickr is good, but hardly as recognized. Netflix? You've got to be kidding me; no body really gives them money do they. Please tell me they don't. I will be sad. Photobucket is good. The rest can bite me.

"
Mobile - Products that make your mobile phone a Web 2.0 appliance."


And the winners are: Google, 3Jam, Google Gmail Mobile, Mundu Radio, Radar.net, SoonR, ShoZu, TellMe, Yahoo! OneSearch.


Uh-huh. i guess i'm not surprised that Google placed twice. I am disappointed that Palm didn't place, i guess i'm living in the stone ages by still using my Handspring Treo.


"Productivity and Commerce - Sites for getting things done and doing online business."

And the winners are: Amazon, Basecamp, Blinksale, Craigslist, ebay, Google Adwords, Google Calendar, Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Microsoft Office Live, PayPal.


Sounds about right. Though, i think PayPal ranks a little higher than DEAD LAST if you ask me. Craigslist is nice but... beating out ebay? Wow. We live in tumultuous times. Google Adwords i can understand, and Google Docs i can accept (without understanding ) but Google Calendar?! Umm... i am standing behind my theory of randomly generated votes.


" Publishing - Tools for producing your own site: Blogging and Web content services"

And the winners are: Adobe Flash, Blogger, Drupal CMS, FeedBurner, Google Analytics, PollDaddy, Silverlight, TypePad, Vox, and WordPress.


W3Schools didn't even rank. It seems like they are only going for sites that offer widgets. Speaking of widgets, seems to me Google ranked a little low this time. i guess you never know who'll come out on top with net tools. WordPress came in dead last. No surprise there. Adobe Flash...

... ADOBE Flash...?

...

i hate my life.


and last but not least, the one that actually maybe pertains to Library 2.0:


"Reference - Fonts of knowledge--from history to movies to maps."

And the winners are: Answers.com, Ask.com, Geni, Google Maps, IMDB, Microsoft Virtual Earth, WebMD, Wikipedia, Wikia, Yahoo! Maps.

*shakes head in disgust* Yet another example of throwing your vote away. It's apart to me now that they must have used chimpanzees in their demographic. This truly hurts my head.

Answers.com? How could that actually yield any valid research?
Ask.com - hahaha
Geni - no comment
Google Maps - should be number 2 in the list if it were to only encompass these 10.
IMDB - lol. You call that research?
MS Virtual Earth - ahem. Excuse me? i'm sorry i don't think i heard you correctly. Did you say Google Earth? Yeah... that's what i thought you said. Idiots.
WebMD - sigh
Wikipedia - how could this not take first place?
Wikia - no comment
Yahoo! Maps - remember what i was saying about those chimpanzees? i take it back, single celled protoplasmic life forms would know to vote for a better web resource.

All in all, i'd say i want to throw out this survey. The fact that Yahoo! made it to so many categories only reinforces the fact that internet users are prone to sitting too close to the monitor and subsequently irradiating themselves. Yahoo! doesn't seem to me to be the sort of dynamic company that's going to lead us into the new millennium. i myself stopped using Yahoo! when i was 15 years old. Obviosly that's about the age-level mentality of the people who voted on this survey.

The only thing that makes me feel like the internet isn't doomed is that AOL only ranked once. Unfortunately, that was only because of the age old bandwagon advertizing slogan which persists to date amongst the unthinking masses: "But all my friends use it..." ^^;;

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Do We Pesticide the Arphids?

i am so upset at myself i could just spit for getting my laptop and digital SLR stolen last night. Ironically, they stole it out of my car while my brother and i were at the cinema watching Ocean's 13. Nothing like a little poetic justice to raise your spirits. ^^;;

In other new, Woody Evans, in the June/July 2007 edition of American Libraries wrote an article entitled Arphids in Ascendance which i found of particular interest. Arphids, as he describes them, are the artists (though i believe it would be more accurate to say "architects") of the RFID phenomenon. As Evans sees it, “In the 90s, we dreamed of an RFID future in which we would no longer shelve books—we’d just cram them into shelves and use a mobile gizmo to tell us the location and condition of any volume.” Yet this, seemingly lofty goal, has been plagued by the constant threat of malfeasance from patron hacking, virus susceptibility and the use of library technology to loan themselves to attacking retail computer systems.

Evans would contest these threats by bringing the hackers themselves into the fold and i can only applaud such a solution. Technology systems are constantly improving library service, but they have always had the sinister impetus for doing more harm than good. Although library systems could be the launching point for some insidious malware attack through RFID, like with stem-cell research, many would purport the benefits out way the risks. New technologies are spawning every time we turn around, “keitai [denwa], PDAs, Blackberries, laptops, Semacode Thinglink, arphids” and all seem to have the potential to connect patrons with libraries and information more readily than past systems. Though, if our RFID tags are already being hacked as Evans suggests, it gives us cause to pause. Could we survive without VeriChipped thumbprint IDing and “fulfill our geek dream of knowing where all our stuff is” (props to Warren Ellis)? Probably. Should we hesitate to enact more technology in our libraries simply in fear that it could be abused? i posit that throughout libraries existence, services have been abused: it has happened, it will happen. Let’s encourage those hackers to help better our systems and become invested in a future, rather than having them sing “I wanna be, an anarchy!”

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Wiki Wonder

In a May 2007 article in American Libraries entitled Subject Guide 2.0, Meredith Farkas extols the virtues of wikis for the library world. She notes two major wikis that have been successful in the past, the Ohio University Business Librarian's Biz Wiki @ www.library.ohiou.edu/subjects/bizwiki and St. Joseph County Public Library Subject Guide. Both have been successful in using Wikis to impart information to their patrons. Staff members are allowed to add and edit information while patrons are allowed to make comments.

i really enjoy wikis as they offer a standardized, intelligent format for browsing. Yet, as Farkas points out, "Many libraries would worry about people adding inappropriate content, but wikis do not have to be open to everyone." The irony is that, many, like Wikipedia, are available for anyone to edit. This allows for anyone and everyone to add content, without being prejudice against people based on age, race, etc. i consider this strategy to be a very enlightened philosophy. The really amusing part is that so few people actually consult those resources, most people wouldn't even consider editing them. Those odd people who do somehow manage to feel important enough to edit a wiki usually are only interested in correcting information they totally cannot live with. Obviously for network security issues, one should use a firewall and the same goes for net traffic on a server. You wouldn't want to inspire a DDOS by making your site less secure. It's also a good idea to have a "write the random letters in the box to confirm" to avoid getting spam bots from destroying your blog.

In the same vein, allowing only registered users to post and edit a wiki can quickly alleviate spamming. Farkas seems to worry about people posting inappropriate or irrelevant material, but if one is worried about registered users posting that sort of thing it means that staff members and Board members can't string two sentences together... obviously that's not happening. So the point is: why not use a real website? What makes this different from putting files on a network drive? If you can't trust your Board and staff to post professional, accurate information, than just don't use a wiki.