- E4 to cash in on the rise of Freeview Tremendously good news this – UK TV Channel E4 which carries a lot of classy US shows comes to Freeview
- Kerry on bad film scripts: “Three housewives leave their affluent community, with their suddenly catatonic neighbor and friend in tow, in hopes that a week-long vacation in the woods will snap her out of her daze.” “Part of their plan is to have a lumberjack screw her back to life. Seriously.”
- Ev Williams on the new productivity web-apps… “One interesting thing about starting a company today versus a few years ago: Lots of cool web apps are now available that you can more or less run you company on.”
- NetNewsWire 2.0b45 contains Automator actions Tomorrow is Tiger day. I might burst. Very very exciting. Looking forward to playing with all the sexy geek toys…
- NASA Cassini Identifies Organic Materials High Above Titan’s Surface Scientists believe that Titan’s atmosphere may be a laboratory for studying the organic chemistry that preceded life and provided the building blocks for life on Earth.
- reboot7, 10-11 june 2005, copenhagen, denmark “reboot is the european meetup for the practical visionaries who are building tomorrow one little step at a time, using new models for creation and organizationin a world where the only entry barrier is passion.”
- Making the world calmer through ambient technology A slightly banal overview of some of the work on ambient technology that’s been going on…
- A new CD of songs by the Marseille Figs is available and much much recommended “The Figs recorded a set of demos at Hugo’s Famous Speaker Palace at the beginning of January. They’re available on an 8 song CD, for the very low price of nothing + postage and handling.”
- Hollywood stars Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are in a relationship, their publicists have confirmed This breaks the half your age plus seven lower limit rule and as such is sick and wrong and must be stopped!
The Horseless Carriage…
This is a slightly rewritten and polished up version of a talk I gave to a Six Apart event (cf. On being on the panel at Blogs in Action) at London’s Polish Club a few weeks ago. It’s kind of a personal history of and exposition around weblogs and webloggery. This version has had some of the more colourful language removed. Warning – it’s quite long and it’s a bit of a mystery to me how I managed to get through it all in ten minutes.
Today I’m going to talk about the horseless carriage. Well. Kind of.
In the middle ages, people walked to places. If they didn’t walk, then they rode horses. Some attached carts to their horses. Some time later, those carts got suspension. That’s when they started to get really popular because people’s arses didn’t hurt so much. In the late eighteenth century – joy – the steam-based self-propelled vehicle was devised. By the way, many of the most notable advances in steam vehicles occurred in England – with the Lunar Society in Birmingham. These devices were known as ‘horseless carriages’. You may be familiar with their descendents. You may have used one of them to get to this event today.
That then, was the history of the horseless carriage – and I’ll come back to that. But now I want to look at a parallel history – that of the weblog. Many histories of webloggia have been written to date. The best is by Rebecca Blood and it’s called Weblogs: A History and Perspective. Reading it, you can get a real sense about all the technologies and analogues and developments that led up to a person pointing at something for the first time and going, “that thing there is a weblog”…
To summarise – some people say the very first site on the web, Tim Berners-Lee’s homepage, was the first weblog. On it he linked to new sites, services and pages as they started to appear. That experience rings nostalgic bells for me. I can remember a community of webloggers that did the same for each new person who joined us in writing rubbish on the internet. Those were the days.
The word itself, though, was a much much later development – and came in two stages. First Jorn Barger coined the term ‘weblog’ to describe his site Robot Wisdom. Subsequently, Peter Merholz shortened the term to the more commonly used ‘blog’. So he’s the person you should be looking to blame for that one…
So we had a name, but not necessarily any sense of what these sites were for? There was enormous debate about their essential character. These first practitioners saw the ‘point’ of a weblog as linking. The core of the enterprise for these people was finding cool sites and referencing them. Although perhaps that’s overstating it a bit, since even then people had a sense of the personal as well. Dave Winer famously said of weblogs that each had a human guide that you got to know. He talked about camaraderie and politics. I think he was right. I’ll get back to that too.
Alongside the people who viewed weblogs as linklogs, another group of sites that viewed themselves as ‘online journals’ were emerging from the more arty side of the internet. I was involved in this arty community and remember seeing sites like Ember.org and flaunt.net explore what it was to self-represent and write online. Glassdog.net was one of the many hubs of this period of artistry and creativity. The whole space was excitingly expressive, but not particularly social. Alongside all this, the LiveJournallers made their moves. All in all these were very similarly structured takes on a completely different direction.
After September 11th, yet another group of people manifested on the internet and chose weblogs as their means of expression. These people talked in terms of punditry and they thought of themselves as following in the footsteps (to praise or bury) of Glenn Reynolds. These people wanted to express opinions, debate and comment on what was going on in the world around them. These ‘warbloggers’ at times have started various snowballing news stories – particularly in the States.
And we’re still not done – linkers, journal-keepers and pundits have most recently been joined by the commercial people. America’s Gawker Media publishes weblogs around a whole range of subjects from politics to sex. Group weblogs like BoingBoing have gone pro as well – and they are, let me tell you, making a decent amount of money out it. Yay Google Ads!
All of this means that when people talk about weblogs they tend to talk about it in terms of other things they knew about beforehand that seem to be good analogies. Which one of these is right?
- A weblog is a thing that links to sites elsewhere on the web
- A weblog is a kind of online journal
- A weblog is a kind of diary
- A weblog is about personal publishing
- A weblog is amateur journalism
Well, I’ll leave you with that question for a minute and talk a bit about my experiences online. When I started my site in 1999 it was already a year or two since Jorn Barger had coined the term. I was one of the very first batch of people to start using Blogger in the first months after it opened its doors to the public. When I started there were probably only a few hundred webloggers in the world. I think I started the day after Anil Dash. Each new weblogger who came online was a cause for celebration. We used to link to everyone. We’d redesign every week. Happy times.
Over the years I’ve watched as things that now seem obvious got invented. I’ve seen the concept of the permalink appear – and change everything completely. I’ve watched Movable Type appear, get huge and take over the world – and I’ve watched dozens of people try and create less capable knock-offs. I’ve seen the idea of a single-page archve manifest itself and then take a billion years to get into Blogger. I’ve seen the appearance (and I fear death) of Trackback. And the slow process to get comments on everyone’s sites. All the simple structures we operate with now – all the things we take for granted as being obvious – each was invented. And I’m lucky enough to remember each one turning up.
Alongside all of this, my own use of my site has changed. I started off writing about things I found on the internet. Then I started talking about things I did with my friends and what I thought about work. I explored the freedoms of being anonymous in public. Then my friends found out. Then I had this terrible pseudo abortive relationship and started writing secret stuff in the code of the site and being all melodramatic in public. Then I got excited about some specific subjects. Then it felt like everyone was impinging on my life and that everyone knew I had a weblog. Then I felt like I had no privacy. Then I stopped writing so much about my personal life and concentrated on writing on the things I cared about. Then the things I started writing about started to coincide with the things I was working on. Then I started getting into conversations with people who shared my professional capacity, and it having an impact on my working life. And that’s where you find me today – writin a mixture of personal stuff and ludicrously complicated stuff about social software.
And with all that experience, here’s what I’m here to say. Here are my observations about weblogs and weblogging:
- The amount of weblogs that get a lot of traffic each day is pretty tiny in comparison with the number of weblogs in the world. And when I say ‘a lot of traffic’ I mean people who get (say) a thousand page impressions a day.
- The average weblogger – the mainstream weblogger (and there are millions of the little buggers) ‘publish’ to a tiny audience. Many of these sites are password protected or completely private.
- Weblogs are fast and rapid to write and as such they lend themselves to a slightly informal voice. People will tend to write kind of like they speak.
- Most sites are one-per-person – this is the most natural state of affairs.
- People cannot naturally stay on one subject – if you start writing a weblog about something in particular then in the end you’ll almost inevitably fail. The only things you can write about honestly and consistently for a long period of time are the things you’re doing and the things that you care about at any given period of time. These things will be perpetually in a state of flux, even if patterns will emerge…
- The only exceptions to those rules being that if you’re doing something for money or if there’s a group of you doing it. That stuff’ll keep you on track and no mistake.
- Running and writing a weblog is a social activity – it’s communicative – and you respond to what other people write when you write. It’s no fun at all if you’re writing into a vaccuum.
- The average weblogger will often start off thinking that they can be anonymous and write about what they want. But they can’t and they figure that out soon enough when they get fired or when their boyfriend leaves them or their friends start looking at them funny or refusing to shake their hands when they’re at work.
- That webloggery tends to successfully transmit itself down social and interest networks. People who enjoy writing weblogs tend to do so because they got into weblogging through a friend. When they come online they know that they’re already never going to be alone. They’ll have someone to read what they write.
Fundamentally, I think I can bring all of this down to one core statement – that for the vast majority of weblogs in the world the core over-arching principle is that of personhood. The weblog becomes an extension of yourself. A suit you wear, if you will. It’s like you’re controlling a whole prosthetic version of yourself. The tone of voice will be personal. The individual weblog like the individual person will benefit from feeling like they’re a part of a community. A weblogger’s community will work best when it has connections to (and overlaps with) that weblogger’s real-life community. Most importantly, an individual weblog/weblogger will care about what they care about and nothing more.
This means that whatever you’re planning to use weblogs for, then you’ll fid them most naturally useful if you keep the individual at the heart of the enterprise. That means if you’re interested in knowledge management, or in community generation or in using them for publishing or whatever, then you should keep that idea of an individual voice at the centre of your thinking. Even Fleshbot has a sense of an individual behind it – an editorial tone that feels personable. Not that I’ve been. And I’m sure none of you have either. And nor should you.
And if you’re thinking about the future of weblogs then you should think in terms of how to support the individual in their conversations and engagements and social networks. Maybe that means developing Livejournal explicit-relationships functionality. Or maybe it means bits of Flickr. Or maybe it means better conversation-tracking.
But it’s all got to be about the individual. And my preferred way of expressing that is that a weblog is a representation of a person. I think that’s behind all of the definitions that people came up with before. I think that’s the core principle that stands behind the idea that a weblog is a journal, or that they’re collections of links that I’ve seen on the web or that they’re space for an individual to undertake a new form of journalism, etc. etc.
And my contention – to bring us right back to the beginning – is that all of those statements (“A weblog is a kind of diary”) are kind of like saying that “A car is a horseless carriage”. For years we had to descrive cars by reference only to things that had come before, but we don’t need to do that any more. Enough time has passed that we can describe a car without talking about its origins or its analogues – without talking about things that are kind of like it. Now we can start to conceive of a car without thinking of horses and suspension and traps and carriages.
And I think we can now start to do the same thing with weblogs – we can push past describing them as being like empty books that people write in and keep private, we can say that they’re not just records of sites that we’ve visited, we can stop trying to compare what we’re doing with the actions of professional journalists writing for newspapers. I think we’ve got past that now. I think we can call a blog a blog.
Links for 2005-04-28
- The first trailer for Joss Whedon’s Serenity movie is out and it looks kinda awesome, but also kinda like the TV show My biggest question is will this look cinematic enough? Will it be enough of a transition from the small screen?
I think it’s time we faced the fact that Trackback is dead. We should state up front – the aspirations behind Trackback were admirable. We should reassert that we understand that there is a very real need to find mechanisms to knit together the world of webloggers and to allow conversations across multiple weblogs to operate effectively. We must recognise that Trackback was one of the first and most important attempts to work in that area. But Nevertheless, we have to face the fact – Trackback is dead.
It has been killed by spam and by spammers – by the sheer horror of ping after ping pushing mother/son incest and bestiality links. It has been killed by the exploitation of human beings quite prepared to desecrate the work of tens of thousands of people in order that they should scrabble together a few coins. It has been killed by the experience of an inbox overwhelmed by the automated rape of our creative endeavours.
In a way it should have been predictable from the beginning – we should probably all have spotted that functionality that allows individuals to place links on other people’s sites could be exploited by spammers. Some people did spot these problems, but even they had no sense of the scale. Their responses were – at best – muted. But now I think we have to accept that the evidence is in. The situation is clear and it is not good. We’re engaged in an arms race with the worst kind of people, an arms race that has raged across other communications media and which we show no sign of winning. For me, the negative experience of dealing with trackbacks has long-since overwhelmed the benefits it brings. For these reasons, I’m turning off all incoming Trackbacks on plasticbag.org from this moment on.
Of course the problem isn’t restricted to Trackbacks. The systems we’re using to manage comments on our sites are probably under even more strain from spammers. The only reason I’m prepared to put up with this in the short term is because the comments seem to be more useful to more people at the moment. But I’m clear in my mind – we’re rapidly approaching a crisis here as well, and it is likely to be one that ends in the abandonment of comment systems as well.
And how to solve this problem? I don’t think it’s a matter of iterative improvements. I don’t think this problem can be solved by engaging in the arms race. MTBlacklist has saved my life, but it’s a patch, not a fix. No, any solution for this problem will be conceptually distinct from our current approaches. It could be a centralised approach – letting professionals manage the data that links our communities together. It could be a radically decentralised one beyond what we’re working with at the moment. I don’t know for certain. But I think we should be looking back to the origins of the weblog and seeing how things operated then.
Originally there was no weblog spam and yet conversation and discussion still existed. If an individual posted something and another individual wanted to respond to it, they simply wrote a post on their own site linking to the original. This environment was entirely free of spam. It was completely clean. I can’t help thinking that maybe we need to start thinking in terms of approaches like that – where there is no automated functionality that could be robotically exploited. Or perhaps we should be looking in other directions – how can we abstract out the kind of social networks that lie behind Flickr to structures that we could overlay across the internet as a whole. A question I think we should be asking is how could we build services that let you decide precisely which groups of people should be able to see, link to, ‘trackback’ or comment on the work you do in a decentralised, disaggregated way?
But this is to get ahead of ourselves. Today, we are here to mourn the passing of a great friend and a solution designed for happier and less cynical times. Trackback, I come to praise and bury you. May you rest in peace…
Links for 2005-04-27
- The BlogHer conference is an overdue gathering on women and weblogging. The UK could do with a weblogging event of some kind, as could the gay community… I’m a little tense that some of the comments are characterising the event as an opposition to an apparent male hegemony, which I think is over-simplistic. Still, can’t have everything…
- Danah on the Prix Ars Electronica Interesting to hear about some of the discussion that’s been going on behind the scenes
The Age of Point-at-Things…
For much of last year I worked on a project in the BBC called Programme Information Pages. Gavin Bell, Matt Biddulph and I recently gave a talk on the subject at ETech. The project was/is about creating coherent data structures and data stores for information about television and radio programming (and creating web pages from them). It sounds a bit dull when I say it like that, but it was an enormously complex and intricate piece of work. More importantly I think it’s one of the most important projects I’ve ever worked on in terms of its implications. I’m not going to go into much detail about it here, but I’ll put up the presentation at some point for those of you who are interested.
Anyway, one of the core parts of the work was to decide what we were modelling and what we wanted to represent with a web page online. Your normal EPG schedule or whatever represents what we came to term “Broadcast Instances” – an individual broadcast of an episode of a programme – the thing you need to navigate to when dealing with non-time-shifted broadcast media. But on the web such a approach makes no sense – we’re aspiring to create a permanent and navigable archive of programme information online. It wouldn’t make much sense to have to navigate through five hundred pages about the same episode of Only Fools and Horses, just because it’s popular enough to be repeated a lot.
The same applies to how you’d want to handle and enhance the data. There’s only a certain amount of information that you can usefully attach to a particular broadcast – because by its very nature this information cannot be reused for any subsequent broadcast. So fundamentally the core of the enterprise has to be larger than the broadcast – so we decided that the core cocept for both data and its representation online was the unique “programme episode” that could be broadcast any number of times.
Of course (as we say in the ETech paper), it’s not always particularly easy to say what constitutes an episode. Many programmes have different versions. At one level there are all the small variations like whether they have subtitles or closed captioning or whether they have minor edits for time. Above that are more complex variations like major edits to make programming child-friendly or that recontextualise it. And then you’ve got things like ‘Director’s Cuts’ – distinct versions of the programme that have been marketed as such to the general public. And then you’ve got other problems – what about programmes within programmes – small dramas inside magazine programmes, or cartoons cut into chunks within Saturday morning kids TV? And then you have questions of scale – is a news bulletin a programme? What about a weather forecast? There’s a lot of complexity here.
But once you have decided what constitutes a programme episode then something really significant happens – you can give it a name, make it addressable, you can – for the first time point at it. Better still, you can move from pointing at something to glueing handles onto it. And once you have such a handle, then you can pick up the programme and throw it around and stick labels on it and join it together with other programmes with bits of semantic string. You’ve moved your engagement with the programme from only being able to look at it to being to manipulate it and do things with it. And there is almost no end to the things you can do once you’ve uniquely identified a television or radio programme. It’s foundational. It’s like there are two views of the world – the solid one around us and the Matrix-style flowing green lines one. In this second world, until you give a thing a name – until you can point at it in greenspace – it simply doesn’t exist.
Since working on the PIPs project I see the same problem everywhere. When I use iTunes, the interface encourages me to believe that I’m buying unique songs, but actually their database has no idea about whether “You Can Call Me Al” on Graceland is the same song as the one on Paul Simon’s Greatest Hits. (Graceland was the first album I ever bought for myself, if you’re wondering about the example.) So I can very easily buy the same song twice. The whole thing operates as a shallow attempt to copy and extend the principle of the album that we’ve got used to through vinyl, cassette and CD formats rather than to clarify the principle from scratch. You can’t buy the same track on the same album twice via iTunes, but you can buy the same track from two separate albums, even though that’s astonishingly dumb. That wouldn’t happen if the songs were uniquely identified.
Worse still – the database that iTunes uses is completely distinct from the one that lies behind MusicBrainz. It’s completely distinct from the databases used by rights managers or by record companies as well. None of these databases have the slightest idea when they’re talking about the same song or not. None of them are capable of connecting usefully to each other – except by guesswork based on audio signatures or human-entered metadata. Inevitably this will be rife with clumsiness. Things will go wrong. Probably a lot of things.
When I buy books off Amazon, I’m always frustrated that they’re never completely able to show me the various editions of the same work. And why? Because they don’t actually know what a work is, they only know what an edition of a book is. Sure there are human-created links, but fundamentally there is only a limited collection of things that you can do with ISBNs. The ISBN is like creating an identifier for a television broadcast rather than an episode – it’s kind of useful in certain circumstances, but it makes it impossible to do really really simple stuff like ask, “when will this next be broadcast?” or “show me other versions – I want one with a spanish language track”.
Geographic space, of course, has addresses – and with longitude and latitude (and the fact that the same place can’t be in two different, er, places) – it makes an enormous range of things possible. And as UpMyStreet made clear, once you’ve got a relatively precise identifier / address for a semantically useful concept with some form of data structure around it, then you can build an enormous range of things on top of it. In fact, geographic space is almost one of the most solid proofs of the power of the identifier – think how many new and old pieces of technology rely on something so obvious as to be almost not worth mentioning – that a place can be identified and pointed at and referenced in some way. Maps, postcodes, property – just a few of the concepts that rest on those principles.
Now I know that the creation of universal and world-unique identifiers for things must seem one of the most tedious concepts or projects known to man. But I believe that it’s fundamental to our technological development – and particularly our ability to take our ever-increasing computing power and increasingly interconnected appliances and merge them seemlessly with the environment around us. The greenspace of the Matrix needs to merge with the physical – they need to become indistinguishable. Until we can point at, until we can pick up, until we can handle, we will never be able to use these concepts around us effectively.
(All of which is not to deny how that there are some things to which we should be nervous about attaching data handles. The concept of universally applicable identifiers feels creepy and wrong to many many people when it’s applied to humans. The idea that our identities should be reduced to a unique string of numbers or a hash creeps people out – and with reason. It’s absolutely clear that all the things that make universal addressability and unique identifiers (and I know these are very different things) so powerful for material and conceptual objects, make them equally scary and open to abuse when applied to people. But we simply may have no choice – because governments are right when they say that the possibilities are enormous. What you can simplify and develop and build and create above, around and between people (and on top of these identifiers) could change the world for the better or the worse. And we need to get used to the idea that movement in this direction may be irresistable and may be motivated by the desires of consumers and citizens demanding the ability to do things which we’re only not building because we’re nervous that they’ll be abused, not because they’re not useful. And that might mean we may have to say goodbye to the idea of being in any way invisible or untraceable to enter the world ahead.)
In decades to come, I think the time will live in now will be understood as the moment that the real and the map started the final stages of a merging that has been going on for hundreds of years. In this future world, all of our discrete objects (physical or conceptual) will be annotatable, or linkable to, referencable. Each ‘thing’ will be built upon in non-physical dimensions of data. And that final process of merging must start with addressability. It must start with identifiers. And it’ll need individuals and collective projects and business and government to undertake taht work, because it’s the foundation of everything that follows. The true power of our technology will not reveal itself until we know what a ‘thing’ is. We will not be able to work with concepts until we have pointed at each new thing (and like Adam in the Bible, I guess) given it a unique identity. From birthing concept into language, we’re now moving from moving concept into data. This is an age of naming, it is an of age of pointing at things.
On link styles and colours…
This seems almost totally designed to piss of usability people who I respect enormously, but what the hey – it’s my site, right? So a few of you will have noticed that when I relaunced plasticbag.org a few days ago all the links were blue. Then they all went yellow. Now – who the hell knows what colour they’ll be. Story in a nutshell – I designed it originally with yellow highlights / links, but got lots of negative comments about them. A friend suggested the blue. I put it up with the blue. I got a fair few positive comments and another block of negative comments. I decided it looked too cold. I went back to the yellow. More negative comments. You see how this is going?
My brilliant solution? Well I don’t have one quite yet, to be honest. I’m still fiddling with elements of the site on a daily basis, dragging some things to the front, hiding other things and fixing still others (still got to fix comment error and search templates, and then looking into line-spacing). One move I might make is to change the link formatting in certain circumstances so that it’s not all precisely the same – perhaps having a stronger (or more subdued) style for the top navigation versus links inline in the posts. Who knows! But in the meantime, I’ve decided to throw figs to the wind and declare everyone right. So for a few days at least, every time a page is rebuilt it will have a random link colour assigned to it. At the moment there are five colour schemes. There may be more by the end of the day. Over time, hopefully I can come to some conclusion about which one(s) work best. Enjoy the rainbow!
Links for 2005-04-26
- ‘Interesting’ / useful looking PHP cheat-sheet I sometimes find it hard to remember whether it’s Ruby or PHP that I’m trying to find the time to learn. Ruby’s more fashionable…
- The London Review of Books’ Personals column is now available online… Beautifully English… “The LRB’s own Son of Jor-El, stuck in the Phantom Zone of the personal ads for three years now. Reckon I could still lick anyone of you wusses. Man, 36. Alone. Tonight, and very possibly forever. Box no. 07/12”
- A (Near)-Complete List of Mac Keyboard Shortcuts Terrifyingly fun list of keyboard shortcuts for hours of entertainment with your Mac laptop
- The Public Whip’s quick election quiz It’s a nice piece of work this – you put in your postcode and how you feel about some core issues and it matches you to a party
- Aardvark Firefox Extension This looks like a stunningly useful little Firefox extension for debugging and exploring HTML / XTML documents online
- Are Adaptive Path working on an Ajax app? And if so, can I come play?
- Microsoft Social Computing Symposium 2005 God, I’ve been so distracted I didn’t even realise this was happening. Drool. Sigh.
- Does anyone speak or read Turkish well enough to translate this article?
- Microsoft Comes Under Fire for Reversal on Gay Rights Bill It looks like Microsoft have buckled under pressure from Christians threatening a Microsoft boycott. A better move would be to talk to all their competitors and go in as a united body.
The more I think about it, the weirder I find it that iTunes doesn’t keep track of every time you’ve ever listened to a track from your library. It would seem like such an obvious thing to do – why just throw all that data away? I mean, Audioscrobbler now has more data about what I’ve listened to and when than iTunes does. Surely that’s really bizarre? This lack of data means that I’m forever stuck looking at a list of favourite tracks that is almost dictated by when I installed the software. It’s like preferential attachment in small world network theory – the whole structure is set up so that the songs I’ve listened to the most will get listened to more. And while that might be an appropriate way to handle it, surely being able to time-limit the period you’re interested in would make the whole thing more flexible and powerful?
Think of the possibilities – in iTunes alone – (1) the ability to have playlists like “four star songs that I listened to most a year ago”, “top played songs of 2003” or whatever (2) weekly charts like they have on the radio of what you’ve played (again Audioscrobbler already has this (3) the possibility of seeing fun infographics for every song in your library, or by artist or whatever. The list goes on… And what about the other possibilities – the simple elegance of being able to create a playlist of photos in iPhoto and have it choose the most appropriate songs to play alongside it – songs that you were actually listening to at the time the photos were taken. How evocative would that be?!
And in the spirit of looking slightly startled in the direction of Apple (whose iPod Shuffle already doesn’t keep track of tracks played – an extraordinary oversight), one other piece of data I’d really like them to capture for me is the number of times that you’ve skipped past a track before the song has ended. That would seem to be to be an enormously useful piece of information. I’d love to have a smart playlist on my iPod that added in new songs as I received them and then removed them when they’d been (1) rated, (2) played over ten times and (3) skipped more than fifty percent of the time. That would be awesome. These organic playlists that manifest and evolve are so core to the way that I’ve been consuming music over the last few years since I bought my first iPod (Warning – over-excited guff from four years ago), which I feel I should point out was many many years before the rest of you did.
Links for 2005-04-24
- Unborn Baby Ornament
“What if the fetus you were going to abort would grow up to be a soldier bringing democracy to a godless dictatorship?”