Biomedical and Electrical Engineer with interests in information theory, evolution, genetics, abstract mathematics, microbiology, big history, Indieweb, and the entertainment industry including: finance, distribution, representation
@Dries How awesome would it be if I could use @buffer not only to post to social media, but to post to my own website using the Micropub spec? https:/
@JonahRemnant @JonahNRO FYI, your main podcast page http:/
Have your web admin throw the following line into the header of your podcast's page so it's actually discoverable by feed readers:
<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="The Remnant with Jonah Goldberg" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/taxonomy/term/7126/feed">
You should also have them include a "Subscribe Free" or "Subscribe via RSS" with that link in the main part of the page along with all the other options that appear like iTunes, Google Play, Stitcher, and TuneIn.
I find that https:/
@MorrisPelzel What happens when you take that "just another account" philosophy to it's logical conclusion?
@cleverdevil This is almost exactly what I was hoping for (and more) when I wrote "Feed reader revolution" over the summer
Just a week or so ago, there was some excellent discussion on the IW chat that related to your idea that I thought was so interesting that I bookmarked it. You can read the conversation here, https:/
In particular Barnaby's quote and Tantek's extension may be the germ of the idea for what you replace social media with in your analogy: https:/
For me there are various post types that essentially all boil down to being bookmarks, but the sub-category adds a slightly different shade of intent to it. As an example I've got a "read" post type on my primary site. It takes the bookmark concept ("I want to read this") and adds the additional piece of semantic information that I physically spent some time to actually read it. To an audience, this gives that read-post some additional value over a simple bookmark. Even further, did I bother to make a comment or highlight a piece of material from it? Did I go another step and write a reply to it? Each of these things indicates a higher level of engagement on my part which signals to an audience reading my site, what value I may have placed on a thing.
When it comes to a reader, it would be awesome to have the ability to filter through some of these increasing types within a value chain. People are sharing or bookmarking lots of crap, but what are they spending the time to actually read rather than sharing after only reading a headline? What did they bother to really react to? What motivated them to not only read a piece, but write a 10 paragraph response to? When it comes to finding things in my feeds that are really valuable from friends, family, and colleagues, it's these articles that are usually the most valuable.
You're definitely right that readers are the next big piece. I can't wait for some more competition in the space: http:/
@billbennettnz @davewiner I think I mentioned to you that @Chronotope was mulling something over along these lines:
I'm curious if there's a middle ground? The way that @davewiner does his blog with updating hashes throughout the day would be interesting within news distribution, that way the URL changes, but at the same time it doesn't really. Example: http:/
In some sense, these hashes are related to the IndieWeb concept of fragmentions: https:/
Depending on implementation, news sites could offer a tl;dr toggle button that gives a quick multi-graph synopsis. As I recall USA Today and Digiday used to do something like this on longer pieces:
Here's a version of the functionality via the WayBackMachine that still works: https:/
Imagine how powerful a long running story could be with all of these features? Or even snippets of inter-related stories which could be plugged into larger wholes? Eg: The Trump Administration's handling of North Korea seen in fact snippets over time spanning months while pieces of this could be integrated into a larger Trump Administration mega-story going back to January or even the beginning of his campaign. Someone who hasn't been following along could jump back months or years to catch up relatively quickly, but still have access to more context that is often missing from bigger pieces which need to stand on their own relatively.
#journalism #indieweb #fragmentions
I think a lot of the problem comes down to all of the siloed walls out there which are causing most of the friction. We're still relatively early days yet and only a tiny few are using the concept of salmention which would help keep running threads working properly. Admittedly having the context live somewhere and then having proper threaded communications isn't easy, so many do what they're able to for the moment.
I'm usually attempting to manually accomplish salmention as best as I'm able, but I may not hit every syndicated target unless you're displaying it directly. Additionally some targets just don't make sense--I'll webmention your original, for example, but this lengthy reply just won't look right at micro.blog if you syndicated a simple headline and URL there, so why bother since you'll see it at the original anyway? Others who are on micro.blog may miss out on part of the conversation, but presumably if they're looking at your copy on micro.blog, they'll be able to see the original as it was intended.
Colin, you mention that not all of your content needs to go to micro.blog. Perhaps, but to think so in my mind is part of the older silo way of thinking. The only reason you're syndicating there is as a stopgap to reach the people who don't currently have the time or luxury to be doing things the way you are. Otherwise they could subscribe to you directly at the source (and potentially even circumscribe the types of posts, keywords, or content to get exactly what they want from your site.) In some sense you syndicate there to reach and communicate with the non-IndieWeb crowd. Perhaps some of your content doesn't make as much sense there as Micro.blog is limited in what it is able to do, but that is its limitation, not yours. Eventually in a fully IndieWeb-ified world, everyone would have their own domain, their own data, and syndication of any sort won't have a real need to exist at all.
As to Jack's comment, syndicating things out to multiple places is often difficult as is getting all the responses back. (Fortunately services like Brid.gy make things far easier though they don't cover all the bases.) I do it in large part because while I prefer to own all of my content and have all the conversation take place on my personal site, I can't necessarily make that choice for everyone else. My mom is likely to never have her own domain much less a site. The only way she'll see my content (whether it's meant for her or not) is to syndicate it to Facebook. For those who aren't yet aware of the IndieWeb or using it, they're still reading and interacting on other platforms, which, for me is fine since I can still have my cake and eat it too. Eventually there will be inexpensive platforms that will let people who don't want to deal with the development cost and overhead that allow much of the IndieWeb-types of functionalities they're not currently getting from their silo platforms for free. I suspect that these will be easier and easier (as well as cheaper) to use over time. I suspect more people will use them for their freedom, flexibility, and increased control. Until then, I have the privilege of using my site much the way I would Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google+, Flickr, GoodReads, etc., etc., I just get to do it through a more unified experience instead of having to juggle dozens of accounts and only being able to interact with my fractions of friends, family, and colleagues who coincidentally happen to be spending the time and effort to interact on those websites. As an example, I have dozens of friends who interact with me on Facebook about things I'm currently reading or finished reading, but if I was only doing this on GoodReads, they'd never have a chance to see it as they don't have accounts there or even know it exists. (Coincidentally, this is also the reason that GoodReads and most other silos allow one to syndicate their accounts to Twitter, Facebook, etc.)
Not all social sites are as lucky as Facebook to have such massive adoption. This creates a value imbalance with respect to the classic "network effect" (see: https:/
Invariably some people are likely to stick with Twitter, Facebook, or others because they don't have the same values I do. (Currently I suspect the majority do it because it's frictionless and easy.) But this doesn't change the fact that one can't have a "universal" conversation if one prefers. When I look at various platforms, some of them have different personalities and types of conversations because of the (possibly) self-selecting group of people on them. I loved Twitter more in the early days because of it's smaller and more engaged community--things have naturally changed drastically since those early days. Micro.blog is a bit more like it now, but to me it's not so much a social media replacement for Twitter. To me it's really a social reader that I use to quickly follow a subset of interesting and thoughtful people until I have a better social reader built into my own site. The conversation would be somewhat different if these silos were working on niche audience content like knitting or quantum mechanics, but typically they're not. Most social silos are geared toward mass adoption and broad topic discussion or content posting for everyone/everywhere. Their goal is for their site to be the proverbial "phone number and dial-tone of the web". Why do this when I already have a connection and a "phone number" that is my own site URL?
Jack, while some bloggers have turned off comments, they've often done so saying "Post your reply on your own site, or on Twitter, Facebook, etc." This has just pushed the conversation on their ideas off somewhere else which is disconnected and not as easily searchable or discoverable. And without some kind of notification mechanism, the author of the original post has no idea it exists. (I'll elide a conversation about blocking trolls and abuse here.) I've written some thoughts on comments sections in reply to such a blogger who recently re-enabled comments which also links to several interesting articles about the pros/cons of having comments at all. To me, between webmentions, spam filtering, and even moderation, we're lightyears ahead of where we were in the early 2000s.
One other thing I do find interesting is that the way all of this is set up is allowing us the ability to write extended thoughts and extended multiple replies (with civility as relative strangers). I don't think there are many sites on the web that allow this type of interaction, and they certainly don't do it with anything remotely close to the open architecture we're using. While at times it can be a headache for maintenance and problems, I find far more value in it than using anything else.
I've got some invite codes for anyone who'd like to try out micro.blog, a new social media site that supports #indieweb principles.
I suspect that markdown or semi-complicated html (like you, I occasionally like to do this too, even if it's just bold or italics) in replies are a second class citizen because most major CMSes (including Known) strip out or severely limit (for security reasons) the html that is accepted in comment fields. In fact, to conserve on space, I've even noticed that many even strip out blank lines between paragraphs! Many also will mark as spam comments that have one or more URLs in them. As a result doing fancy or even mildly complicated html or markdown in replies is something for which most platforms just don't build.
The other issue in status updates and replies is that they're often syndicated to other platforms and it's a more difficult issue to properly do this with each snowflake social media silo depending on how they individually handle html/markdown (or not). I do this sometimes in WordPress to properly format syndicated content, and it easily triples the amount of manual work, so be careful what you wish for. (This may also be the reason I love Known so much too!)
Every now and then I'll write an extended reply to someone's post that gets to the point that headings, additional structure, and the frills become much more valuable. In those cases, I'd probably then default to make them posts/articles and add the additional touches and then do a manual mark up of u-in-reply-to to have them show up as a reply instead of just a mention. This happens so generally rarely that it's not too much of a headache.
Either way, the end result on the other person's site isn't something I can ever control for, so I try not to sweat it too much. :)
For the syndicated portfolio, you might want to take a peek at the PressForward plugin for WordPress [http:/
As an example, compare:
This is beneficial as you can syndicate (POSSE) the post with your own URL to Facebook, Twitter, et al. and folks who click to read will be sent to your site for a moment before being forwarded on to the original. Thus you get a ping and the original outlet also gets a ping (as well as the advertising revenue for it.) And if, for any reason, the original outlet goes out of business, gets sold, or disappears, you've got a word-for-word copy of your original and can simply un-forward it so that it can appear on your site as it was originally published. Naturally if you prefer and the outlet doesn't stipulate otherwise, you could publish the original to your site and not forward it (or even forward it for an exclusivity window of time pre-agreed with the original publisher.)
Additionally, if you're using Brid.gy for backfeed, anyone who comments on your POSSE copies will have their commentary sent to your site. While others won't necessarily be able to see the commentary (if you're forwarding the URL to the publisher's original), at least you'll be aware of it and can reply to it and get your own replies in return. I suspect that in the future brid.gy may be able to scrape commentary based on the syndicated URL so that your personal version aggregates commentary from the publisher's original as well as mentions of it on Facebook, Twitter, et al.
There are still some missing pieces I'd like to see in such a workflow for journalists, but it's slowly and surely getting somewhere.
(I've written about other parts of PressForward before at http:/
@sikkdays What a great little post. It mirrors a lot of my own thoughts about social media. If you haven't seen it yet, one of my friends Tantek started a project called "100 Days of Positive Posts" that went pretty well. You might appreciate the idea: https:/
Like you, he posts on his own site and syndicates to other social media services to reach his friends.
@wordpressdotcom @Pocket I wrote this for you: Feed Reader Revolution http:/
@feedly @Inoreader @TheOldReader @reederapp @digg @NewsBlur @netvibes I wrote this for you: Feed Reader Revolution http:/