For me, online shopping was the perfect invention (well almost): you don't have to fight the crowds, save $85 in gas to drive to the store, no parking problems, and the product just shows up on the doorstep a day or two later. HOURS OF MY LIFE BACK IN MY CONTROL! Woohoo!
But is there "stuff" I wouldn't buy online? Why yes, there is. And the more I thought about it, the bigger the list got.
For instance, I wouldn't buy produce online. I like to cook and, well, I need to touch and feel that stuff to know it's good. I mean really, buying lettuce only to have it show up rotten on the doorstep would suck. Because that would defeat the purpose of online shopping--I'd just have to go to the store and return it only to buy another one.
Then I started to think, what else? I wouldn't buy a car online. Sure, I like the research capabilities that the Web (I mean the 'NET, lol) has for an automobile purchase, but wire funds over on something like that without checking it out? Never.
A house would fall under the same category as the cars. There's something about those two items where you just need to touch, feel, and see them that makes the purchase "work" for me.
Clothes, shoes, cologne, furniture, hmmm the list starts to get longer. So now, maybe I realize I am more hesitant to buy online than I originally thought. Halfway through this post, I'm thinking now: What WOULD I buy online?
My thoughts now are really that I would only buy a smaller group of items online than I first pictured myself doing. Items falling into groups of things such as office supplies or cell phones and those accessories. Maybe I would buy pea gravel or rocks online too (you really can't mess up that order). Oh, and pizza delivery. If they are going to mess up a delivery pizza, well it would happen whether you bought it online or on the phone. I think the fear for me of buying online is that it becomes a non-personal business where a mistake could happen, then I'd have to just do it over again in person. Time, oh that precious item we have so little of, becomes wasted.
In retrospect, heck, I'm not so much a carefree e-shopper as I would have thought. I have no hesitation about giving my information out over the 'Net as I am about making actual purchases. I must still be a little old fashioned when it comes to buying the things I want and need on a daily basis.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The New Vanity Search ... Extra Strength
Alright. Let's try this again.
So I used some of the ideas in class to "beef up" my efforts of finding more information about myself on the 'Net.
What was interesting was trying the address look up for me.
I used to have a consulting business (well, actually I still have it open) at the house, so I was able to track down old business and yellow page listings for me.
But that was it. I really didn't expect TOO much more: I don't spend time on social sites and such. My online presence is really limited to work.
Perhaps, people can comment and let me know some other ways they found stuff out about themselves! Give me some clues!
So I used some of the ideas in class to "beef up" my efforts of finding more information about myself on the 'Net.
What was interesting was trying the address look up for me.
I used to have a consulting business (well, actually I still have it open) at the house, so I was able to track down old business and yellow page listings for me.
But that was it. I really didn't expect TOO much more: I don't spend time on social sites and such. My online presence is really limited to work.
Perhaps, people can comment and let me know some other ways they found stuff out about themselves! Give me some clues!
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Vanity Searches: How do they know me?
Soooo, a vanity search? Me on the web?
I thought I'd give it a go and check it out. (Well that and it was a required assignment)
I checked out a few sites and search engines:
http://www.msn.com/
I thought I'd give it a go and check it out. (Well that and it was a required assignment)
I checked out a few sites and search engines:
http://www.msn.com/
http://www.usa-people-search.com/
On a good note, I barely exist (but yes I am out there)! What was interesting to me was how different the search results were between MSN, Google, and Yahoo. Each found a few things on variations of my name, but only a couple of them were the same. I did find an entire branch of the family in Iowa. Either that or I live over there and didn't know it.
On a good note, I barely exist (but yes I am out there)! What was interesting to me was how different the search results were between MSN, Google, and Yahoo. Each found a few things on variations of my name, but only a couple of them were the same. I did find an entire branch of the family in Iowa. Either that or I live over there and didn't know it.
As for the "people search" sites, yes I was listed, but oh how the info was wrong.
Now I thought about this search and the internet. This actually relates back to my earlier blog about newspapers in an odd sort of way. The World Wide Web (man, I learned something in this class: I'm so stuck on calling it the 'Net) provides all this access to information. Mountains of it in fact. But what is real, what isn't?
Journalism in its previous form (the printed one) was respected, a position of "world news" distribution power. Sure it was biased, edited, told you what it wanted you to hear, but there was a certain amount of trust from the lay person's point of view.
As for the WWW compared to the dying form of print journalism, you have access to more viewpoints, more information, but you have to filter what you choose to believe or not. The WWW can fuel a mis-guided opinion into truth, and bring others along with you. Or it can dis-credit your truths simply by clicking on the wrong site.
I think finding yourself on the 'Net (I'm calling it that too bad) is somewhat of a novelty. You can see what is out there about you, maybe chuckle a bit at the incorrect information, and say, "Wow! Look what is out there about me!" But what if someone else is looking? If the information is grossly incorrect, or you just happen to have a name "common" enough to someone else's? Would it bother you? Could you lose a job or not get one because of what is out there? Can it affect you personally? And heck, can you change it?
That is the scary round of questions. People have lost jobs, not gotten them, or had misconceptions about who they are because of the information on the 'Net. As for changing it? There is no rebuttal process to "fix" who you are out there. If there is an error on your credit report, you can follow a process to fix that (about 70% of all information on a credit report is wrong, btw), but not so on the 'Net. If you disagree with someone in court, you can dispute information to a judge. If someone doesn't like you and writes a blog, too bad it's out there. Heck, if they know what to do on the 'Net, they can set up profiles, pictures, you name it and pose an entirely bad image of who you are with no recourse (being able to be anonymous and hiding IPs can be bothersome).
I imagine down the road someone will figure out there needs to be a way to regulate this. Problem is, how? It's too darn big. And of course, it's a free forum to voice your opinion or post it. Who wants to be told what to do and how to do it?
When it's all said and done, I would say I'm for all the information. Just take it all with a grain of salt. If you need the information for something pertinent, re-verify it before accepting it. Computers only do what we tell them, so don't let the blind lead the blind.
PS. I put a few links below for sites I checked out:
PPS. A really good link on the evolving application of using the 'Net to help you get a job using vanity searches:
Monday, October 6, 2008
The Future of Newspapers in Regards to the Web
"Get yer newspaper! Read all about it!"
So sayeth the town crier from years past.
Click. Click.
So sayeth the keyboard from today's generation.
The age of information has brought around a type of economic "creative destruction" for the print media world: as we saw with MP3's and the iPod, audio media and the medium for which they were played on has turned the corner for CDs and CD players (anyone remember when CDs were the big bright idea of the future?)
Don't get me wrong, I am all for the digital age. I'm a "click, click" kind of person. You will rarely catch me watching the news or flipping through a newspaper on a regular basis (it's mainly because one was laying around and I felt like looking at the ads for LCDs and furniture, and of course wanted some black ink transferred to my hands and clothing). Checking out MSN.com or (thanks to TINST 207 at UW Tacoma) news on Google just saves me more time to check out the news I'm interested in and move on to my day. There are only so many hours I've got to live, right?
But there is some remiss in the passing of the journalistic torch to this new publishing outlet we call the World Wide Web. Some see it as the correlation between society's increasing illiteracy (http://blog.news-record.com/staff/jrblog/2008/03/reading.shtml); others as the next great opportunity.
Being immediate, easily distributed, shareable, updateable, and something almost anyone can publish on, the Web seems a better choice. From an advertising perspective, what better way to pitch your product than to pull up a list of metrics on who is looking at your material (number of "hits", demographics on readers, targeted marketing based on metatags in the material, etc)? Much easier to grab precious advertising dollars (those elusive monies that make the print media go 'round) when you can say "3 million people from ages 18-25 visit my site per month, 300,000 of those people like dogs, and 100,000 of those dog lovers buy dog food at organic stores, and then again 25,000 of them live within 10 miles of your organic dog food store" instead of "if you take 2.2 and multiply it by my distribution amount you'll come up with an estimate of about how many people might be reading and interested in local news."
So, how will the newspaper play out in the future? Who knows. It will definitely have to evolve to stay alive (here's a creative thought on it, the "Venetian screen" http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/10/the-future-of-n.html).
PS. The below article had some good insights into this topic. I cut out an excerpt, but you can follow the link for the entire post:
"From Print to Digital: What Changes, What’s Lost
The nature of a newspaper, both as a medium for information and as a business, changes when it loses its physical form and shifts to the Internet. It gets read in a different way, and it makes money in a different way. A print newspaper provides an array of content—local stories, national and international reports, news analyses, editorials and opinion columns, photographs, sports scores, stock tables, TV listings, cartoons, and a variety of classified and display advertising—all bundled together into a single product. People subscribe to the bundle, or buy it at a newsstand, and advertisers pay to catch readers’ eyes as they thumb through the pages. The publisher’s goal is to make the entire package as attractive as possible to a broad set of readers and advertisers. The newspaper as a whole is what matters, and as a product it’s worth more than the sum of its parts."
Complete article at http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/04/the-great-unbundling-newspapers-the-net/.
So sayeth the town crier from years past.
Click. Click.
So sayeth the keyboard from today's generation.
The age of information has brought around a type of economic "creative destruction" for the print media world: as we saw with MP3's and the iPod, audio media and the medium for which they were played on has turned the corner for CDs and CD players (anyone remember when CDs were the big bright idea of the future?)
Don't get me wrong, I am all for the digital age. I'm a "click, click" kind of person. You will rarely catch me watching the news or flipping through a newspaper on a regular basis (it's mainly because one was laying around and I felt like looking at the ads for LCDs and furniture, and of course wanted some black ink transferred to my hands and clothing). Checking out MSN.com or (thanks to TINST 207 at UW Tacoma) news on Google just saves me more time to check out the news I'm interested in and move on to my day. There are only so many hours I've got to live, right?
But there is some remiss in the passing of the journalistic torch to this new publishing outlet we call the World Wide Web. Some see it as the correlation between society's increasing illiteracy (http://blog.news-record.com/staff/jrblog/2008/03/reading.shtml); others as the next great opportunity.
Being immediate, easily distributed, shareable, updateable, and something almost anyone can publish on, the Web seems a better choice. From an advertising perspective, what better way to pitch your product than to pull up a list of metrics on who is looking at your material (number of "hits", demographics on readers, targeted marketing based on metatags in the material, etc)? Much easier to grab precious advertising dollars (those elusive monies that make the print media go 'round) when you can say "3 million people from ages 18-25 visit my site per month, 300,000 of those people like dogs, and 100,000 of those dog lovers buy dog food at organic stores, and then again 25,000 of them live within 10 miles of your organic dog food store" instead of "if you take 2.2 and multiply it by my distribution amount you'll come up with an estimate of about how many people might be reading and interested in local news."
So, how will the newspaper play out in the future? Who knows. It will definitely have to evolve to stay alive (here's a creative thought on it, the "Venetian screen" http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/10/the-future-of-n.html).
PS. The below article had some good insights into this topic. I cut out an excerpt, but you can follow the link for the entire post:
"From Print to Digital: What Changes, What’s Lost
The nature of a newspaper, both as a medium for information and as a business, changes when it loses its physical form and shifts to the Internet. It gets read in a different way, and it makes money in a different way. A print newspaper provides an array of content—local stories, national and international reports, news analyses, editorials and opinion columns, photographs, sports scores, stock tables, TV listings, cartoons, and a variety of classified and display advertising—all bundled together into a single product. People subscribe to the bundle, or buy it at a newsstand, and advertisers pay to catch readers’ eyes as they thumb through the pages. The publisher’s goal is to make the entire package as attractive as possible to a broad set of readers and advertisers. The newspaper as a whole is what matters, and as a product it’s worth more than the sum of its parts."
Complete article at http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/04/the-great-unbundling-newspapers-the-net/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)