For all the great things Google does, it's pretty bad at organization and layout (ironically enough, just like its adversary, Apple).  Google's navigation doesn't just leave something to be desired, it is an outright time sink.  You're usually better off typing in every direct URL instead of clicking through, but a) their URL's aren't very consistent (images.google.com, but google.com/finance?); and b) that's why we have navigation in the first place.

After doing a brief audit of the current navigation links, I reorganized a bit and put together a little prototype.  Comments below.

Please note: I am not a designer, an info architect, or a UX'er.  I am just a user with an idea.

At the risk of stating the obvious: print media is dead, and broadcast journalism may have suffered a deathblow.

It's been a rough two weeks for MSM.  Iran is revolting its stolen election and defying its dictator for the first time in 30 years.  I know this because I use the internet, and not because I read the newspaper (sadly, I don't anymore) or because I watch broadcast news (gag me).  Throughout the past week, while traversing through rumors, journalism, heresy, and first-person accounts, I kept an eye on the internet's own revolt (further) against traditional media.

While internet communities - which include Iranians - were sharing information in real-time, some broadcast media essentially went dark on the protests for days.  As much as of a love-hate relationship I've got going with Twitter right now, I can at least say honestly that it brought me real news faster than the boob tube.  The whole thing is laughable, but also pretty sad.

It's true that social networking services like Twitter have no verification.  You have to take every individual #iran tweet with a grain of salt.  But because Iran has the kind of government it does, there would obviously be no foreign journalists with a camera anywhere within its borders this week.  In 2003, Salam Pax blogged from Baghdad while the bombs fell.  The difference then being there were also correspondents on the ground, reporting live for broadcast.  Six years (and two presidential elections) later, it appears the scales have tipped well in the internet's favor.

---

Over the weekend, the lady and I were out of town for a wedding.  When we checked into the hotel, the TV in the lobby had on cable news, which was covering the Iranian protests.  As soon as we settled in our room, I put on the same.

At the same time, I turned on my iPhone and loaded my Twitter application.  The cable news station had cameras shooting computer monitors (at bad angles) displaying Twitter.  On my phone, I was in Twitter - which is to say, I was reading it firsthand, as well as participating in the conversation.

On TV, I saw melodramatic journalist-personalities ("journalisties"?) embellish unnewsworthy tweets, such as "If an innocent girl gets shot halfway across the world, does she make a sound? Yes, the whole world hears her."  While in Twitter itself, I skimmed past the same updates and read dozens of other more meaningful notes.

On TV, I saw commercial breaks.  In Twitter, the news never stopped (surprisingly great uptime this weekend).

On TV, I heard anchors repeat themselves every few minutes.  In Twitter, I saw heavy retweeting - fast-growing groups of different people rallying around information together, not a one-way, aimless talking head.

When cable news finally decided to take a full break and let the news catch up to them, they spent 30 minutes recapping a news topic Americans hold dear: international soccer.  This news organization was very obviously - and, to their credit, transparently - trying to play catch-up with the internet.  But they've all swung the pendulum so far in the other direction, they're now also trying to play make-up.

---

I don't usually advocate token charity gestures online, but if you're on Twitter, there are two very easy things you can do to really support protesting Iranians.

First, change your Twitter account settings to Tehran time.  If true, the rumors of Iranian Twitter crackdown means the more people posing as Iranians in Twitter, the harder it will be for them to silence real tweetin' Iranians.  It might all be bunk, but it doesn't hurt and it takes about 7 seconds.

Secondly, change your Twitter profile picture to a shade of green.  I used Photoshop, but you can use this nifty site to do it all online, or just pick a new one from this collection.  It's the color of the opposing party, and it shows any Iranian on Twitter that you're listening and they have your support, wherever and whoever you are.  If Alyssa Milano can do it, you can too.

In the last year, a handful of MSM articles about and interviews with moot, the founder of 4chan, have cropped up.  Time's was pretty weak; WSJ's is a decent overview.

Fimoculous just posted a great direct and intimate interview with moot.  And the Washington Post has a looooooong (not really) and very comprehensive article about the crazy things known as 4chan and moot's life.

Read them all over at your next PBJ desk lunch.  Report back in the comments on what you learned about a) what "tits or gtfo" means, b) how many kittehs moot has, and c) how you can love again.

Fan, co-worker, and all-around smart fella Bud Caddell just wrapped up his presentation, The Fan Economy: Becoming Fan Focused
Check it out, pass it along, and remix it the hell up.

As a follow-up to my previous post about ROFLthing NYC, memes, and doin' it for the lulz, check out KnowYourMeme.com.  It's the most n00b ("newbie")-friendly presentation of internet memes on the interweb-holes.

KnowYourMeme.com is relatively shallow in terms of it's depth of informing, but does a great job of capturing enough examples of each meme to really exemplify what the memes mean.  It's also been keeping up with the internet well in the last week (faster than most sites, anyway).  It's already got the Christian Bale freak-out meme and the David After Dentist meme covered.

Check out the Milhouse meme to get a good meta understanding of this:

When you've delved into the site and it's memes and have a "want to learn more?" moment, jump over to the infamously famous Encyclopedia Dramatica to really sink your teeth into the chaos.

My favorite meme from the site - using one of the tamer examples to showcase it - is the Xibit meme:

Spend some time in the KYM memeverse to edumacate your brainholes.  But be warned: the idea that something inhernetly underground, pervasive, and anarchistic are appearing organized in "public" means the site won't last either due to angry 1337 haxxors, or - and I think this is most likely - erosion of accuracy.  Case in point: simple remixes like Christian Bale and David After Dentist aren't really memes.

So get your lulz while the gettin's good.

Part I: The Internet
This Saturday, I attended ROFLThing NYC.

(If you have absolutely no clue what anything you just read means, continue reading.  This post is actually for your benefit more than anyone's.)

Simply put, ROFLThing is a offshoot of ROFLCon, which is a (larger) conference to celebrate the internet and it's memes, which are evolving, typically subversive cultural phenomena.  Rick Roll and lolcats are common memes you've likely experienced yourself, because you are on the internet.  (And if you don't know what ROFL means by now, then there's little hope for you online.)  The conferences are organized, sponsored, and led by - essentially - the content / trend creators, and attended by the people who play in those spaces, who 'get it'.  Read all about it.

I watched the guys behind You Suck at Photoshop describe their experience in a kind of comedic performance piece.  I learned about Sockington the cat and his rise to fame from his owner, Jason Scott, who fascinated me.  I watched some Improv Everywhere videos presented by Charlie Todd, and got a little heart-warmth.  I kind of snoozed through The Future of Online Video from some sponsors.  And then I really snoozed through the presentation about the Comic Sans font from its creator.

All in all it was very fun, and very energizing.  I met some cool people like Charlie Todd, and Dan Rollman, founder of the Universal Record Database.  And I even got up close and personal with Tron Guy, Jay Maynard, who is an awesome and super nice guy.

The end.

Part II: The internets
Now here's what really happened.

In person, I saw the anarchy, the chaos, and the contradiction that is the real internets.

I saw lattes with goatse-shaped foam.

I heard hateful epithets spewed verbally and digitally.

...And then I saw the larger community essentially vote down the epithets, engaging in a feeble system of checks and balances.  (More on this in a minute)

I saw freedom of speech pushed further than I've ever seen in person before.

I saw real products of the human condition.

And while I witnessed negativity - to the degree that I hope no one outside that little world ever has to experience firsthand - I mostly saw productivity and positively stem from the dregs of the web.

(Quick note on the 'hateful epithets'.  Now, sexism, homophobia, and racism are clearly morally wrong.  I'm certainly not going to defend anyone shouting the f-word or the n-word, and I think they're completely unnecessary in any context.  And I realize how sensitive this subject is to just about everyone.  But I will say this: as part of the meme zeitgeists, there is actually context to these words that is not literal or hate-filled.  The words themselves are stripped almost entirely of any original meaning.  So while I too wish these words would just go away, there is an observational takeaway from experiencing it in these bizarre settings.  And this absolutely is a wholly separate topic that deserves conversation - just not for right now.)

Obviously this is all my own perception.  I saw what are the real roots of the internets - which are more anarchist than democratic - take shape and sort of control itself but not really.  Someone organized a conference and people showed up.  Had people acted in person at ROFLThing the way they do online, all of New York City would have disappeared in an instant. The people that attend these conferences, the ones that bring life to these spaces online, are hackers, pranksters, jokers, bullies, thugs, and clowns.  They're consumers, contributors, leaders, observers, and mixers.  Aggregators, owners, collectors, and catalysts.  They're really angry and they're really happy.  They're all of these things at once.

The illusion of control by the organizers could have been shattered with one shout at any time.  Sure, attendees could be physically thrown out for extreme or threatening behavior (what wasn't threatening in some way?).  But in all likelihood the person you throw out for being reckless is exactly the kind of person you want to keep away from their computer, lest you feel their digital wrath.

If you haven't read this New York Times article about trolling online, do so immediately.  And know that moot was present at ROFLThing, as was Anonymous, and likely many faceless others detailed in the article.

There was never any real control to ROFLThing, other than physical brute force.  The best analogy - and it's less analogy and more documented reference - is Fight Club.  ("It's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything.")  ROFLThing isn't all niceties and pleasantries like a Comic-Con.  Going to ROFLThing was like standing in the midst of a stream of rats, afraid to move and catch too much attention, hoping they just keep flowing past and don't climb your leg.  As an observer, you just don't stick your neck out.

It's this community - and it is a community - that create Big Things online.  And it's the same people that destroy Big Things.  They're there to remind you that the internet is not your favorite blog (erictabone.com, obviously).  It's not your ISP, the media, Google, or even the big brands that think they run the show.  It's 4chan, Anonymous, and scads of unidentifiable others.

Just like Fight Club, they're working under your nose, and you many never even know they were there or what they did.  A meme is born, it's tossed into the mainstream, and they watch it unfold from Oprah's mouth.  (Click that link, watch the video, and know that nobody did what Oprah said, they just fooled her into saying it on TV.  It's a long meme story.  If you're uncomfortable, watch this instead and have a nice roffle.)

Don't be afraid, but definitely be weary.  They will chew you up, spit you out, defile your corpse, slander you posthumously, and laugh all the while.  Why?

For the lulz.

Over the last couple of days, there's been quite the Twitter scare on the interwebs.  It started with direct messages and address spoofing, leading to a sensible Twitter reminder about giving out secret information.  Then, in seemingly unrelated attacks, some high-profile accounts were hacked, which just added to the paranoia and excitement of the whole situation.

So some accounts (mostly celebrities) were forcibly compromised, but most of the civilian casualties were caused by too much trust.  And in this new ...thing, this new social web we live in, there is plenty of trust to go around.  The memory of the internet is short, but have we already forgotten the Age of Viruses & Scams?  In this new Age of Sharing & Utility, there's no shortage of add-on's, such as TwitPic, that require your password to work.  But there's no real security in place for users, so you can only really go on one thing: trust.

2009 is the Year of the Ox in the Chinese zodiac calendar.  According to Wikipedia, for those born under the Ox, "security is their main preoccupation in life" (which would be newborns this year and anyone aged 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 84, 96, and 108).  Some other traits we can expect out of 2009 and it's Oxen:

• "It is important to remember that the Ox people are sociable and relaxed when they feel secure..."

(This is a caution to all of us white hats in 2009: be not complacent.)

• "Like their animal namesake, the Ox is unswervingly patient, tireless in their work, and capable of enduring any amount of hardship without complaint."

(Ominous of potential black hats.)

So let us continue to rejoice in our social optimism throughout 2009.  Stay bright, stay honest, but remember to continue diligence, thoughtfulness, and caution.

A few weeks ago, during a conversation about re-branding, a very smart, very fun friend said the following:

"I hate advertising, but I love marketing."

Here are some great visuals that contrast the two areas (also available as .pdf), discovered in a quick Google search for "advertising marketing difference": 
Oversimplified, yes, but very much on point.  Where marketing simply attempts to get a message across to consumers, advertising is almost entirely self-serving and rarely gives much of anything to consumers; at least not anything real or long-lasting.  Marketing - good marketing - focuses on building up a brand, which appropriately evokes a positive, mutually beneficial system, whereas traditional and even newer, cleverer advertising techniques tend to be purely disruptive.

This is not to say marketing is immune to criticism, or that all of advertising should be eradicated.  But if we think of the two as resting on opposite ends of the same balance scale, trends show marketing dominating, carrying much more weight as substantively more effective with consumers, and thus a much more effective market for the future.  In all likelihood, 2008 will be known as the last year in which advertising as we knew it existed and (barely) thrived, and 2009 as the first year of a potential rebirth.  No one can be sure if there will actually be any real adaptation, because again, looking back at the last few years, advertisers have not integrated well into new systems.  (Simply uploading your TV spot to YouTube does not, a viral phenomenon or digital strategy, make.)

Exemplifying the decline of advertising we need only look at the current state of two of media's most coveted channels: newspapers and television.  Newspapers circulation and advertising revenue are in catastrophic declines, and, likely escalated by the global financial crisis, in the last month of 2008 are beginning to collapse entirely.  There is little surprise; newspapers' death knoll had been declared years ago, in the midst of the first internet bubble.  Nonetheless, they collectively represent an aged institution, with an inability to truly innovate and adapt to revolutionary trends.

Television has now also found itself in a similar quandary.  With the rise of time-shifting, ad-skipping digital recordings, executives are sweating and the voices are crying out to transform old models into something more adept for the predictable future.  After all, television began as an advertising channel with content simply sprinkled in almost as an afterthought.  Over time, it's since tweaked the levels and structure of sponsorship communication, but the vessel's business model remains largely untouched, and almost entirely unprepared for the challenge it faces now.

Today, in this digital age, consumers are not only empowered, but they've become incredibly savvy, and with intense message filtration.  Offline, they have forgone purchasing tangible newspapers, shut out print advertisements, and are literally skipping TV commercials.  Online, they are blind to banners, deaf to ads.  By no stretch of the imagination should a  0.5% click-through rate be considered a success; it is a 99.5% failure.  Even American League pitchers at bat are held to a higher standard.

Marketing digitally, which stems more from a real function of communication, is evidence of adaptation in an ever-changing environment.  Brands need only to leverage channels and tools available for communicating (softly), to outreach to - not yell at - their consumers, and to constructively build themselves up.  Include a modest amount of advertising, sure, but be overly cautious with ad spending.  Focus on organic growth and cultivating real relationships with consumers.  Build the foundation and create passionate brand ambassadors.

The digital world is thriving because of marketing, not advertisements.  If the internet had a sign at the entrance, it would read: Turn away, advertising, for ye have no purpose here.

(For this analogy, we're going to dig into Tthe Digital Subconscious, and use some SimCity comparisons, starting with the original.)

Part I: Siloed Microsite
While SimCity predates the internet as we know it, it's an apt metaphor for what we do know today as microsites: as stand-alone, social silos that, for the most part, don't connect.  While these early cities provided roads that gave the appearance of 'connecting' to some undefined, otherworldly place, it was more to placate the user.  Ultimately, cities (microsites) were attempts at creating some benefit more for gamers (brands) than the city inhabitants (consumers).  (Imagine if our real-llife cities were no longer connected by roads or mass transit.  That's the Web of Microsites.)

Part II: Functional Social Presence
Flash-forward to "the future" SimCity 4 & Sims tie-in (the social web).  With a fully networked global infrastructure, we're able to truly connect, to share, and to foster meaningful relationships in what was a previously solitary experience.  Brands are now able - and expected - to go beyond self-serving exercises, if they want to provide real meaning to their consumers.  Just as Maxis has experienced unprecedented competition in the gaming over the last few years, consumers now have infinite opportunities online and in no way need any one particular brand or service (short of a very small number of companies).



Part III: The Big Picture
Functional presences in digital social spaces look like the image above: a world lit up with activity. The real experiences don't happen in any one place, they happen everywhere: between the places - the cities, the networks, the sites, the services. Ultimately, the internet is a sum greater than its parts. It is amazing and full of life, and if the humans feel at all threatened by the machines, they will rebel.

Tread lightly.  And smartly.

The other night, I was walking with some coworkers to an after-work meet up with a bunch of strangers, when I started mentally running through things to talk about.  As I jumped through mental hoops, I remembered a funny, personal thing that had happened earlier in the day, which - metaphorically speaking - stopped me in my tracks.

It wasn't particularly "ha-ha" funny, and it wasn't deeply personal, but I'm sure not going to blog about it here.  Which is exactly the point.

If you're a part of the social web - and you probably are - a lot of what makes you you is essentially available to the world: your likes and dislikes, people you know, places you've been, accomplishments, etc.  And if you're a good citizen of the social web, you likely consider this kind of public knowledge a true and honest extension of who you are as a person.

Thanks to network effect and emerging technologies, our connections are all overlapping and ever-growing, but there are remarkably few barriers to information flow.  So as I recalled my funny personal anecdote, I felt more comfortable telling it to complete strangers than both online and offline friends.

Over the course of the last decade, we've traded our embrace of personal face-to-face connections & digital privacy with public online socialization & in-person anonymity.  Of course, we (mostly) all still desire quality in-person interactions.  And we still love juicy gossip and hearsay online.  (PostSecret is forever.)  But as I watch my cousins (who are siblings) update one another on each others' lives via Facebook wall-to-wall, I start to wonder how close I am to telling the stranger behind me on the line for coffee exactly where I hid the body.