Right Said Fred
That video made me sick. I thought that the viral videos from our earlier assignment were a fitting example of why our YouTube disgusts me, but this one takes the cake.
Pardon me. “No hating.”
The ads on his site are for Toys R’ Us. It is obvious that this movie was rehearsed and shot specifically to cater to a child audience. Although the actor looks as though he is 12, he is meant to appeal to an even younger target group of about 6-10.
His complete reckless abandonment is like that of a child who is without any parental control. Isn’t that every kid’s dream? An empty hotel room (every kid loves the fresh hotel room when they go on vacation, especially a springy mattress to bounce on), a food bar without limits to ravage, room service, bubble bath, with no one there to contain you. Just like a scene out of Home Alone.
This kid is unstoppable and likely speaks to little kids the world over for his unabashed nature. He even coaxes the adult into playing Twister with him. How savvy. This is probably why he has been modeled to advertise and promote toys. What is funny is that kids are starting to use the Internet at a younger age and doing so without the supervision of their parents (ironic, that Fred is without supervision in this video). His character speaks to these young kids who are surfing YouTube and other networks because, believe it or not, their target group is the biggest for marketing and advertising of all ages. They go to their parents and tug on their skirts and shirts to buy them toys and their parents get suckered into it. If Fred said to buy these toys or Fred wears these clothes, they want to wear them too.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Big Fan is a depressing movie about how sad and pathetic the common folk are in today’s participatory culture. The main character’s sole purpose in life seemed to be his connection to WFAN radio in New York as a promoter of the sports team the New York Giants. In actuality, it became apparent that he truly had no importance to the performance of the team, even when he became thrown in the middle of a debacle involving one of the star players. The fan had delusions that his decision of whether or not to press charges on the player who assaulted him would have serious repercussions on the outcome of the games; however, he would come to realize that his input had no effect in the grand scheme of things. Regardless of whether the star quarterback played in the game or not, the team lost games.
The main character called in to the radio station weekly, evoking some of the same themes that we discussed mid-way through our class. Radio stations have regular callers on its programs, which help to add some continuity to its talk radio segments, Paul from Staten Island and Philadelphia Phil being the two keystone callers to this program. Their feud was encouraged by the radio host as a fun way to entertain the audience amidst the football season and he gave them free reign when commenting on-air. When callers typically have a short leash when it comes to proving their point or sharing their opinion, these regular callers were allowed plenty of time to speak their peace and the producer knew them by name.
Paul, as we discussed some devoted callers as doing, actually wrote down everything he was going to say before he spoke live, figuring out precisely what he wanted to say and rehearsing it to sound the way he wanted it to. It sounded contrived, and the host likely knew it was, but because he was a staple of the show, he was allowed to recite his devoted sermon.
On a side-note, during one part of the film, when Paul is being pushed to file a civil-suit and his brother decides to file one against his wishes, he and his friend go on the computer to look up the word “lawsuit” on Wikipedia. This part is initially funny because the two grown men don’t know what a lawsuit is, but at the same time it speaks to some disturbing aspects of today’s culture. First, is that if common people such as Paul do not know what a lawsuit is, he, and others like him, can’t be expected to actively add to the comment and participatory culture in a constructive way. Also, it speaks to the fact that the information, such as Paul was eliciting for, is there on the Internet, however, it takes some wherewithal for people to be able to locate it when they need it and he didn’t have it. This is also a downfall of social networking. All of the new technologies are well and good, if people know how to navigate them. If not, they are useless.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
YouTube proves that in practice the economic and cultural rearrangements that “participatory culture” stands for are as disruptive and uncomfortable as they might be potentially liberating. The debates and struggles around YouTube as a site of participatory culture…are less about technology and more about cultural and political questions: who gets to speak, and who gets the attention; what compensations or rewards there are for creativity and work; and the uncertainties around various forms of expertise and authority.
The authors say this as though it makes YouTube different from any other social endeavor that gains any kind of attention or popularity. Well, it isn’t. Everything in today’s culture has to do with who has more political say and what the incentives are (i.e. financial gain), having nothing to do with who is most suitable to do the job or creates the best product. We see it in the highest forms of our social constructs such as admittance to schools, elections into office, and in various forms of media exposure. There are the haves and have-nots, so to speak, and they are open to more opportunities. We also see how some people can work the system by finding a niche and exploiting it, as YouTube, I believe, is classic for doing. But we never consistently credit the most skilled, most creative, most trained actors, whether in political culture or participatory culture. They call it politics for a reason.
Now, as YouTube is not a typical institution of society, not necessarily subject to the same inhibiting forces as such and is generally open to any and all individuals to participate, it does have its exclusory principles. That is, just as in any search engine on the Internet, some videos will tend to be promoted on the search list and others will not. This has to do with views, which makes it more about finding a way to get “hits” on a given video rather than its popularity being based on the quality of the video. Furthermore, people tend not to include videos on YouTube as a means of adding to the information cycle or providing some kind of service, as such, but in order to game fame or, in extreme cases, the prospect of being sponsored by ad revenue.
If the authors are suggesting that YouTube effectively alters the generally held assumptions about participatory culture, to that I would say that it is, rather, politics as usual. Google has taken over the site and ads are increasingly flooding the environment, washing away the innocent form of participation that it once had. Now, it is an environment that people use to become known; to put their name on the map; to gain attention and they do so by whatever means they see fit. Again here, it is not about who has the best-produced video or the most creative concept, but who can advertise their video the best to garner the most views. But is this really any different than any other social networking sites in today’s participatory culture? MySpace has long since bought into the ad-sharing business and now Twitter is on the bandwagon. Whereas Facebook has yet to sell its site to an Internet conglomerate, it still shows increasing signs of integrating itself into the mainstream media.
These sites hold the keys to where participatory culture will go in the future. Yet, more and more we see the same big-name web companies attempting to take the reins into their own hands (i.e. Google, Yahoo, etc.). With only a few big names ruling the Internet highways, it will eventually turn into the same vertical structure of communication as we see in the non-digital realm, rather than the horizontal forms of communication that we hoped and wished it would be.
Overall Review:
I think you can only take YouTube so far, as it pertains to a social experiment or anything of the like. YouTube is fascinating, yes, but it is not meant to be analyzed in so deep a manner as Burgess and Green wish to get into. They say, “To contribute to an understanding of how YouTube works… presents epistemological and methodological challenges to the humanities as well as to the social sciences.” As I can see the benefit in dissecting the inner-workings and methods of participation on a social networking site such as YouTube, it is tough not to get caught up in its technicalities and lose sight of its benignity. Also, although it has been growing at a high rate since its inception, it is still a very young project, the effects of which might not readily be discernable at present (or when the book was written, for that matter).
Burgess and Green seem to be really bright guys, well established researchers and social scientists. However, I think the context around which the book is centered is much too formal. For them to be studying the nuts and bolts of YouTube so critically is like when a physicist studies a football game: sure, physics is inherently part of the game and to know the scientific aspect would ultimately be beneficial and give the player an edge over his opponents, but at what point do you go out and just play the game, realizing that it is harmless and just for fun?
Amidst all of the technical jargon and densely-notated scholarly writing, it is tough for someone to understand just what they are talking about here. After all, it is a website where random people share random videos… randomly. Sure, we might be moving to a time when YouTube will be used for more than that, but right now it is pretty mundane. I respect that they try to look into the future, but I think they fall a bit short.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Live Blogs and Bruins Fan Fare
Along side of the Bruins’ area of the Boston Globe sports section, there is a blog advertisement running in conjunction. Yet, on the Boston Herald, there is little coverage of the game in the open. That is to say that there are no broad sweeping headlines promoting the game.
Although NBC carries a package for the more prominent NHL games, on their website, in the section that couples news and sports, there is no sign of any games going on. You wouldn’t know a game was being played. I guess they are opportunists. Since the game won’t be aired on its station, it sees no use in advertising for it. It’s probably better off that way for them.
Contrastingly, the Versus Network couldn’t make it more visible what is happening in the hockey world tonight. The website features a full wallpaper picturing a scene out of earlier playoff action including Bruins and Flyers players battling on the boards. With links to game casts, highlights, and such, this site wants its viewers to follow the game with its assistance.
As soon as you navigate onto the New England Sports Network (NESN) homepage, you become are also made fully aware that a game is being played, even though they don‘t appear to have televised coverage. A sizeable box denotes a live blog that is to be updated as the game goes on. This seems like a viable way for this site to garner attention to its programming.
The blog was set up at 6:55 with the game set to drop shortly after 7. One comment was posted, already, by an anxious fan.
The action began so rapidly, that the bloggers are having trouble keeping up with it all! Three goals in about six minutes of play!
I realized that the game was also being televised on TSN. Heading over to their webpage, I can see a headline of the game as well as a live blog of the game that encourages viewers to “CHAT NOW.” With less coverage of the play-by-play action, they do have a feature that includes instant messaging by users. A good number of people seem to be utilizing this chat room and there is also a live poll available.
So, it appears that some sites are gearing up to get users involved in the action and allow them a forum to talk about how they see the game as it unfolds.
The media authorities of sports don’t have much in the form of live interactivity for fans. They are limited to games stats and basic online coverage whereas other smaller aggregates, that hold a legitimate stake in the promotion of the game, have made a stronger effort to get traffic and keep fans on the site.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Viral Video Virus
The viral videos of “Hey Girl” and “Lonely Girl” are perfect examples of the senseless things people partake in today amidst new social networking technologies and explain why I never used YouTube before this class. 3 million views for a minute-and-a-half-long clip of a dorky girl bumbling about nothing? 30 million views for a video of two adolescent teenie-boppers lip-synching and awkwardly dancing to a random song?
What is this world coming to?
Now, granted, a lot of the fame involved in these videos comes from the fact that people catch wind of its popularity and search it out because of its buzzworthiness. I guess I wonder how anyone would find this stuff the least bit entertaining in the first place. They offer nothing substantial. They are senseless. Aside from pubescent classmates, perverts, pedophiles, diddlers, chesters, and the like, these videos truly have very little appeal.
15 hours ago
But, who needs to learn something or find something profound just to be entertained by it? The lighthearted can be fun and worthwhile just the same. Still, these people have got to have something better to do or to watch than these clips. You have to figure that a lot of legwork also must have gone into the disseminating of this video of the YouTube web-ways and through other social networking outlets because there is no way that all of the views are from people who are truly fans of it. They must have shamelessly solicited for viewers.
I know nothing of the “stories” or “myths” surrounding these clips, however, after doing a bit of research on Google and reading the comment streams, I have discerned that the popularity of these videos is not all that it seems. The person in the “Lonely Girl” clip is apparently a paid actor, much to the dismay of many loyal viewers, and the girls of “Hey Clip” posted their stuff on MySpace and anywhere else to garner the most views they could.
Congratulations. A lot of people watched your videos.
This, to me, is a pathetic waste of time. It contributes nothing to society, and regardless of whether you are 10, 15, 20, or 50 years old, there are better, more important things one could be doing with their time than advertising themselves on YouTube.
I have gotten dumber after watching those clips. I hope the publishers got off on this, because judging by the comment stream, a number of viewers did, themselves.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Can you ‘Digg’ it?
I am intrigued by this Digg site. I like how it is just a slew of random articles, bumped up by the promotion of the users.
There was something different about the creation of this profile than others. In American society, there are only two, maybe three genders. In other cultures, there can be four or five. In Digg subculture, there are 15. Very cool.
My first thoughts on Digg’s design are that the site is boring and uninteresting.
One of my first article experiences was a video of a basketball player slam dunking off of a rainbow pass administered by his cohort’s fleet of foot. A ton of people ‘dugg’ it, something like 350 people, and it was posted on the front page. The person who posted the video said “wow, Steve Nash and Amare Stoudemire should try this!”
News flash: they already did. 2005 Slam Dunk Competition.
I have a problem with this. It makes me discredit the people using this site and digging the articles that make it onto the front page. Maybe, I am just being too cynical. Either way, the people who commented on that particular media clip did well to set this guy straight and inform him of the past dunking performance, so I saw no need to.
I went ahead and posted my personal YouTube video. I hoped it might garner some attention, get some diggs, get publicized, receive comments, and so on. That didn’t happen. Nor did my article for The Roots concert at Amherst College get any notice. But, perhaps I had looked at Digg from the wrong perspective.
It doesn’t seem to be the place for self-publicizing. You won’t get comments or diggs on your material because you have many friends that frequent your page and like to make cutesy comments. You find something interesting, you read it, you digg it.
I can digg that.
But (perhaps this is a problem that I face as an aspiring journalist) I could care less about half of the junk on the website. The articles are mostly nonsense to me and are only there for their shock-value or recycled coverage of played-out news events of the day. They all seem like, what I call, ‘Yahoo’ articles. They pop up, give you an enticing headline and maybe a picture, and make you feel belittled when you open the link revealing a half-witted opinion from an everyday blogger whose opinion holds no
credence and who usually has an ulterior motive or personal agenda.
Man, do I hate Yahoo articles…
Call me old-fashioned, but I like to know that my news is coming from someone whose job it is to do the legwork for the information, not someone who surfed the web and came to conclusions. Maybe I’ll lighten up, but until then I will stick to Huffington Post, ESPN and other news aggregates that I can trust.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
I’ve Got My First Hater!
If you all remember, in class today Scott suggested that we create an alert on Google of our own names in vain, so that any time it is mentioned on the world wide web, we will know. Well, I decided that that wasn’t a bad idea.
So, I logged onto to the search engine. I decided that I would search my name, first. See what pops up. A couple of my articles topped the search list, followed by my Facebook page and an obituary of some sort for a Tony Gigliotti. About eight links down the list was this article entitled “Why Newbies Should Never Review (Insert Genre Here) Live Concerts.”
I found that a man by the name of Marquis Hunt had wrote an entire blog post discussing my concert review of the Wiz Khalifa concert on April 2, my first review and second article altogether for the Arts section. By discussin my article, I mean that he bashed it, providing quotations of paragraphs in my story and refuting them based on my lack of knowledge of hip-hop culture, short-sighted perspective, and lame-duck attitude.
I found my first hater!
I was absolutely thrilled that my article was receiving attention like this. I am always open for constructive criticism (honestly) and I was very happy that someone was about to give it to me.
This man gave me good insight into the way that I may have generalized about the audience. He also made me notice the ways in which I may have confused cause-and-effect relationships in writing about the conert (In some lines, I made it seem like the audiences reaction was a direct result of the artist’s performance when it might not have been). Finally, he pointed out that I may have gone into the concert with preconceived notions of what the artist would sound like or how he would perform that may have affected my objective review.
Ultimately, the man made his opinion heard like someone who was at the concert would. He also made assumptions about me that could only be made if he knew me personally. Well, he wasn’t there and he came off as a bit too judgmental of my personal tastes than was called for. I think he missed the humor in my piece and seemed to have some kind of personal attachment to the artist or something because he really took issue with the way that I wrote it when I still think I called it like I saw it and did a pretty good job at that.
His first critique of my piece was that the title, “Up in Smoke”, was unrepresentitive of the crowd and the concert as a whole. The funny thing about that is I don’t choose the titles that are put on my articles; the editors do. (and, for the record, the title to his critique is no more flattering to his piece, either.)
Looking back onto the article and the embedded video, I believe that he is talking as if the main act Wiz Khalifa is performing on camera. That was not the main act, rather, that was the opener to the opening act named Hendersin. If he had trouble understanding what I was referring to, then it might have been because he had the wrong video.
I think it’s great that my article has gained someone’s attention in the way it did. I wonder why no one added their thoughts into the comment stream on the Daily Collegian website. I thanked Marquis for his criticism, so I guess I’ll wait and see if he has anything else to add or responds to any of my other articles.
It’s nice to know that my work isn’t going unnoticed.
What are your thoughts on my article or Marquis’s analysis? I am interested to hear what your thoughts are on a blogger picking my article out to go in depth about. How would you feel/act if this happened to you?
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
YouTube Fiasco
Well, my video idea completely tanked and my YouTube project has turned out to be an absolute failure.
Glum, I know.
Whatever idea I had for providing a unique, helpful, and intriguing video for the public’s consumption has completely fell off the wagon and my premeditated strategies have not only proved useless, but they have actually backfired on me.
Maybe I should have filmed a video that included severe physical accident and injury like I first thought of. My first instincts are always right…
As of right now, I have not one single comment on my video post (by the way, thank you for your support, my fellow classmates. No hard feelings). That completely ruled out the possibility for me to actively reciprocate commenting and promote an interactive discussion because, well, no one wanted to talk about my video in the first place.
I suppose I could have talked to myself. Yet, as entertaining as that might have been, I guess I figured that it would have served no benefit other than self-amusement. Even if back-and-forth banter between me, myself, and I might be mildly entertaining to other people, no one was coming to my page to read it, anyway.
But I’m not bitter.
(cue nasally inhale and breathy, audible exhale)
Let me retrace my steps to try and see if I might have approached this differently I could have gotten a more lively response. Or any response, for that matter.
First of all, the quality of my video production was not the best. I used a digital camera that was probably about three or four years old (thanks, again, Geena!), which, in this day and age, is almost as dated a technology as the VCR. While recording the video at the show, I attempted to position myself close enough to the stage where it appeared to be an intimate view of the performer, but where everything would still be seen. I think I managed to do this well. As for sound quality, well, I conceded that this would likely present a problem and it did. The hard rock feel of the song and sub-par specifications of the camera lent it to sound muffled, abrasive and more like commotion than a coherent song.
What I did not predict, was that so many other audience members would have digital devices capable of recording video and that they would all (every one of them!) be anxious to post their versions onto YouTube. With far better quality in their average videos and their ability to instantly post them immediately during or after the concert via their advanced cell phone applications, I realized that I was at a distinct disadvantage to get my video version viral.
But I thought that I still had something valuable that other people at that show did not. That was journalistic value. I had plans of packaging this video in with an extensive review of the performance to be published by the Daily Collegian. This would surely allow my video to gain attention as supplementary stimulus to a sum-up of the show that can only do so much to give the reader a real sense of how the music actually sounded with words.
Or so I thought.
Also, the song I chose was a brand new one, unreleased to the public. Of all the songs I chose from, this one was the most likely to garner interested response because it is virtually unknown. Everybody loves new stuff, or so the thinking went.
I tactically waited around for my article to be published so that I could post the two links in conjunction, gaining double the viewers on my Facebook page.
I wrote my article and submitted it to the Arts Desk at the Collegian on a Thursday evening, being told that it would hopefully find its way into the print edition in the coming week but would certainly make its way onto the online edition promptly. Well, I ended up waiting over a week for my article to get published. No knock on the Arts editors, if you’re out there, it was an honest mistake. But it wasted valuable time in my grand video scheme and made the whole story combination that much less newsworthy.
I was still very hopeful when the night came around when my review was posted and my video hit the web-ways. That hopeful attitude fleeted rather quickly.
No one seemed to be hitting up my article and my video had very minimal attention. After about three days, the video had 36 views and 0 comments. This was after our entire class logged on to watch during our Tuesday meeting.
After observing substantial response to the original videos of my classmates during those days, I began to get anxious. I searched my mind for ways to get my video to the top of the search list.
I continuously checked my view numbers. I figured that this must be the way in which videos make it big, by the number of hits it receives. I noticed that anytime I clicked on the link myself it would log another view onto the tally.
“This is ludicrous,” I thought. “The website cannot manage to exclude a user’s own views from its statistics? The number is completely skewed. Urgh…”
Coming to the realization that another chunk of the view numbers were from myself and not original traffickers, I became that much more disappointed that my video was unwanted.
Then, I was struck with a brilliant idea. If I continue to refresh my own page, then my views will begin to skyrocket. If these numbers increase exponentially, then my video could become the biggest on the net! Well, not that big… but it could make its way up the competing search of footage from the same show.
So I employed this technique for the next 26 minutes (Yes, I was painfully bored and no, I didn’t have anything better to do), taking some statistics of my own along the way. In a given minute, I was able to increase my views by at least 11 and at most 16, settling at an average speed of 12.85 hits per minute.
I got really excited by this clever ploy. I felt above YouTube law and became consumed with delusions of grandeur that accompanied this newfound power. I thought about how I could create incentives for other people to furiously click my video up the ranks. With 10 people clicking tirelessly for 24 hours straight through an entire week, I could get over one million views! (1,310,040 to be exact… but who’s counting)
All the while I conjured up plans of striking it big in the theoretical world of YouTube, some administrative personnel was catching on to my little stunt. After reaching 370 views, my numbers simply stopped. Abruptly, without warning, the website had pulled the plug on my operation and taken the wind out of my sails.
As it turns out, I gather that they just excluded me from the views count. As of now, I have looked into the stats of my video and noticed that the site has continued to record and track new viewers to my page, it just doesn’t show up on the main page when I log in. The number says that 216 people have viewed my video. All of them anti-social.
I posted my video on social networking accounts like Facebook, Twitter, and Digg, however, I did not advertise it as a ‘school project’ for which I ‘need comments’ and wish people to ‘write something… anything… help me get an A!’ I feel that that type of strategy is adolescent and degrading.
It does work, though.
So, I feel that I tried my best. I did what I could do. I had a clear line of thought and vision for my video, it just never came to fruition.
Am I disappointed? Yes.
Do I think that YouTube users missed out on a good video and commenting environment? Absolutely.
Do I believe that YouTube users wouldn’t know a quality video if it appeared on their laptops every time their Windows software rebooted? I sure do.
I knew there was a reason why I never liked YouTube.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
The Accessible Design of YouTube
YouTube lends itself to quick searches of less accessible visual and audio media and the mindless entertainment of the young digi-grubbing generation. YouTube offers clips of songs that evade the average personal music collection and complementary videos, both authentic and creatively engineered by fans. It also lends clips of popular movies and television shows that you might have to wait around to watch a re-run for else buy the DVD. It offers archival news coverage as well as videos to live events seen nowhere else. Most importantly, it provides the public with a forum in which they can freely express themselves to a wide array of audiences creating footage that is comical, inspiring, eye-opening, courageous, embarrassing, death-defying, degrading, and, well, just about any other adjective you can think of.
YouTube is great for general media referencing and fact checking. I cannot even count how many times I have used it just this semester to refer to song titles and lyrics when writing an article for searching a viral video that has gained public attention.
The way that the videos are organized in the search engine can be rather deceiving at times. When looking up a favorite song/video, you might find a number of titles with like names, but some of the top matches can tend to be falsely advertised. You don’t have a sound system of analyzing the quality of the link before you click it. Also, I search for a lot of musical performances and often I want to hear the simple studio version of a song only to get bombarded by live performances even after I specify my search. That is frustrating.
Yet, on the whole the search engine is very advanced and accessible. Typically, I begin typing in a media title and have my desired selection completed for me. Even when I am not sure what the exact title of the link is, it will appear before my eyes, assisting me greatly in my preferred digital consumption.
I will say that it is torturous when a video takes long to upload… but that is not necessarily the fault of the website.
I appreciate that the media search engine will provide related videos to compliment, not only my current selections, but my overall body of viewing preferences as in the suggestions that appear on my homepage when I initially sign into the website.
I especially like the play list function. I find this to be underutilized by people, beneficial for acquiring the playback of full albums that evade your iTunes collections. You can seek out full record listings and by using the auto play tool, you can sit back and listen to jams as they were intended to be listened to, on after the other. Or, you can put together a nice blend of enjoyable hits, similar to any generic media player.
I never used YouTube because I resented its propensity to propel people onto a senseless journey through an annex of unintelligence and intellectual incapacity. Well, I still think that happens, to an extent, but I am able to gauge its value in new and broader ways, especially in the field of journalism.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Yelp Review
Yelp is great.
This network for comprehensive reviews of established businesses is a very helpful and informative. I am actually wishing now that more people frequented this website and threw in their two cents. The format and layout of the website in generally unappealing and not entirely welcoming, so perhaps a refreshing of its aesthetics could lead to more active participation and thru-traffic.
So, that is my abbreviated review of the Yelp website, however ironic that might be. As for my own contributions to the website’s content, the activity of my hometown locales was sparse and I would have like to build it up, however, I thought I might have a jaded opinion of the lot of restaurants and pubs there having been immersed in the culture for so long. Let’s say I have a conflict of interest there. So, I decided to peruse the Pioneer Valley Area for reviews of newfound establishments that I have experienced in my year of living here.
I immediately came across a slew of good prospects to choose from and provided two earnest reviews: one on the hearty and health-conscious Bueno Y Sano (Amherst) and the other on the intimate concert hall The Iron Horse (Northampton).
I will say that I wish they allowed for half stars. It would double the scale for ratings and couldn’t imagine it would be that difficult to incorporate.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Search
Recent Entries
- Right Said Fred
- Big Fan: Talk Radio and Information Access
- Reaction to Burgess and Green’s YouTube Analysis
- Live Blogs and Bruins Fan Fare
- Viral Video Virus
- Can you ‘Digg’ it?
- I’ve Got My First Hater!
- YouTube Fiasco
- The Accessible Design of YouTube
- Yelp Review
- YouTube Upload: Lupe Fiasco @ House of Blues Boston
Categories
- Uncategorized (23)
