subscribing to my stuff
Some of this may be important to you.
Some of this may be important to you.
I read something a couple of days ago, that basically stated this:
Comments [0]
This is written as something I can point you to if you ask. If you've arrived here without asking how to contact me, it's something good to keep in mind! :)
There are several methods you can use to contact me, depending on how soon you expect a reply. Here they are:
Fastest
@ me on Twitter. I will reply in a maximum of 2-3 days, but usually (>90% of the time) within a few hours.
Slower
If you have my primary email address, you can contact me by email. This is also useful if what you need to tell me doesn't fit in 140 characters, however please expect a reply time of up to one week. Usually this takes anywhere between 1-5 days though. If what you've emailed me is very important, but had to be emailed as it's longer than 140 characters, please consider @-ing me a reminder on Twitter to speed up my email reply.
Note: My primary email address is NOT public, nor will it ever be. If I know you from somewhere else and you don't have it, ask me for it.
Even slower
Use the "contact me via email" link in the sidebar here on the right. This will require you to enter a CAPTCHA to be able to send me an email, BUT the address you will be sending it to is NOT my primary email address. Thus, expect even higher reply times, up to 10 days, but usually between 3-7 days. If you spam me on this address and I know you from somewhere else (say, Twitter), I will immediately end our 'relationship' in those places (again, such as unfollowing you on Twitter - or de-friending you on Facebook, etc.)
Even slower than that
Contact me on Facebook. I *very* rarely check Facebook, and most of the email notifications from Facebook I have turned off. So this is one of the slowest ways possible for you to contact me, but if you must, please expect a reply in 1-2 weeks, usually within one week.
If you decide to write something on my wall or comment to something I've posted on Facebook, please NEVER expect a reply. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate comments on stuff I post, but I haven't yet found a way of seeing comments from a few days ago (nor have I tried very much, admittedly, because I don't especially like Facebook, but that's another story), and as I said before, I very rarely check Facebook.
Slowest
Contact me on any of the other social networks/media/sites/tools/whatever, all of which are listed at http://v-l-a-d.tel. Some of these I do check sometimes, others I may check as rarely as once in a year. Please don't take your chances here.
Note: Do not contact me via Google Reader. Please do follow me if you find what I share interesting, but use the "comments" section strictly for comments (which I do check once every couple of days). Messages directed at me using Google Reader's "social" features will likely get lost and I won't ever get to read them.
Impossible
My phone numbers are not public (on the Internet, at least). Even if you somehow manage to find them, I will NOT answer if you call me without previously arranging a conversation. And generally, if we haven't connected (by that I mean interacted in this context) heavily on social networks, I won't agree to a phone conversation. There are countless other ways you can get a message to me (see above?!) that are not as ego-centric as placing a phone call.
This also applies to Skype calling.
Also, any text messages I receive from anyone who is not a close friend in real life will be ignored.
IM: While I do have an account on all major IM networks, I log in (to all, thanks to Digsby) maybe once a month. Therefore, sending me messages via IM while I'm offline will most certainly mean I won't see them (this is heavily IM network dependant, and it also depends on Digsby's code, I won't get into more details here).
When I am online on IM and have the status of Available, feel free to talk to me. If I have any other status, please only contact me for urgent matters and do expect the possibility of me not being in front of the computer at that time.
My IM account details are, again, not public. Request them as you would my email address (see above).
Although it may not seem that way at first judging from what you've just read, I do consider myself a social person. I like people. And I believe in people (trying to make that a new religion). But for the best possible results, please do follow this guide. And you'll see just how charming and exceptional I really am :)
Comments [0]
This is a post solely designed to explain the principles guiding my Twitter usage. To find out more about me, use the sidebar or go directly to http://v-l-a-d.tel
If you are truly interested in connecting with me via Twitter, and not following me automatically (be that robot-automation or just blindly following people by yourself), PLEASE READ THIS.
Following
- I will follow you only if I consider your tweets interesting. Even if you are a very nice and interesting person in real life, if all you tweet is what you ate, I will not follow you. This is a very personal assessment and it doesn't claim to be anything but subjective.
- If you read the Bio on my Twitter profile you'll find out what my main interests are, and surely I usually follow people with shared interests. However, this is not always the case, as your tweets can be interesting to me even if they're not necessarily related to how much I could cram into a 160-character limited Bio.
- I do NOT autofollow. Nor have I ever. I read every single new follower notification and decide if I follow back based on what I stated above and my Blocking and Reporting as SPAM -related principles outlined below. Please note, though, that it may take a few days, or even weeks, for me to get to read new follower notifications.
Not Following and Unfollowing
- I do NOT follow people who are generally, or in relation to a particular domain (but one they choose to tweet often about), clueless. I respect personal opinion(s) and the right to that, but nothing gives you the right to say something is true when it isn't. If you don't care enough about what you're tweeting to base it on facts, I don't care enough about you to follow you. I will unfollow you if you suddenly post something that falls into this category. If this comes in great contrast to the normal quality of your content, I may make an attempt to let you know that you may need facts to base opinions on, but no guarantees.
- I will unfollow you the second you send me a direct message or reply about a "Twitter game", whatever that is.
- I won't follow you if you use Foursquare, Gowalla, Yelp, or any other similar location-sharing app/game and I will immediately unfollow you the second I see such an update from you. If you're not within 50 miles of me, these updates about your current location are completely irrelevant to me and probably everyone outside your stupid tech bubble. And don't get me started on the "becoming Mayor of..." aspect of these things. Bottom line: this is spam. Perhaps not in its generally accepted definition, which is why I won't "report you as spam" (see below when I will do that), but it nevertheless feels like spam to me. The only exception to this, in my view, is if you use these services only when you travel. In that case none of the above applies.
- I will not follow you if you tweet in a language other than English and I will unfollow you if you start doing this. On this account, I tweet exclusively in English, and I expect the timeline I see to be in the same language. Naturally, interacting with me (a.k.a @ replying me or direct messaging me) in another language will also ensure that I won't follow you or immediately unfollow you. [Note: If you tweet in Romanian and plan to interact with me, please follow the account I use for tweets in Romanian -@vladbro. However, bear in mind that I *very* rarely use it]
- I will not follow you if you use Twitter solely as a way to push stuff you do elsewhere (such as, but not limited to, Friendfeed) and I will unfollow you if your account starts to do this.
- I will unfollow you if you start tweeting a lot per day about subjects that don't interest me at all. The list of such subjects is very limited, but, for example, if 19 out of your average 20 tweets per day are live tweets from a baseball game, I'm sorry. It's your right to tweet about whatever you want, and my right to keep the timeline I see interesting to me.
- I will never follow you if your profile link URL points to a URL shortener. And depending on what you tweet and how much (or how little) information there actually is in your Bio, I might even block you or report you as spam.
- I may unfollow you if you use either of the words "dude", "awesome", "sucks", "rules" and "whore" (this last one in the 'geeky' sense) and any of their countless variations, an excruciating number of times per day.
Blocking
- I will block you if you follow me (and, usually, hundreds or thousands of others) without having tweeted once. Although this is not easily defined as SPAM (which is why I won't also report you as SPAM), something is clearly fishy about your account.
- I will block you if you have only tweeted 2-3 times, and the content of your tweets is useless.
- I will block you immediately if you are tweeting from an unregistered application (the source of your tweets appears as "from API"). If you're working on the next top secret amazing Twitter client, sorry. Other than that, again, something's fishy.
Reporting as SPAM
(this supersedes, and therefore implies, also blocking)
- 500-1000 following, less than 20 followers means you are a spammer.
- 1000-2000 following, less than 50 followers also.
- Having a pornographic profile picture is forbidden by Twitter's Terms of Service and it will instantly make me report you.
- If the only links you ever tweet refer to making money online (with or without Google!), having whiter teeth, or performing better with your loved one, you are a spammer and I will report you immediately.
- Being followed at a time by two or more users that have the exact same username save for 1-3 characters (usually the last ones) means I will report you all.
- Replying to me without any connection to anything I've said and/or with only a link as your tweet will get you reported.
- I will report you as SPAM if you've tweeted 20 times, 15 of those being the exact same link (accompanied by text or not).
Replying
- I generally try to reply to anything that I feel I have something to add to. I always welcome replies to my tweets and replies.
Replying to replies
- I generally reply to all replies addressed to me when I believe the conversation will receive added value by continuing.
- I may, and am known to, reply late. I don't think I've ever replied later than in 2-3 days, but be prepared for this. Use the "in reply to..." link below my reply to find out exactly which of your tweets I'm replying to.
Direct Messages
- I do not use Twitter as IM. If you want to have an IM conversation with me, let's exchange IM account details and do that. Do not try to make me use Twitter's DM as IM, I won't, and if you try repeatedly, I may even unfollow you thus preventing you from sending me any more DMs.
- I only use direct messages on Twitter when what I'm trying to communicate will be of value and interest only to one person (this includes sharing email addresses, the aforementioned IM details, and other 'sensitive information' too).
Sharing links and ReTweeting
This is very important
- The links I share, usually multiple times a day, generally come from Google Reader (and, in rare cases, Ping.fm) and represent articles that I believe are interesting, and, in 99% of the cases, agree (even if marginally) with or am neutral towards. If there is a pressing 'issue of the day' across the blogo- and statusphere, I will share the link that will take you to the content I most agree with on said matter. The articles I share in Google Reader are easily identifiable by the URL shortener being either ff.im or j.mp. I may use Friendfeed for pushing these to Twitter or Reader2Twitter (when one becomes unreliable, I switch). Please do note that these items are the only ones that I let Friendfeed push to Twitter and the links are ALWAYS direct to the article.
- Links from my blogs are posted directly by Posterous and as such easily identified by the URL shortener post.ly (the only post.ly links I share, except in retweets, are my own blog posts). They may also be retweets of tweets from the Twitter accounts I have set up as blog feeds for each of my blogs (these accounts are all easily discoverable right here in the sidebar) or come across as shared items originating in Google Reader (to identify these, see the paragraph preceding this one).
- Similarly to my link principles, in 99% of the cases what I retweet, I (even if marginally) agree with or am neutral towards and deem interesting. In the rare cases that I retweet something I don't agree with, this will be made obvious from my comment preceding "RT".
- I very, very rarely link to something posted on TechCrunch or Mashable. When I do, it's only because I consider a post very important or it's important breaking news. This is because me linking to these blogs would only make me the 123,456th person doing so, adding to the overall noise of Twitter. I think that if you care about what's posted on these blogs, you're already subscribed to them, or you've already seen one of the previous 123,455 retweets of a post originating there. Which is why I only use linking to them as a way to highlight important stories.
Favorites
- I use Twitter's favoriting feature similarly to how I use Google Reader's Star feature, meaning I mark certain updates for reading later.
- My Favorites are publicly accessible, and you're free to discover them, but I doubt that they will be of any use to you. As I said in the above 'chapter', if you're looking for stuff I consider interesting, my tweets will do.
Comments [2]
Let's stop kidding ourselves. The battle for control over conversations and the silo of discussions is done. Any blogger who believes that they can control the conversations and prevent discussions in far-flung social networks is deluding themselves. And yet, every few months, a new innovation, be it comments in Google Reader, or something like this, freaks the old guard out. Jeff and Steven's comments are mirrored by Josh Schnell, who in a guest post for Tamar Weinberg on Techipedia cries out that Content Aggregators are Killing Content Creators. Here's the reality: Conversations have moved to where the reader wa nts them to be - and the best content creators shouldn't care if they get to have conversations on their content in any of these networks. The best content creators and the best Web brands shouldn't care about what people may say on their SideWiki, any more than they should panic over reviews that happen on Amazon's Marketplace or in the iTunes store. People are entitled to their opinions and their commentary, and any further efforts to try and force people to have these conversations in a single place should be extinguished.
Strike one there for Louis Gray. Thing is, I read both Jeff Jarvis' blog and follow all the different online presences of Steven Hodson, and I appreciate both of their opinions and insights, usually. But this...
This reminds me of "old/big media" and their desperation caused by the online (r)evolution of their business.
Stop it. Just stop.
The era of "look at me, I have more comments per post than you do" (hence, *cough* more AdSense and/or referral money, right?) has turned into "look, I have more Twitter followers than you". And we all know how, when (puberty) and with what particular comparison this all started. So go brag about Twitter followers, and stop saying that comments are of any real use to anyone other than the blog's owner. Because they're not. I'm sorry that people may start building you statues anywhere else on the internet, but you'll just have to live with it. And I bet Mike Arrington will be happy to know he (or his team) won't have to delete all idiotic comments aimed at him anymore.
So just grow up.
Or perhaps, Jeff and Steven, you'd rather I invite you by when I'm discussing your thoughts with my friends, offline? Or should we just record the whole thing and post that as a comment on your blogs? Would that do? Is that "fair use"? Does it tingle your egos enough? Or will you call that copyright infringement, like some other individual would want you to?
The big buzzword for the past few years in the blogging kingdom has always been "conversation". See, this is not really a blog post, it's a conversation starter. Heck, let me even end it by making the entire final paragraph into a question! Because I care so much about you, the reader. So come, come to my blog and comment, since I value your insight so much... No, it's not about the pageview... Or the ads you may click on while you're there... No, no, my dear reader, it's all about you. It's not about me making a living out of this because, well, it's easy, oh no... One day, when you grow up, you'll be a blogger too. You can be just like me. It's all about you, see? Never about me.
I don't mind people making money. Hell, even with Google! What I do mind is hypocrisy. So stop it. And you'll still be here in 5 years. Otherwise... Goodbye... I'm sure you'll be laughed at in the future. So, in a way, you'll still be with us. I guess you can count that as a Win.
It's usually funny to see how people react to the world changing. In some cases, though, you just have to quote Bill Maher and say "but... you're smart! you're actually smart! why, then, why oh why??!".
Comments [0]
I don’t know what your problems are, but look, I had 3 and I came through it. I believe my strength came from the fact that I never hid those disadvantages, on the contrary, I shouted on the roof whenever I could that I was lebanese and a pharmacist, I also emphasized on my gender more times than I could remember. By acknowledging them, I was able to build an identity that is even more unique and more unforgettable than many others. 10 days ago, during Nokia World 2009, it became clear to me that I was now picking up the fruits of this strategy: when you’re the only girl in a room of 15 male bloggers, the impact is much easier to make, on everyone.
I’ve been around long enough to see many blogs and writers rise incredibly fast, and fall even faster. Plus, we’re now at a time where it takes one original article, a Twitter identity and a couple or retweets to become known. The success is much more easy than it has ever been, but don’t fool yourself. There are a thousand others who also have an original article, a Twitter identity and some retweets
You have to find in yourself the will to continue despite the tough times, as well as the originality to differentiate yourself form what the others have to offer.
Rita El Khoury shares her blogging story. A very interesting one.
Now I'm known for taking a rather more 'pessimistic', people would say, approach to handing over advice to would-be bloggers (not that I am one, let's get that straight). I'd say I'm a realist more than a pessimist, but anyway, Rita's take is much more optimistic than mine could ever be.
Which, I guess, is rather easy when you have succeeded. It's a great accomplishment that she describes, at least in my opinion, and I'm really happy to read what I know is a true blogging success story. And I do agree with the points she makes in the first paragraph of the excerpt above. Turn what you perceive are weaknesses into your strengths. And just keep going.
But, I have to add a couple of things. You have to be ready for the possibility of nothing good ever happening even if you keep going for years. My opinion now is that you shouldn't attempt writing if you don't enjoy writing in itself, and also the subject(s) you're focusing on. It also helps if you don't know what AdSense is. Or are able to make yourself forget.
Also, one original article and a couple of retweets... are absolutely nothing. Trust me. I know.
As for the thousands of people creating original content... I don't know where they are. I'd really like them to exist. But honestly what I see most in smaller blogs is just the constant strive to out-Engadget Engadget. And I'll say it again: drop it. It will never happen. Don't be 'them', be yourself. Whatever that means. I for one am sick of reading press releases in blogs. I subscribe to PR feeds for that, you know?
Congratulations, Rita, and keep up the good work!
Comments [0]
You should have seen this coming.
Comments [0]
I think the biggest part is nobody has a unique story and everyone is trying to be a “news” site. BORING.
I don’t sit and think about a blog post for hours. When catch myself doing it I stop and I start writing or record myself on my iPhone using Voxie (dictation translation service).
If I have an opinion about a topic I write about it.
If I think someone is an asshole I write about it.
If I think some company sucks balls I write about it.
Other then Firefox’s spellchecker I don’t spell check my posts.
One of the biggest things is you have to be willing to stick your pecker out. Quit being so scared. Quit trying to be what you think people want you to be and be yourself.
Are people going to disagree with you? Absolutely!
Are people going to make blog posts about how you don’t know what your talking about? For sure!
But if you are willing to be yourself and show the world your a regular dumb ass like them, before you know it people will start to connect with you and subscribe to your blog.
I really could not agree more. In fact, I'm trying (sometimes it can be quite hard, believe me) to do all those things. I even wrote about this a while ago.
Being unique is what gets you noticed. Or so I think right now. Check back in a few months, and you might see a post over here saying how wrong I was to think this.
It's a great achievement if you can write in (a) neutral tone, a la old media (at least that's what they preach, ask David Pogue how much they apply that please), Mashable or (most of the time) TechCrunch. It's great that you can master this style. If you work for any of these publications.
If not, think about this for a minute. Why would I visit your blog if I see the same story, written in the same way, as on 'big' publications that I'm already subscribing to? And even if I somehow stumble across it, why would I subscribe? You're bringing nothing new to the party (greetings, Paul Carr, I love your sick joke of a blog title, because it's anything but true).
So be yourself. Other than that...
You're not going to be the next anything. Especially without proper funding. And even with funding, you might fail in becoming a better copy of a model than its inventor(s). There's a nice life lesson to be learned there.
You won't make money online blogging. You will only do this if your content is unique enough to be instantly differentiated in your readers' minds from anything else on the web. And even then, they might have heard of ad blockers. At which point, you can start whining on Twitter and FriendFeed about how these people steal your brain's valuable output. No, wait, you have to already be a web celeb to do that. My bad.
Anyway, even if you do start making money from ads, for a long while it will be a very tiny amount. You'd make a lot more if you worked for any of the 'big guys' in blogging. Or media, whatever.
So what's left? You either come up with something new enough, or you desperately hope you'll be hired at Engadget.
Or, people may start noticing you, as Jeremy Schoemaker described in his post linked above.
But you have to be very patient. Even this may never happen.
Reality sucks, I guess.
Comments [0]
But as I've begun to (re-)dabble in punditry, I think it's telling that private conversations (and the occasional ranting blogger) direct so much vitriol at the people who lead much of the conversation in the world of technology. it would seem the more effective form of criticism is obvious, effective and relatively easy: Just do better yourself.
English isn't my first language, but I'm really not sure of the use of the word "pundits" here, in this case meaning the 'web celebs' we all know and love (?).
Leaving that aside, it's an interesting read, so to speak. And the excerpt above is his conclusion.
So. Here's my conclusion.
"Just do better yourself" is what caught my attention.
Do better at what? Report "news" better than Arrington, for instance? How? How many ways to re-write a press release can there possibly be? How many linkbaiting titles can one possibly come up with? And, in this example, isn't Mashable already doing, well... the same thing?
The general news bits on such blogs - there are thousands of people who can write at the same quality level. At least thousands.
As for the scoops - no one outside the rather limited Silicon Valley tech circle will ever get access to these before they do.
So, wrapping up this example, on one hand, there is no 'better' (for news), on the other hand no one else can be 'better'.
Now. If by "better" Anil meant content of higher quality, which in my view is based on more context... well then, fine.
I'll do it. I'll do better myself.
And you, Anil, shall give me the pageviews. Deal?
Comments [0]
now the company's tackling another need by offering rudimentary banking and money transfer services by way of the handset. Noting that of the four billion cellphones in the world there are only 1.6 billion bank accounts, Nokia's so-called Nokia Money service will bring electronic money management to some areas of the world for the first time -- a customer need only know the phone number of the intended recipient to send a payment.
Rudimentary.
I would not have written this (go ahead, say I shouldn't have anyway) had it not been for this word.
Rudimentary.
How exactly is being able to transfer money only needing the recipient's phone number rudimentary?
The whole 'making the phone your wallet' thing has been tried over and over again. No one got it right to this day.
This is not that.
And this does not compete with PayPal. It can't.
Let me tell you a little something. I live in a "developing nation", and PayPal is next to useless to me because I can't get money from PayPal to my bank account. Only the other way round.
Rudimentary? Why, because it requires no computer, no bank to go to, and will be as easy to use as SMS?
Yeah, that's really rudimentary. All things in "developing nations" are. Take my 50Mb/s completely unlimited, un-capped, and un-filtered internet connection for $13/month.
Oh, and one more thing (I just love doing that!). Nokia's services for the "developing nations" (yeah, I hate how it sounds, so I'm going to keep repeating it) are unrivaled, unmatched, whatever you want to call it. And they won't be for years to come. Because while everyone is so focused on a certain state in the US of A, some companies understand where future growth comes from in this technology business.
Comments [0]
Comments [0]