My Photo

About Beth Kanter

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Beth's Blog: Channels, Screencasts, and Videos

Awards, Nominations, and Board Memberships

May 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

Categories

Site Tracking




  • This is my Google PageRank™ - SmE Rank free service Powered by Scriptme


« NpTech Tag Summary: America's Giving Challenge, Googlization of Nonprofit Transparency, Muck on Twitter, and Desklickr | Main | America's Giving Challenge: Day 4 »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Alan Levine

I'm ignoring Spock. Don't need him.

I don't buy an argument where people are offended because their profile was scraped from a public site "without permission"- ultimately, at some point, they created a publicly accessible web page with info about themselves.

The best approach to Spock is to ignore him. Let him freeze in cold lonely outer space.

You could spend your whole day tracking down your bits spread around the next and trying to cleanse the dirty spots. But what we ought to do is to better tend the sites about ourselves we do have control over... your reputation is built upon many layers, and I am less worried about some obviously logically flawed site like Spock as compared to the reputation I have built for myself (or messed up on my own) through my own actions.

Nancy White

Beth, all I can say is I feel your pain after falling into the same trap with Shelfari. The good news is we spread the warning across our network. I continued my informal querying to people who invited me. Most really had no clue what they were getting into. Smart people. ;-)

And as to worrying about what Spock scrapes, I'm with the dog!

Beth Kanter

Well, the lesson for me now is not to join any of these networks until I know enough about it.

MatthewS

I have had about 15 of these invites and have been ignoring them. I'm on too many social networking sites anyway.

amanda

Dang.

A thing to known about reputation: had anyone other than the unique and rare combination of beth+mako invited me to join spock, I would have ignored it. But Beth! and Mako! both! Must be good!

Which goes to show that "trust" is a complicated thing. I still trust Beth, and Mako (and Deb) but next time I'll send Beth a message. "Heya, Beth, what is this Spock thing. What do you know from it?" before I join. Next time.

Norbert Klein

Well, well - does anybody think Spock does something which those who want to know more do not do also also? When I started the first Internet system in Cambodia in 1994, I told all our exited new users - and I continue to say so until now: "Don't send anything over e-mail which you would not write on an open post card." Many people were surprised, did not want to take this as a serious advice. You are using Google? Maybe have also a look at http://google-watch.org Cheers.

Kathy Jacobs

Beth,
I have been trying to come up with an adequate response to this for (obviously) several weeks. I am a believer in Spock. I am sorry that you feel that it is not a useful tool.

I do find it a useful tool. As I have commented several other places, Spock lets me see what someone has out on the web all in one place. That to me is useful. But that is not all of what I want to respond to....

In today's world of social media, the things that are said about someone on the web (or about a tool in this case) sometimes survive longer than intended. However, this is not a new phenomenon. I have items on my site (not my blog, but my original site) which were written many years ago. At the time they were written, the comments and articles were relevant. Today, they may not be so relevant. I think some of what you are saying here about Spock falls into the same category.

When this blog post was made, Spock was fighting a widespread belief that the services they were providing were (as you put it) "ick". I wonder if that is because it truly is "ick" or because a number of people had just found the site and were sending out notes that they did not mean to send. Some of those trust requests went out because of a bug that has been fixed. Others went out because people didn't take the time to read what was being put on the screen. Still others went out with a generic message because that was "easier" for the person sending the trust request. Easier for the person sending the request doesn't usually mean better for the rest of us.

Personally, if I get invited to join someone's social network, I verify what the network is about and what it says about me and about the person inviting me. I don’t just agree to join a trust network or a friend network because someone invited me. The comment from Amanda about who recommended it has quite a bit of truth to it - requests from some people have much more value than requests from others. It also works the other direction: A comment from someone like you that the site should be avoided has quite a bit of weight in some eyes. I have no problem with that.

So, why comment? Because I believe that Spock is getting a bad rap here. I believe that a small glitch in the system caused a rash of bad trust requests. Spock is now working to counteract that problem and has been for several weeks. That is part of why I waited to respond…
I encourage you to give Spock another chance. Remember: It is a beta site. The developers are constantly working to improve the site and its communications with the world. I think that if you checked the site again, you will find that it has improved. You might even find it as useful as I do.

If you have stuck with my ramblings this far, I commend you. I didn't mean to write quite this much. I am passionate about social networking (in general) and Spock (particularly). I hope that the transition from passion to comment is not out of line.

Just my two cents.
Kathy Jacobs, Spock Evangelist

The comments to this entry are closed.