rfmcdonald: (me)
Yesterday morning, I had a bit of fun. While I was shaving, I decided to play with a mustache for a bit. I've almost always fluctuated directly between having a full beard and having no facial hair at all. On a couple of times, I've played with a goatee. But a mustache is something I've never done, at least partly because of the intense reactions it has gotten from others. I wondered: What would happen if I did that now? So, I took a selfie of myself with a mustache, went to shave it off, and then took a selfie of me without.

Me, with and without mustache


I posted the two photos, with and without, on Instagram. I'd also taken care to crosspost them to Facebook, with and without. The photos also made it to Flickr, too, with and without. (They made it to Twitter and Tumblr, too.)

The reactions I got were very interesting. The reactions, as I noted, were intense; I got not a few GIF responses. On Facebook, a notable majority of people seemed to be hostile to the mustache, even intensely so. On Instagram, as one friend pointed out, the reactions went the other way; my mustache photo got nearly twice as many likes as my non-mustache photo, and the comments were accordingly more enthusiastic.

What was going on? I might speculate that my Facebook friends tend to be people I know relatively well, even having real-life relationships with them, while many of my Instagram friends are more random additions. Was it a matter of people with relatively little attachment to me being interested to see what I might do? I wonder.
rfmcdonald: (photo)

  • Van Waffle wrote late last year about the ways we see with and without cameras.

  • This article in The Atlantic noting how iPhone selfies do not actually accurately represent one's face is disturbing in a few ways.

  • CityLab noted the importance of the shuttered Village Voice in promoting photojournalism in New York City.

  • Apparently hundreds of people have died around the world as a result of misadventures while taking selfies, VICE reported.

  • This Slate article is entirely right in noting, with Flickr's conversion to a paid model and the mass deletion of photos of non-paying users, that counting on the online world to back up photos (or other data) is a mistake.

rfmcdonald: (Default)

  • Peter Bright at Ars Technica notes the potential negative import of the decision of Flickr to limit free accounts to one thousand photos. What will happen to those accounts like my own which exceed that limit? I'll be making hard decisions this month.

  • This Petapixel essay takes a look at why front-running film firm Kodak failed to adapt to the digital era while runner-up Fujifilm survived.

  • This ScienceDaily article notes, via the choice of photos uploaded to online photo accounts, the importance of landscapes in the human imagination.

  • At Speed River Journal, Van Waffle talks about the benefits of macrophotography, of extreme close-ups, and of curiosity about the workings of the world.

  • This Sean O'Hagan article at The Guardian taking a look at the mutations of photography in the Instagram era, who artists are interrogating the technology and the social conventions of the genre, is fascinating.

rfmcdonald: (photo)

  • Gizmodo has a perhaps unduly pessimistic take on the purchase of Flickr by SmugMug. I use Flickr regularly; I wish it luck.

  • The Broadside Blog's Caitlin Kelly talks about her use of Instagram, and about what she sees as the site's good and bad sides.

  • CityLab considers the impact of Instagram, and social networking-driven photography, on the identities and representations of cities.

  • Drew Rowsome takes a look at the photography of Tom Saint Clair. (NSFW.)

  • Towleroad highlights a showing of the photography of Peter Hujar in New York City that I wish I could attend.

rfmcdonald: (photo)
Rosedale #toronto #rosedale #ttc #subway


After due consideration, I selected the above photo--"Rosedale", shared by me on my blog in August in the post "Rosedale in evening"--as my submission to Flickr's Your Best Shot 2017. I liked the shot's composition and the colour, and so did Flickr. So: here it is.
rfmcdonald: (photo)
Fort York, looking east #toronto #fortyork #skyline


When I was solicited by Flickr to submit my best photo to their Your Best Shot 2016 group, it took me only a moment for me to make my choice.

The above photo is a full version of a squared-off photo I took on Instagram late this May, while I was exploring Fort York on Doors Open. Beyond the low stone wall of the fort's northern rim, everything stretches out: First the rest of the fort, then the glittering condo towers of the waterfront and the CN Tower. This photo is the background image I use on my various mobile devices: It just works that much for me.
rfmcdonald: (forums)
Two weekends ago, I had to reset the passwords on my different social networks. My E-mail had somehow become compromised, and my Facebook was briefly used to post spam in a single discussion group, so everything had to be changed, immediately.

I had to go to Facebook; I had to go to Livejournal, that site that started everything; Google+ and my linked accounts at Blogger and YouTube had to go; Tumblr was followed by Instagram and then by Flickr; my Twitter and LinkedIn, more peripheral than not, had to be changed. Even the Dreamwidth that is basically a backup for Livejournal, and the other sites (Quora, Goodreads, Yelp) that are functionally closely linked to Facebook, had to be changed.

What about you? Where are you active?
rfmcdonald: (photo)
I'm a heavy user of Flickr, my account hosting no fewer than 4,827 photos as of this moment. For just over a decade, it has been a site that has worked quite well for me. Then, yesterday, I saw this Wired article appear on my feed.

Just shy of a year ago, Flickr started offering 1,000 gigs of free storage to every user, along with an automatic uploader tool that would help you take every photo from your computer, your external drives, and SD cards, and dump them into one place. Flickr’s search engine was good, the new universal Camera Roll interface was great, and Flickr suddenly seemed to have a chance as a permanent archive of all of our photos. But then, this morning, Flickr announced that once again its best tools will only be available to paying users. It’s time to call it: Flickr is dead. Over. Kaput. In the search for a few more people willing to fork over $35 a year to fund more purple offices, Yahoo has killed its photo service.

Today’s announcements really only include one change of consequence: The desktop Auto-Uploadr tool is now reserved only for Pro users. That means there’s no easy way to upload big batches of photos all at once, into the same place, unless you’re a Pro member. The move feels a bit like ransomware, Yahoo forcing people who’ve already bought into the idea of Flickr as a permanent backup to start paying for the privilege. And it kills the notion that Flickr can be a useful, simple, automatic way to keep all your photos backed up in one place.


The Next Web's Amanda Connolly was not the only person to see this as cause to switch to Google Photos.

Where to go next? Well, I had always championed Flickr above Google Photos because of its ease of use, Magic View and search functionalities but now the latter seems like the next best option.

My colleague, Owen Williams, has said he is “totally and irrationally in love with Google Photos,” so now is definitely the right time to check it out.

Google Photos offers everything you can get from Flickr and it’s free, so that’s a bonus. It also has some quirky features, like automatically making GIFs from your images, as well as slideshows set to music from groups of photos around specific events, like New Year’s Eve or weddings.

Its search function is up to scratch as well, allowing you to search for pretty much anything, like ‘dogs’ or ‘beach’ and providing you with accurate results. There’s one caveat though, Google Photos only offers facial recognition in the US yet, so you’ll need to use a VPN to enable that right now. It is something that I’d expect to see rolled out globally in the near future.


Wired's Molly McHugh went on to explain to people how to offload their photos from Flickr to whatever destination.

I'm not sure what to think about all this anger. Yes, it probably is a good idea to create an online backup of my Flickr account. I may do that tonight. From my perspective, Auto-Uploadr was a hindrance, a feature that I could not turn off on my smartphone but instead just automatically uploaded even my rawest and worst photos to Flickr. It, in fact, is the reason I never used the Flickr app. So long as I can continue to upload my photos with a touch of a screen, and download them at will with their meta data intact, I really don't see a problem.

What am I missing?
rfmcdonald: (Default)
Wired's Julia Greenberg maps the growth, and decline, of Yahoo. That this Internet company, particularly through Flickr, is one I regularly use just makes me nervous.

Silicon Valley is full of giants. But one seems to be slowly disappearing. Yahoo was once an Internet titan, a ruler of the web. Now its future appears to be in question.

Investors worry about what will happen to Yahoo once it spins off its stake in Chinese behemoth Alibaba—or if it can’t. Meanwhile, among consumers, Yahoo has an identity problem—what, exactly, does Yahoo do?

These questions have come to a head again over the past week or so as activist shareholders called for Yahoo to sell its Internet business. High profile chief executive Marissa Mayer’s future is being called into question. A wave of executives have left the company in recent months. And even something Yahoo does right—its popular fantasy sports site—is facing scrutiny from New York’s attorney general. It’s been a long slide for one of the web’s oldest businesses—so long that it can be easy to forget that Yahoo once ruled the Internet.

Yahoo was once a trailblazer: it was here before Facebook and Google. It was here before we texted, tweeted, or snapped. Its place in the history of the Internet is in some ways singular: It was for many the first way they experienced the web.

At WIRED, we’ve tracked the ups and downs of the web since its earliest days. In the process, we’ve traced the growth and decline of Yahoo itself—the rise and decline of an Internet original.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
The author of The Economist's Prospero blog notes that Anton Corbijn has apparently decided to abandon the practice of photography as an art form. Why? Technology.

Photography as a slow, analogue art-form is dead. Over 200,000 photos are uploaded to Facebook per minute—that’s six billion each month—and there are over 16 billion photos on Instagram. Thanks to digital products anyone can be a Photoshop hack, selfie whore or filter junkie. We see with our smartphones, not our eyes. What need do we have for old-fashioned specialists using toxic chemicals to make a physical print that can be neither insta-shared nor “liked”?

A case is point in Anton Corbijn, the Dutch artist who in a 40-year career has shot thousands of celebrities, everyone from the Rolling Stones to Björk, and whose iconic album-cover shots include U2’s “Joshua Tree” and Morrissey’s “Viva Hate”. A retrospective of his work at the C/O Berlin gallery feels like a fond farewell to his big-buck career: from now on photography will only be Mr Corbijn's hobby.

The two-floor exhibition features 600 prints from 1972 to 2012, including his famed music photography from the 1990s. A travelling show from The Hague Museum of Photography, Mr Corbijn’s work represents a bygone era of analogue masterworks. Each of the prints on the wall was first seen by Mr Corbijn only as he dipped them into chemical baths in a dark room—as different as possible from the modern digital shoot, where hundreds of shots can be compared and even retouched on the spot with the band and creative director peering over the photographer's shoulder.

Known for melancholic, black-and-white photos with a raw, anti-glamour aesthetic, Mr Corbijn’s work feels timeless. Some images intentionally include motion-blur, like his portrait (above) of Luciano Pavarotti, growling like a death metal star in Turin back in 1996. Even though Mr Corbijn has steady hands, something he credits to his non-coffee, non-smoking lifestyle, he believes sharpness is overrated. It remains the photographer’s technical preference to shoot slow shutter speeds, which allows movement in the frame.


This took me aback, not least since I liked his work. His collaborations with Depeche Mode, for instance, have been uniformly enjoyable, particularly his direction of the video for their "Enjoy the Silence".



I really do not see his point in abstaining from his production of images for an audience. That there is so much photography online does not mean that his will be less wanted--my Instagram feed, I do not flatter myself, is not a direct competitor with his. Not many are: He has a particular name and reputation that can consistently draw him attention. Digital photography, darkroom photography--different people can develop different voices. Commercial sustainability, I grant, is an altogether different issue.

What do you all think of this?
rfmcdonald: (photo)
Wired's Christina Bonnington reports on a camera that, I suppose, is cool but also seems rather redundant.

When I look at my bare beige apartment walls, I lament the passing of personal cameras and Polaroids. If I want real life copies of my precious smartphone photos now, I must use a service like Printstagram. Polaroid’s latest camera attempts to bridge that gap by blending the physical photo printing of yesteryear with today’s instant social media sharing.

The Socialmatic is a 14-megapixel camera that connects over Wi-Fi so you can post images to Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter. (It actually runs Android, so you can download other apps or browse the interwebs on its 4.5-inch touchscreen, too). It comes with a 2-megapixel selfie camera on the back, because humans are now incapable of turning cameras around to take photos of themselves. It’s also GPS- and Bluetooth-enabled.

After you’ve futzed with your photos on its screen, the Socialmatic lets you print two by three-inch adhesive-backed photos you can stick on your wall, bedroom mirror, or Trapper Keeper. You’ll still have to resort to some other printing service if you want anything larger, but hey, at least you’ve got something you can share with friends in meatspace.

A Socialmatic with enough paper for 10 prints will cost you $300 through Photojojo; bump that to 110 for $344. You can buy a 25-pack of photo paper for $25, or two packs for $45.
rfmcdonald: (photo)
Since my upgrade to a proper smartphone earlier last month, I've joined Instagram. I find myself really enjoying the experience. Instagram feels like more of a community than the more professional Flickr, I think. The app's editing features are decent--I'm still not sure what I think of filters, so I use them sparingly--and the site lends itself well to conversations. Facebook was right to buy it.

Crossing Bloor from Honest Ed's (original)


Crossing Bloor from Honest Ed's #toronto #torontophotos #honesteds #bloor
rfmcdonald: (forums)
I began my online presence on Usenet, but my first participation in formal social networks. began here on Livejournal. I've remained on Livejournal, but since then there have been migrations, of blog content to WordPress (secondarily to Dreamwidth) and of everything to Facebook. There's some specialty networks I take part in at a low level--Flickr and Tumblr for photos, Goodreads for books, Yelp! for reviews of restaurants and stores, Quora for debate--but that's it.

You?
rfmcdonald: (Default)
Yahoo, as any number of news media (like the Financial Post, has bought Tumblr.

Yahoo! Inc. is buying blogging network Tumblr Inc. for about $1.1 billion as Chief Executive Officer Marissa Mayer seeks to lure users and advertisers with her priciest acquisition to date.

Tumblr, headquartered in New York, will continue to host its more than 108 million blogs. Yahoo also says that “per the agreement and our promise not to screw it up, Tumblr will be independently operated as a separate business” with David Karp staying on as CEO.

Mayer, CEO of the biggest U.S. Web portal since July, is betting that Tumblr will help transform Yahoo into a hip destination in the era of social networking as she challenges Google Inc. and Facebook Inc. in the US$17.7-billion display ad market. The price she’s paying — about a fifth of Yahoo’s US$5.4-billion in cash — underscores the deal’s importance to Mayer’s turnaround effort, according to Zachary Reiss-Davis, an analyst at Forrester Research Inc.

“It’s an aggressive move,” Reiss-Davis said in an interview. “They are saying, ‘where is our next group of people who are going to spend many hours per week on Yahoo properties?’ It’s big bet that the answer is going to be Tumblr users.”

The transaction is expected to close in the second half of 2013, Yahoo said in the statement.

Founded by Karp in 2007, Tumblr grew to log more than 13 billion global page views in the past month. The site offers a free service for publishing blogs on the Web and mobile devices, and tools for sharing photos and other content across social networks.


Yahoo has also radically upgraded Flickr.

[T]he big news is the free space — "we want all of your images," said Cahan. He said it was 70 times bigger than what other sites offer, and said it could store 537,731 photos in "full quality." Yahoo directly mentioned the 15GB of storage space "other" companies offer, and it was a pretty direct shot at Google — a company that has made no secret recently about making photos a key part of its services.

Yahoo also announced a new Android Flickr app, which matches the capabilities of the recently-updated iOS app. "Upload once, send to any device, any screen, any friend, any follower, on any service, and make it absolutely beautiful," said Cahan. Along with this new service, Flickr is revamping its Flickr Pro service. Previously, free Flickr users could only display 200 photos at a time, while paid users had unlimited storage and display capabilities as well as analytical data about your photos. However, Yahoo introduced a few new paid options — for $49.99 a year, all ads on the site will be removed, and you'll get access to the standard set of Flickr analytics. For $499.99, you can double your storage space to 2TB. All in all, it looks like a long overdue and hugely-needed update — but now Flickr has an arsenal of new tools to take on sites like Facebook and Google.


As a long-time Flickr user, I'm excited by the upgrade. As a novice Tumblr user, I only hope Yahoo doesn't screw it up (the fact that Marissa Mayer has had to promise not to do that worries me). I do find it worth noting that, between Flickr and Tumblr and my Yahoo Mail account, I make more use of my Yahoo account than I do my Google account, and that with the impending demise of Google Reader my usage of Google will diminish accordingly. I just use Google to search; I do my business on Yahoo.

Is this common, I wonder?
rfmcdonald: (photo)
This post at the Economist's Babbage blog regarding the apparent success of Flickr's new app and marketing strategy pleases me, if it's true. As a long-time Flickr user myself, I'm invested in the continuing survival and success of the service.

The previous version of the app was fusty at launch in 2009. It became positively antediluvian with the advent of Instagram, Hipstamatic and Camera+. These made it easy to touch up or apply a false patina of age to images taken with ever more powerful smartphone cameras and upload them directly to Facebook and Twitter, bypassing dedicated photo-sharing sites. Flickr's arms-length integration—more links than direct posts—was clunky by comparison and its app lacked any image-processing tools. As a consequence, Facebook (which acquired Instagram earlier this year for $1 billion) now adds more than Flickr's overall tally of 6 billion images each month, for a total of more than 220 billion.

Flickr's detachment worked in social media's earlier, more fragmented days. When it was launched in 2004 it allowed users to post pictures, create photo pools and exchange points of view in ways that its less image-sensitive rivals could not match. And where earlier photo-sharing services charged fees, targeting professional photographers, or limited the size and number of uploads, Flickr set fewer limits and offered decent web-based tools for free. Flickr Pro, a subscription-based premium service, allowed even higher-resolution uploads and unlimited storage. Some photographers with a large following used Flickr as a springboard for a successful career.

Subsequently, however, Flickr fell victim to its own success. By underscoring the importance of photo-sharing it attracted powerful rivals like Facebook. Had it been snapped up by someone other than Yahoo!, a lumbering online giant which paid $35m for it in 2005, Flickr might have thrived. Instead, it began to lose its sparkle. Speculation swirled two years ago that Yahoo! would sell it as part of an effort to revive its own flagging fortunes by focusing on a narrower range of services. Under its new boss, Marissa Mayer, that seems less likely. The revised app hints that Ms Mayer will probably keep it close for now, either to demonstrate her firm's relevance in the image-mad world of social media, or to make it more attractive to prospective buyers.

Now that Flickr has at last caught up with rivals in tapping mobile social media and in image manipulation—it offers an array of Instagram-like filters—users once fond of its other nifty features might just flock back. For example, like SmugMug and other sites oriented towards professionals but unlike generalist social networks, Flickr makes it easy to manage and exchange metadata (information about how and where a photo was taken, among other things) and accommodates truly enormous images (up to 50MB), which can be uploaded without loss of resolution. This endears it to the swelling ranks of serious amateur photographers.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
No species discovered via my Flickr account yet, alas.

In May last year, photographer Guek Hock Ping took photos of a lacewing in Malaysia and posted them on photo-sharing site Flickr. Entomologist Shaun Winterton stumbled upon the gallery, and didn't recognize the distinct blue and black markings found on the insect's wings. After sending the link to colleagues, who were also unable to identify the insect, Winterton became convinced that the photographed specimen was from a species unknown to science. Winterton reached out to Guek but was dismayed to discover that the photographer had no more information on the species — he'd simply shot the photographs and allowed the insect to fly away.

A year later, Guek contacted Winterton — after returning to the same area where the original images were shot, he'd managed to find the elusive creature again and had captured one, which sat in a container in his kitchen. Winterton arranged for the insect to be sent to Steve Brooks, an entomologist from the Natural History Museum in London, who confirmed that it belonged to a new species. Brooks also found a matching specimen in the museum's collection that had remained unclassified for decades. The species was named 'Semachrysa jade,' after Winterton's daughter, and the discovery was featured in scientific journal ZooKeys this month. Fittingly, the paper detailing the 'online' discovery was co-authored remotely via GoogleDocs by Winterton, Guek, and Brooks.


Semachrysta jade
is a handsome insect.

Kurt Orion's Semachrysta jade
rfmcdonald: (Default)
I was distressed to read Mat Honan’s Gismodo article ”How Yahoo Killed Flickr and Lost the Internet”, substantially because of my own extensive Flickr collection but also because Flickr is, well, normative for me.

The photo service that was once poised to take on the the world has now become an afterthought. Want to share photos on the Web? That's what Facebook is for. Want to look at the pictures your friends are snapping on the go? Fire up Instagram.

Even the notion of Flickr as an archive—as the place where you store all your photos as a backup—is becoming increasingly quaint as Dropbox, Microsoft, Google, Box.net, Amazon, Apple, and a host of others scramble to serve online gigs to our hungry desktops.

The site that once had the best social tools, the most vibrant userbase, and toppest-notch storage is rapidly passing into the irrelevance of abandonment. Its once bustling community now feels like an exurban neighborhood rocked by a housing crisis. Yards gone to seed. Rusting bikes in the front yard. Tattered flags. At address, after address, after address, no one is home.

It is a case study of what can go wrong when a nimble, innovative startup gets gobbled up by a behemoth that doesn't share its values. What happened to Flickr? The same thing that happened to so many other nimble, innovative startups who sold out for dollars and bandwidth: Yahoo.


Chris Bertram's Crooked Timber post ”The death of Flickr?”, starting with a simple paragraph by Bertram stating that he'd mourn the site's disappearance because of the real-world relationships it fostered, started off an interesting discussion thread.

If not Flickr, what should someone interested in sharing images use?
rfmcdonald: (cats)
Cat vs. Maneki neko by yorksranter
Cat vs. Maneki neko a photo by yorksranter on Flickr.

I found an unusual followup to Wednesday's Maneki neko photo posting over on Flickr, with the Yorkshire Ranter's photograph of his neighbour's cat looking at the Maneki neko posting on the Ranter's own laptop. (The left part of the Tarantula Nebula picture I posted later that morning is just visible to the right of the screen.)

This was such a meta picture that I had to share it.

If you're curious, the picture that started off this spiral is below.

rfmcdonald: (cats)
Gay Guy, Straight Guy had a post taking a look at stereotypes of gender and sexual orientation in cat ownership.

The Much Love Animal Rescue team in southern California has launched the "It's OK To Be a Cat Guy" campaign, which emphasizes that cats are not just for lonely ladies. They are also for tough guys -- with or without social skills.

Other versions (biker, bartender) are also on our gayads/straightads Tumblr.

I have to admit, I've known many single straight guys with dogs. I've only ever known one who had a cat. And, yes, he communicated with the animal in "baby talk." Nice guy. But that was a little unsettling.


My favourite of these ads is the one featuring the biker.



Gay Guy (the original poster) wondered if there was a greater tendency for queer men to have cats as pets than straight men. That seems possible, and me, I'd support the existence of another, broader stereotypical tendency of cat ownership, for catowners to be disproportionately women, not men. I mentioned a recent study emphasizing the attachment of cats to people that said that women had a closer relationship to cats than men, and some months earlier I linked to something of a grassroots tendency for men to come out as cat owners, their Flickr group being here. There's some definite gender coding in regards to pet ownership, cats tending to the feminine and dogs to the masculine.

I wonder why? When you think about the case of the cat, in many ways it lives up to traditionally masculine norms better than dogs: emotionally autonomous and content to have substantially transactional relationships with their owners, they're independent-minded and more than capable of surviving independent of their owner. (Shakespeare, I've not mentioned, purely an indoor cat, has two kills.) Or do dogs fill, for the stereotypically masculine male pet owner, a necessary emotional relationship, an enthusiastic partner in an emotionally open relationship?
rfmcdonald: (Default)
My previous post noting some of the online activities of the six hundred million or so belonging to Facebook and Twitter may look a bit surreal followed by Verne Kopytoff's New York Times article "Blogs Wane as the Young Drift to Sites Like Twitter", but the surreality is intended.

Blogs were once the outlet of choice for people who wanted to express themselves online. But with the rise of sites like Facebook and Twitter, they are losing their allure for many people — particularly the younger generation.

The Internet and American Life Project at the Pew Research Center found that from 2006 to 2009, blogging among children ages 12 to 17 fell by half; now 14 percent of children those ages who use the Internet have blogs. Among 18-to-33-year-olds, the project said in a report last year, blogging dropped two percentage points in 2010 from two years earlier.

Former bloggers said they were too busy to write lengthy posts and were uninspired by a lack of readers. Others said they had no interest in creating a blog because social networking did a good enough job keeping them in touch with friends and family.


As Kopytoff notes later in the essay, what's going on isn't the disappearance of blogging as its partial co-option into a growing ecology of Internet-based writing communities which still including blogs, the classical blog simply no longer dominating as it once did thanks to the development of more precise social networking systems--micro-blogs, as they're commonly called--requiring less commitment.

A number of news and commentary sites started as blogs before growing into mini-media empires, like The Huffington Post or Silicon Alley Insider, that are virtually indistinguishable from more traditional news sources.

Blogs went largely unchallenged until Facebook reshaped consumer behavior with its all-purpose hub for posting everything social. Twitter, which allows messages of no longer than 140 characters, also contributed to the upheaval.

No longer did Internet users need a blog to connect with the world. They could instead post quick updates to complain about the weather, link to articles that infuriated them, comment on news events, share photos or promote some cause — all the things a blog was intended to do.

Indeed, small talk shifted in large part to social networking, said Elisa Camahort Page, co-founder of BlogHer, a women’s blog network. Still, blogs remain a home of more meaty discussions, she said.

“If you’re looking for substantive conversation, you turn to blogs,” Ms. Camahort Page said. “You aren’t going to find it on Facebook, and you aren’t going to find it in 140 characters on Twitter.”

Lee Rainie, director of the Internet and American Life Project, says that blogging is not so much dying as shifting with the times. Entrepreneurs have taken some of the features popularized by blogging and weaved them into other kinds of services.

“The act of telling your story and sharing part of your life with somebody is alive and well — even more so than at the dawn of blogging,” Mr. Rainie said. “It’s just morphing onto other platforms.”

The blurring of lines is readily apparent among users of Tumblr. Although Tumblr calls itself a blogging service, many of its users are unaware of the description and do not consider themselves bloggers — raising the possibility that the decline in blogging by the younger generation is merely a semantic issue.


You think?

And then, as Matt Mullenweg noted, however blogging might no longer be the first online communications modality of choice, it's still growing.

[A]s soon as the article gets past the two token teenagers who tumble and Facebook instead of blogging, the stats show all the major blogging services growing — even Blogger whose global “unique visitors rose 9 percent, to 323 million,” meaning it grew about 6 Foursquares last year alone. (In the same timeframe WordPress.com grew about 80 million uniques according to Quantcast.)

Blogging has legs — it’s been growing now for more than a decade, but it’s not a “new thing” anymore. Underneath the data in the article there’s an interesting super-trend that the Times misses: people of all ages are becoming more and more comfortable publishing online. If you’re reading this blog you probably know the thrill of posting and getting feedback is addictive, and once you have a taste of that it’s hard to go back. You rode a bike before you drove a car, and both opened up your horizons in a way you hadn’t imagined before. That’s why blogging just won’t quit no matter how many times it’s declared dead.



Meanwhile, all this activty with blogs and microblogs and all kinds of blog-like services has created an online community where very large numbers of people are writing for public audiences of varying sizes.

Fourteen percent of online adults are making some effort to write regularly in public! That remains a phenomenal fact; if you’d predicted it a decade ago, as only a handful of visionaries did, you’d have been dismissed as a nut (or maybe a “cyber-utopian”).

So the actual story — which, to be fair, the Times’ article mostly hews to (it’s the headline and lead that skew it more sensationally) — is that blogging keeps growing, but it’s losing popularity among teens.

Social networking is changing blogging. [. . .] More of us are using Facebook and Twitter for casual sharing and personal updates. That has helped clarify the place of blogging as the medium for personal writing of a more substantial nature. Keeping a blog is more work than posting to Facebook and Twitter. So I wouldn’t be surprised if, long-term, the percentage of the population blogging plateaus or even declines.

Maybe we’ll end up with roughly ten percent of the online population (Pew’s consistent finding) keeping a blog. As the online population becomes closer to universal, that is an extraordinary thing: One in ten people writing in public.

Profile

rfmcdonald: (Default)rfmcdonald

February 2021

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
212223242526 27
28      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 14th, 2025 03:37 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios