Archive | January, 2010

#InCaseYouMissedIt: @DowntownGarden’s “What’s up With Social Media” Series: Session Three: Facebook Basics

29 Jan

… Hello Media Mentors, Examiner.Com readers!

We were able to broadcast live last evening using UStream:

That said, here we go!

**** Ustream “Show”:

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/mediamentoringsociety

**** Slide Deck/Pitch for SECOND Hour tonight (THREE (3) topics ONLY will be chosen by attendees from this lecture at PBSC)

http://www.slideshare.net/secret/eeuxUHkevxuTEe

**** Slide Deck/Pitch we repeat every session, as it contains a useful overview of WHY/WHAT FOR we do Social/New Media at all…

http://www.slideshare.net/secret/2UOyUDCiXWf4GP

See you soon… FTF or here, via CMAC!

Saludos!
Stay tuned!
Francisco Palacio
@MMSocieties
Francisco.J.Palacio@MediaMentoring.Org
http://MediaMentoring.Net
http://CMAC-Labs.US


  • First Hour of the Session, Broadcast LIVE On @UStream and archived there as well…

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4094879

  • Second Hour of the Session, Broadcast LIVE On @UStream and archived there as well…

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4095963


And here we have the video archives from the prior one, on Tuesday 2010 01 12 so that anyone can catch up… want them all? visit us at MediaMentoring.Net for all the proceedings so far – and to stay updated


Hello everyone!

Also: here’s the audio from 2010 01 12’s Session (number two: on Wikis and Communities)

http://sn.im/u437h

http://sn.im/u437n

as well as the video from that same night (Session #2)

http://vimeo.com/8742121

http://vimeo.com/8740625

And the slide deck/pitch (remember, the overview is the same for all sessions; we will only spend a few minutes on it this third time, as we open up the floor to CHOOSE which topics we will be working on that night’s second hour!)

http://www.slideshare.net/secret/1ptXKoqIqkNCU0

Also, here’s something I wrote on the Event page, as to encourage everyone to bring their tools so we can work together and get somethings done every night you attend:

“We would encourage everyone with a Laptop, Notebook, iPhone or Blackberry to come prepared with these tools as this third session will be the most interactive of all so far, given the feedback we’ve received, we’ll not only be sharing the overview, but also the lecture portion of the class to be given at PBSC soon; however, we’d ask the attendees to pick THREE topics of their choice, so that we can focus the second hour on a sample lab situation…

Webcams, Audio Recorders, Video Recorders and other gear, we also hope you can bring those from now on, as to allow YOUR participation to become part of the interaction!…

Stay tuned also as we give out locations to the LIVE UStream and LIVE CinchCast Broadcasts for this evening, so that you can tune in in case you cannot attend personally – or share with your friends, as to allow them to see you AT WORK with these magnificent tools!….”

So for example, check out what we did together on Friday!


http://sn.im/u4383
or
http://www.facebook.com/video/?oid=269534585125
or
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/testing-webcam1


Advertisements

#MMS: Market & Audience Rationales: “Behind The Scenes With Newspaper Journalists”

28 Jan
(Posted on Facebook by Spero Canton on Friday, October 23, 2009 at 10:16am)

This is a synopsis of a 66 page report which can be found at: http://www.mediamanagementcenter.org/research/lifebeyondprint.asp

According to a new report: “Life beyond print: Newspaper journalists’ digital appetite” by the Media Management Center, Northwestern University, almost half of today’s newspaper journalists think their newsroom’s transition from print to digital is moving too slowly, as they have no trouble envisioning a career where news is delivered primarily online and to mobile devices instead of in print.
MMC executive director Michael P. Smith, says “For several years we have heard that it is the journalists’ resistance to change that was holding newspapers back… this study shows that they are ready, and some are even impatient, for change.”
Now it appears that America’s journalists want a quicker transformation from print to digital delivery of the news, a study of almost 3,800 people in a cross-section of newspaper newsrooms shows. Many of these journalists are heavily engaged in digital activities in their personal lives and would like to devote more effort to digital products at work. But most of their time in the newsroom is still spent on print responsibilities. Only 20% of the workforce like things the way they are or yearn for the good old days.
Life Beyond Print, a study by Vickey Williams, Stacy Lynch and Bob LeBailly, assembles profiles of six types of journalists inhabiting the typical newspaper newsroom in 2009. They range from the “Digitals” (12% of the workforce) who spend a majority of their efforts online today, to the “Turn Back the Clock” contingent (6%), who long for the day when print was king.
Fully half of newsroom workers wish to do “Moderately More” online, arriving at something closer to an equal split with their print efforts, requiring a doubling of the effort they spend today. Those in the “Major Shift” profile (11%) would devote five times their current effort to online if given their druthers.
Newspaper journalists still love their jobs: Despite industry turmoil:
• 77% of journalists are somewhat or very satisfied with their current jobs
• 67% think it somewhat or very likely they will be in the news business two years from now
• 59% think they’ll likely be with their same newspaper
Online desire in the newsroom is not determined by age, years of journalism experience, or proximity to retirement. And youth is not a factor in predicting who in the newsroom wants to move into digital. Rather, the top two predictors of digital appetite are heavy Internet use outside work and having knowledge of online audiences and their preferences.
Previous Readership Institute research has proven the importance of customer knowledge as a first step in building media use, says the report. Real customer focus also includes acting on the results and letting customer needs drive internal decision-making. This study offers a new reason why knowing the audience is important… it helps stimulate a desire to transition to online work. Other predictors of digital appetite include:
• Openness to change at work and adaptability
• Proactive pursuit of the training necessary to learn online skills
• Keeping up with companywide initiatives and industry developments
The study creates these profiles of journalists:
Digitals, about 12% of the workforce, spend most of their time working online. They’re the youngest group, with an average age of 38, and 59% believe the digital transformation is taking too long in their newsroom. They follow big-picture trends, want to quicken the pace These journalists are most likely to be online editors or producers, but about 17% are reporters or writers. Overall, they’re newer to journalism than any other group.
Digitals score highly on factors that relate to adaptability – such as openness to change and work and career proactivity. They’re similar to leaders in this and many other respects. They’re most apt to describe themselves as the first to try something new at work and as having career options.
In a key finding, digital employees label themselves markedly more knowledgeable about consumers of digital, and at the same level of print reader knowledge as their print counterparts. Overall they are much more aware of customer behaviors and needs.
Other findings:
• More than half of the Digitals have undergraduate or graduate degrees in journalism
• 23% have no post-secondary journalism training
• 42% have been in the news business less than 10 years
• 11% have been journalists for more than 30 years
• The average age is the youngest for any segment
Major Shift, at 11%, are the most dissatisfied with their current state, more pessimistic about staying in the business long-term and want the most pronounced change. This group – roughly an equal mix of reporters, mid-level editors, copy editors, designers and videographers, most of whom have been in the business at least 15 years – would like to devote five times their current effort to online. They’re deeply engaged online in their personal lives, but see a disconnect at work. They could help the newsroom adapt faster, but need a sign they should stay in newspapers.
Moderately More, the largest segment at 50% and encompassing many reporters and mid-level editors, want a roughly equal split between online and print work. Half the newsroom believes their newsroom transition has been too slow and would be comfortable seeing their job duties shift moderately more online. But by nearly a 2-1 margin, they believe the newsroom is headed in the right direction.
Some of the Moderately More defining characteristics include:
• Their ideal job would be divided about 50-50 between print and online effort, requiring a doubling of their digital effort today.
• They tend to have been in the business more than 20 years
• 43% are reporters and another 22% are mid-level editors
• They would hire more reporters and editors, improve print content and improve the Web site design, in that order.
The Status Quo segment, at 14%, believe the 30% of effort they currently devote to online is sufficient and expect little disruption to the way they work now. In newsrooms where improving digital performance is a top strategic priority, this group will need a wake-up call. These journalists believe the evolution of newspapers has gone far enough. Just less than a third of their current effort centers online and they would prefer to see no change.
Most of the Status Quos believe the pace of change to date has been “about right,” whether in respect to their own job or newsroom-wide change. They forecast more moderate or minimal changes to come than the rest of the newsroom. This group is slightly older than the overall population. Nearly half are age 50 or older and 1-in-10 is 60 or older.
If put in command, they would:
• First hire more reporters and editors
• Invest in improving print content
• Support online investment, but third after print improvements and increasing manpower
Turn Back the Clock segment represents 6% of journalists who wish it would all go away. This part of the staff would go more heavily into print if they could. They report about 30% of their current effort is spent online, nearly triple the amount they would prefer. This is a group that has tested the online environment and they don’t like it.
This group weighs toward reporters and photographers and they closely mirror the newsroom average for age and years until retirement. What particularly sets them apart from others is their low levels of adaptability. Asked to rate themselves on openness to change, how they approach change at work, and career resilience, they rated significantly lower than other print employees and dramatically lower than digital employees or senior managers.
Individuals in this group report being less satisfied than their Status Quo colleagues. They also have the lowest opinion of leaders of all the groups and are least likely, in particular, to believe executives really understand what it takes to put out the newspaper.
Leaders, at 5%, are publishers, editors and managing editors, most of whom have been in the news business more than 20 years. Most report their roles are primarily print-focused but want to shift to online. Like Digitals, they describe themselves as open to change and optimistic about their career options.
• Publishers, editors and managing editors indicate they are spending about a quarter of their work effort on online matters, but believe the emphasis should shift to favor digital (53%) over print responsibilities
• 28% of leaders think their job is changing too fast overall, which could reflect the lack of clarity around a business model to sustain digitally delivered journalism.
• Leaders tend to be more than a decade older (49), and 77% have been in the news business more than 20 years, including 42% for more than 30 years.
• Leaders are more confident in the overall direction of the newsroom, with nearly 70% saying the newsroom is on the right track, as compared to about 45% of Digitals.
• This group reports somewhat greater Internet use outside work than other journalists. On the job, they use the Internet as a reporting or editing tool, but likely not for much else. Given their druthers, they would post more, plan more and link more online.
The study concludes with challenge the leaders face:
• Journalists’ passion for the mission is there, but they need basic tools for reinvention and more engaged leadership. More than half of the journalists working primarily in print had no training in the previous year to equip them for a digital transition. One in four journalists reports having had no training at all
• There are major gaps between how leaders think they are doing and how staff view them, in such areas as fostering collaboration, seeking out input from employees at all levels, and communicating strategy in a way that relates to employees’ jobs
In addition, there are differing expectations for leaders among the segments:
• Digitals want leaders to be even more immersed in online trends and to sharpen the digital vision
• Major Shifts want more risk-taking
• Status Quos generally like what leaders are doing and advocate staying the course.

Source/Credits/More: : http://www.mediamanagementcenter.org/research/lifebeyondprint.asp

Via @ExaminerCom: @DowntownGarden’s “What’s up With Social Media” Series: Session Four: Open Agenda, thanks to @PBPost

27 Jan

[FROM OUR EXAMINER ARTICLE…]

….. As some of you know, our Media Mentoring Societies are meant to be “Locally Grown” yet to have a Global Twist; last night’s proceedings at Downtown at the Gardens proved precisely that, as we had a Facebook acquaintance/friend follow us from Madrid… here’s the exchange:

“Francisco Jose Palacio Junior [TWEETED FROM @USTREAM BROADCAST MONITOR/CONTROL PANEL]

“Live from @DowntownGardens: A whole CROWD came tonight! Thanks @PBPost (Broadcasting live at http://ustre.am/bngA)

Yesterday at 7:04pm via Ustream.TV Custom: loading… ·

View Feedback (2)Hide Feedback (2)

[A FRIEND IN MADRID WATCHED – AND COMMENTED!]

@MMSocieties: 2010 01 19 Session: Part One: Overview and Topic Choosing

“Add me to the 4 viewers!

BTW, still waiting on a good explanation about the difference between twitter and facebook 😛

Maybe due to my lack of attention when I watched this (from office)

Nice job by the way, I enjoyed it :)”

[SO I COMMENTED BACK]

“Whoa!… YOU were watching US? From Madrid!???

[JAW DROPS!]

Really? COOOL!!!!… See More

[DONS TWEED JACKET – WITH ELBOW PATCHES – AND CORDUROYS… PROFESSORIAL LOOK!]

Did you refer to the slides, BTW?

[CLEARS THROAT]

They’re an INTEGRAL part of what we do… ’em slides allow one to dig deeper into the subject…

Which ones?

[GRINS]

The ones on Meetup.Com!

http://MediaMentoring.NET

Go ahead! RSVP and make US go Global!

Seriously… we post EVERYTHING there first… UStream is meant to keep us ‘live’ on the web, but there’s also a cleaner (meaning, on a tripod!) video I shoot that gets loaded to Vimeo; usually also a podcast (yeah, we have been remiss, but you may load the Vimeo vids to your iPod/iPhone, right?)

… once you’ve dug through those, we talk!

(we’ve done FOUR sessions so far, covering different aspects of this Brobdingnagian Pachiderm we dare call “Social Media” … IMHO? I prefer Web 2.0 or 2.9, as in the end, it’s just the evolution of the same old tools… right?)

Anyways, U JUST MADE MY DAY, AMIGO!!! GRACIAS!!!

Paco

P.S:

Also, peek at our new e-Newsletter for more… add yourself to the mailing list and/or shoot me an email so I can send you the future ones (we hope to have enough content for a Weekly)

– Socially Yours Premiere Issue -Web Version

http://snurl.com/201001_cc_sy

Saludos!”
… Which in the end, proves the adage “Act Locally, Think Globally” that’s somehow embedded into many of the interactions we conduct on these ‘Social Media’ forums; as mentioned on the video, sometimes it’s more a matter of the QUALITY of the interactions, the fact that people actually care to look at your content, than the actual AMOUNT of people listed on one’s statistics….

Which videos, you may ask? these!

Session Four at Downtown at The Gardens: Open Agenda, Topics covered across the entire spectrum of Social/New Media issues…

One… via Vimeo

Two…via Vimeo (required for LONG videos!)

And the rest, via @UStream (Bookmark us as we’d be stashing our live broadcasts there EVERY Tuesday until the end of February, at least at this location!)

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/mediamentoringsociety

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/mediamentoringsociety

Watch us LIVE Every Tuesday!

#InCaseYouMissedIt: #MDG’s #SEO On #OWNING that #Voice {#MMS #LATISM #TOGS} (LiveTwittering)

24 Jan

Remember; this is to be read “Backwards” the BOTTOM tweets are the FIRST ones…

Want to Hear it?

Here!

#Enjoy!

  1. #MDG‘s #SEO “Other side? #IdentityTheft? For #MajorBrands? Tools to #LockDown across… #OWNING that #Voice? Messy!” {#MMS #LATISM #TOGS} 41 minutes ago from TweetDeck
  2. Delete
  3. #MDG‘s #SEO “Company should have a #Twitter account?… What do you want to say to them in the long run?” {#MMS #LATISM #TOGS} 42 minutes ago from TweetDeck

  4. Delete
  5. #MDG‘s #SEO#Twitter DOES allow you to become an incredibly #Authoritative #Voice… ” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} 43 minutes ago from TweetDeck

  6. Delete
  7. #MDG‘s #SEO#Twitter‘s speed is #NonPareil… BEWARE: Cannot Unring the Bell!… Avoid #Reactive!” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} 44 minutes ago from TweetDeck

  8. Delete
  9. #MDG‘s #SEO#ReputationManagement and #SocialMedia#Trendistic#Buzzword and #Pop… Spike!” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} 45 minutes ago from TweetDeck

  10. Delete
  11. #MDG‘s #SEO#ContextualRelevancy… be #Discoverable and #Share-able… #Positive = #Credibility” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  12. Delete
  13. #MDG‘s #SEO#SME‘s – Subject Matter Experts… Background… Contact… @FourSquare? = GEOGRAPHY!” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  14. Delete
  15. #MDG‘s #SEO “Being in the Know kind of People… ” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  16. Delete
  17. #MDG‘s #SEO#SocialMedia REQUIRES a Full #Strategy BEFORE #Deployment#KoreanBBQ Story” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  18. Delete
  19. #MDG‘s #SEO#SocialMedia IS your #Company‘s #Brand‘s #VOICE (#Trust-Driven)… #Credibility” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  20. Delete
  21. #MDG‘s #SEO#PermissionBasedMarketing: #Email, #SMS #SocialMedia sites… #Relevant as #FollowUp” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  22. Delete
  23. #MDG‘s #SEO#Search Engines ‘like’ #301 (on #ErrorMesages; #Customized…” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  24. Delete
  25. #MDG‘s #SEO#TermExtractionTools#Redirects and #Subdomains… Relocating Pages.. ” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  26. Delete
  27. #MDG‘s #SEO#Keywords need to be #Topically related… they’ll #Tweet about it: write for people!” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  28. Delete
  29. #MDG‘s #SEO#Keyword needs to be more #Natural occurrence of the #Phrase; write for your user” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  30. Delete
  31. #MDG‘s #SEO#Keywords in your #URL? Phenomenal!… ” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  32. Delete
  33. #MDG‘s #SEO#Image Searches is secondary, yet SEO Driven…” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  34. Delete
  35. #MDG‘s #SEO#Keyword relates to it being #Contextual-ly #Relevant to the #Search Engine” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  36. Delete
  37. #MDG‘s #SEO#Flash-only Sites are a big no-no when it comes to #SEO… No way to crawl them.. ” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  38. Delete
  39. #MDG‘s #SEO#Accesibility is also key when using #AltTags and #Titles in your HTML – Impairments” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  40. Delete
  41. #MDG‘s #SEO#Metadata for #Images? Way you use your #AltTag #Titles gets you more #Traffic” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  42. Delete
  43. #MDG‘s #SEO#Keyword? AT LEAST change your TITLE on the page #Metadata-wise” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  44. Delete
  45. #MDG‘s #SEO#Keyword incorporation is #Crucial: Evolves over Time, too… (#Iterate?)” {#MMS #PalmBeachesDotOrg #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  46. Delete
  47. #MDG‘s #SEO#Keyword #Research >>> #Google AdWords External Keyword Tool <<< ” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  48. Delete
  49. #MDG‘s #SERP#Usability? do SOME of it; dangerous to avoid; earlier? better! – #InformationArchitecture” {#MMS #PalmBeaches #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  50. Delete
  51. #MDG‘s #SERP “Done ur #Usability #Testing? Even via Paper #Prototypes#SilverBack!” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  52. Delete
  53. #MDG‘s #SERP “Done ur #Usability #Testing? Even via Paper #Prototypes#SilverBack!” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  54. Delete
  55. #MDG‘s #SERP “i.e. #FluPreparedness… VERY high #CTA… on Coverall.Com’s #MicroSite.” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  56. Delete
  57. #MDG‘s #SERP#Domain #Microsites MAY help you get #SEO Rankings; #LowerCompetition…” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  58. Delete
  59. #MDG‘s #SERP#Domain Specificity targets a SINGLE audience on a SINGLE topic… #CTA ” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  60. Delete
  61. #MDG‘s #SERP#Domain Specificity ranks higher on #Google Searches… Great #Strategy ” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  62. Delete
  63. #MDG‘s #SERP#CTA via #BannerAds that led ONLY to #Microsite; specific #Domains too ” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  64. Delete
  65. #MDG‘s #SERP#CTA‘s on #Microsite with SPECIFIC #Topicals in mind are KEY!… ” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  66. Delete
  67. #MDG‘s #SERP#Credibility: i.e. www.Coverall.Com = #H1N1 Information = #CTA (#PSA?) ” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  68. Delete
  69. #MDG‘s #SERP#Credibility via #Personalization for #CTA = higher conversion rates ” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  70. Delete
  71. #MDG‘s #SERP#CTA can be a #MicroSite (i.e. #RitzCarlton in #Jupiter)… Specifics” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  72. Delete
  73. #MDG‘s #SERP “Shall We Go Somewhere More Private… #WhiteListing #PURL‘s, #Getaways” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

  74. Delete
  75. #MDG‘s #SERP “Q: Are users being nimble enough? A: The smart ones are!… ” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  76. Delete
  77. #MDG‘s #SERP#WebTrends#CrazyEgg.Com… on Confetti Mode… #GoogleAnalytics” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  78. Delete
  79. #MDG‘s #SERP#HeatMapping / #ClickMapping: Shows User Behaviours and Aggregates” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  80. Delete
  81. #MDG‘s #SERP#PathAnalysis? How long does it take users to get to #CTA? #Optimization” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  82. Delete
  83. #MDG‘s #SERP#HeatMapping = #Usability; Spikes? May want to review how it’s presented” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  84. Delete
  85. #MDG‘s #SERP#Analytics#BounceRate?… #Technographics #HeatMapping = #Usability” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  86. Delete
  87. #MDG‘s #SERP#Analytics? #Behavior? #Clickthroughs? Missing the -proverbial- Boat! ” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  88. Delete
  89. #MDG‘s #SERP#Actionable & #CTA has to tie back to your #PERSONAL #Brand… ” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  90. Delete
  91. #MDG‘s #SERP#Brand #Experience via #SocialMedia goes back to #CTA \ #Actionable” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  92. Delete
  93. #MDG‘s #SERP#Brand #Experience: Consider the #ShareFactor! = ^SM #SocialMedia…” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  94. Delete
  95. #MDG‘s #SERP#Brand #Experience? Provide the audience with #SPECIFIC #CTA‘s… ^SM” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  96. Delete
  97. #MDG‘s #SERP#Uncluttered yet #SEO Friendly… #Flash and #Images? #Brand #Experience” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  98. Delete
  99. #MDG‘s #SERP#Targeted sites are more focused on the #CTA (Call To Action) function” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  100. Delete
  101. #MDG‘s #SERP#Sites that are #Information based: #Search function is key… targeted” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  102. Delete
  103. #MDG‘s #SERP#Google favors those older #Domains#Bloggers also linkback… #Press” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  104. Delete
  105. #MDG‘s on #SERP#Google favor Older #Domains#Information #Architecture flattened” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  106. Delete
  107. #MDG‘s on #SERP#Minimalistic; based on #Navigation: Use your Real Estate wisely…” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  108. Delete
  109. #MDG‘s on #SERP “Case Study: www.Coverall.Com… Rebuilt based on primary audience…” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  110. Delete
  111. #MDG‘s on #SERP “Interest level determines whether they will mine site for more…” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  112. Delete
  113. #MDG‘s on #SERP#TMI Bogs down the Home Page… Define Critical Key Tasks for each.” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  114. Delete
  115. #MDG‘s on #SERP#TMI depends on your Audience… Common Sense…. FOR All Audiences” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  116. Delete
  117. #MDG‘s on #SEO / #SERP #CTA “Brand Recognition * Legitimacy / Trust * Interest Level” {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  118. Delete
  119. #MDG‘s on #SEO / #SERP #CTA “First impressions are key” (and made only once!) {Re: #MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org #LATISM #TOGS} about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  120. Delete
  121. #MDG‘s Talk on #SEO / #SERP #CTA (Call-to-Action) #GoogleMaps is “naturally free” (Claim your listing) (#MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org ) about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  122. Delete
  123. #MDG‘s Charlie Ellis on “Usability meets Accesibility” #CTA – Call to Action = #GoogleMaps within #SERP (#MMS #Local www.palmbeaches.org ) about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  124. Delete
  125. Charlie Ellis on “Usability meets Accesibility” #CTA – Call to Action within SERP (#MMS #LocalSources www.palmbeaches.org #MDG #SERP #SEO) about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  126. Delete
  127. www.palmbeaches.org hosts #MDG‘s Lunch and Learn on “Usability meets Accesibility” (#MMS #LocalSources) about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck

  128. Delete

#ResearchMaterials “A brief history of networked learning”(SIEMENS, George (2008)) [rtf] (Via @GoogleAlerts: CMAC)

21 Jan

Great material that Google dug up; thought of archiving here for future reference and sharing with CMAC-Lab’s Page on Facebook (via my own Notes)

SIEMENS, George (2008): A brief history of networked learning [rtf]

George Siemens: september 28, 2008

Networks have underpinned human learning well before the proliferation
of technology evident in society today. The development of expertise in
hunting, gathering, and farming require knowledge to be shared with
each new generation. Upon inculcation into farming, for example, the
younger generation built on the work of others. Small advances in new
techniques and tools served to continually advance disciplines such as
farming, blacksmithing, soldiering, and more recently, philosophy and
sciences.

Network learning is today more evident because it finds its existence
in explicit network structures: mobile phone networks, the internet,
and the web. Each generation likely views itself as the guardian of new
intellectual insight and scientific advances, overlooking the enormous
progress brought forward by previous generations. When discussing
network learning, we find ourselves on a small pinnacle of a large
mountain. The network structures now prominent in technology were
previously served by social interactions, written scrolls, religious
writings, and the communication structures of generals, kings, and
emperors.

With this slight acknowledgement to the underlying nature of learning
networks in the overall development of humanity, a more considered
discussion of developments of learning networks over the last several
decades follows.

Recent developments in network learning occur against the backdrop of
social learning theory, advanced by the aid of technology. Literature
on learning and networks has progressed over the last decade, as
indicated by university centres such as Helsinki’s Centre for Research
on Networked Learning and Knowledge Building (University of Helsinki,
n.d.), research projects at Open University of the Netherlands (2006)
and Lancaster University (2004), and dissertations (de Laat, 2006)
researching the suitability of networks as a structural underpinning
for education. However, the term network has become somewhat
convoluted, making discussion of networked learning difficult.
Baumeister (2005) echoes this reality:

Within a university setting there is a lot that can be networked: e.g.
within a single course, within a faculty, within a research group and
between academics, institutions or corporations outside. Taking all
this together it will become evident that the term is layered with
meaning, and that is why in use it is seldom free from ambiguity.
(Networking in Practice section, ¶ 7)

This concern is, in part, a consequence of educators/researchers using
the term broadly, without clearly demarcating underlying concepts or
the various meanings the term has acquired in its diverse use to
describe physical infrastructure, social connections, and graph theory
in math. While networks in these domains meet general network
definitions – as two or more connected nodes – discussion of learning
networks in particular is often imprecise, failing to distinguish
between how the term itself has developed over the last several decades.

One of the first references of network models for education can be
found in Illich’s (1970) description of learning webs. Illich suggested
learning webs so “we can provide the learner with new links to the
world instead of continuing to funnel all educational programs through
the teacher” (p. 73). Illich’s view outpaced technology by several
decades. More recently, networked views of education have grown in
prominence with the development of the internet.

Five significant stages can be noted in how networks are viewed within
the educational space can be found in a review of literature:

(a) infrastructure development;

(b) merging with fields which have an existing research base;

(c) theoretical and transformative views of learning, knowledge, and cognition;

(d) practicality and popularization of social network services; and

(e) as a model for detailing the process of education and learning.

Development of network stages generally relies on the formation of
previous stages. For example, while the development of infrastructure
is required before other elements can be considered, the inclusion of
research from existing fields, theoretical, practical, and learning
domains develop in an interrelated manner.

Stage One: Development of Physical Infrastructure

As the internet developed in prominence, educators started to focus on
ways to incorporate the emerging field into educational settings. In
order to participate, classrooms needed to be physically wired. For
example, in 1986, the National Science Foundation Network was created
in order to connect researchers and academics (Harasim, Hiltz, Teles,
& Turoff, 1995, p. 6). While computer networks were used for
teaching and learning as early as 1960 (p. 7), broad use for students
was not possible until computers were prominent in schools (Hiltz,
2004, p. 27) and schools were physically wired to the internet. The
significant investment by schools, colleges, and universities from
1980–2000 in computers, networks, and related technology represent the
view of networks as based in physical infrastructure. As such, early
definitions of learning networks were focused on infrastructure:
“Learning networks are composed of hardware, software, and
telecommunication lines” (Harasim et. al., p. 16) and as “groups of
people who use CMC [computer-mediated communication] networks to learn
together, at a time, place, and pace that best suits them and is
appropriate to the task” (p. 4).

Stage Two: Merging with Existing Fields

As the physical structure of networks developed, connecting schools,
universities, and students to the internet and each other, the
awareness of learning networks increased. Educators turned to
disciplines such as sociology, which had an established research base
on networks. In a 1997 paper on asynchronous learning networks, Hiltz,
cited above in relation to the development of infrastructure,
collaborated with sociologist Wellman, to explore the social networking
implications of computer-mediated communication. Computer networks, in
linking people and computers, “become social networks, or the basic
building blocks of societies” (Hiltz & Wellman, 1997, p. 45). With
Turoff, Hiltz (1981) had previously built on Wellman’s work in
sociology with the 1978 publication of the Network Nation, which
explored the role of computer mediated communication as a
transformative agent in society. Other sociologists, such as Castells
(1996) and Watts (2003) contributed to popularizing network views of
interaction, communication, and social organization through publication
of popular mainstream texts, The Rise of the Network Society and Six
Degrees, respectively. In the field of physics, Albert-László Barabási
chronicles his awakening to the power of networks in the 2002
publication of Linked. Barabási issued the statement: “Networks are
everywhere. All you need is an eye for them” (p. 7), indicating the
increased awareness of networks as an underpinning structure in many
disciplines.

Toward the end of the 21st century, the language and concepts of
networks from sociologists, mathematics, and physics had penetrated
much of society. Network concepts were in common use to describe the
surprise success of a long dormant book on Amazon, the spread of
diseases through sexual networks, the spread of SARS in 2003, and the
1996 power blackout in the U.S. and parts of Canada (Barabási, 2002, p.
119).

Educators began adopting the terminology of networks from research in
fields of sociology, mathematics, and physics. In particular, educators
adopted a relational and community-based focus in the application of
computer networks (de Laat, 2006, p. 75). Hiltz and Wellman (1997), for
example, applied community principles as a means of expressing the
value of networks mediated or enabled by technology.

Stage Three: Theoretical and Transformation Views of Learning, Cognition, and Knowledge

The third stage of development in network views can be found in the
concept of cognition and knowledge distributed across networks of
people, aided by technology. Salomon (1993) suggested the development
of distributed cognition—cognition that occurs “in conjunction or
partnership with others” (p. xiii), is due to three reasons:

(a) the growth of computers as tools to assist in intellectual activity,

(b) growing interest in Vygotsky’s theory of cognition as a product of a particular context or social setting, and

(c) dissatisfaction of the limitations of cognition when viewed as solely “in-the-head” (p. xiv).

Culture and knowledge are distributed as a result of “everyday
interactions among people”, resulting in the “social distribution of
cognition” (Cole & Engeström, 1993, p. 15), again supporting the
importance of social interactions as a means of learning.

Technology aids in the distribution of cognition as it enables us to
“project ourselves outward digitally” (de Kerchove, 1997, p. 38), or,
more boldly, “to treat the Web as the extension of the contents of
one’s own mind” (p. 79). The capacity to form networks with ideas and
other people increases as people project themselves outward. Through
the internet, these networks of external projections can form on a
global level. Wellman (2001) classified the ability to form networks
with others through technology as “networked individualism” (p. 5),
where people use their own networks “to obtain information,
collaboration, orders, support, sociability, and a sense of belonging”
(p. 5). Araujo (1998) similarly suggested that both learning and
knowing reside in “heterogeneous networks of relationships between the
social and material world” (p. 317). In order for individuals to have
access to the knowledge of a particular society or culture, connections
need to be formed with others through the use of mediating artefacts,
like technology, as advocated by activity theory.

Stage Four: Popularization of Networks

Much of the research on networks has, to date, been confined to
discourse among academics, as evidenced by the long history of network
theory in sociology and mathematics, with generally limited public
interest. Until recently, a lack of common public awareness existed on
how networks function and their value for individuals and
organizations. The popularization of social software raised the profile
of networks.

While networked technologies for socialization were already in use in
late 1960s (Scholz, 2007), adoption was hindered until the disparate
tools of communication were brought together in more user-friendly
integrated suites, such as with the development of Six Degrees in 1997
(Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Between 1997 and 2001, as chronicled by
Boyd and Ellison, many companies launched new features and social
networking services. Social networking, however, did not become main
stream until the 2003 launch of MySpace, which lead to the global
phenomenon (Boyd & Ellison) of social networking services including
the launch of Orkut, Bebo, Cyworld, and Facebook. Statistics vary on
the level of adoption of social networking sites, but some suggest over
80% penetration (Salaway & Borreson Caruso, 2007, p. 12) among
students in academic settings. A potential secondary benefit may be the
development of network thinking skills on the part of learners, as they
discover ways of finding information and people, as well as solve
problems through active involvement in a network.

The popularization of networks through social network services relies
on the stages of network views previously considered. For example, the
International Network for Social Network Analysis (INSNA, founded by
Wellman in 1978) has extended its exploration of sociological
interactions to include the networks formed through Facebook, Orkut,
and other networking sites (SOCNET, 2008). Connections, the journal of
INSNA, published several articles on virtual social networks (Petróczi,
Nepusz, & Bazsó, 2007) and blog networks in America (Lin, Halavais,
& Zhang, 2007), indicating the growing awareness of online social
networks by researchers from sociology. Online social networks have
also proven to be valuable for researchers, particularly sociologists,
in understanding how networks form, providing “rich sources of
naturalistic behavioural data” (Boyd & Ellison, 2007, Networks and
Network Structure section, ¶ 1).

Stage Five: Integrated Learning, Knowledge, and Education Networks

By 2005, the definition of learning networks (in this instance,
asynchronous) advocated by experts reflected a greater emphasis on
people: “ALN’s [asynchronous learning networks] are people networks for
anytime anywhere learning” (Hiltz & Goldman, 2005, p. 5). Veen and
Vrakking (2006) also adopted a view of networks as existing in both
technical and human dimensions, with technology serving a dual role of
storing and connecting information and enabling the development and
maintenance of social networks (p. 42). The four stages previously
discussed form the basis for networks to be utilized for teaching and
learning at the fifth stage. Within this stage, educators are beginning
to explore how network models can assist not only collaborative
learning in online and blended environments, but with pervasive mobile
learning (Rennie & Mason, 2004, p. 109), determination of social
network structures from analysis of discussion forums (Gruzd &
Haythornthwaite, 2008) and online community conversations
(Haythornthwaite & Gruzd, 2007). Educators seeking to understand
how learners interact with each other through online forums, email, or
blog networks, can rely on the principles of network analysis developed
by sociologists. Similarly, educators can use data analysis or
visualization tools to evaluate the quality of learner interactions
with each other and with the key concepts of a particular course.

Conclusion

Concepts of networks (summarized in Table 1) are more prominent in
society, due to the rise of networking sites such as Facebook. This
popularization, unfortunately, has led to the term network acquiring a
degree of vagueness with multiple potential meanings. While initially
associated with the physical network of wiring schools or the
organizational networks of schools and universities working together,
such as the Ohio Learning Network (2007), recent discussions of
networks have turned the focus to social software and knowledge and
learning networks. The multiple potential meanings of the term network,
as expressed by the five stages of network development, need to be
recognized and reflected in order for educators to more precisely
communicate concepts of connectivism and networked learning.

Connectivism, as a theory of learning, is developed against the
backdrop of physical network infrastructure, development of the social
learning theory, and distributed conceptions of cognition and knowing.
As presented in the introduction, learning networks have always
accompanied the development of human knowledge. Even when not
explicitly acknowledged, they served as an underpinning structure to
the development of fields of science, literature, and technology. The
advancements of the last several decades have made networks of learning
explicit. Networks are reflected not only as physical information
communication technologies, but as the very means through which
knowledge is distributed for addressing complex challenges.
Connectivism reflects these developments in suggesting the need to
craft new views of learning more reflective of the daily reality of
learners.

Table 1. Five Stages of Network Development

Stage One: Infrastructure
Contribution: Development of the physical structure and connection of classrooms to resources, each other, and the internet

Stage Two: Merging with existing fields
Contribution: Adoption of principles of community from sociology
and use of network elements from mathematics and physics to describe
shape and structure of networks.

Stage Three: Changing views of cognition
Contribution: Situated and distributed theories of cognition
developed based on Vygotsky’s (1986) cultural-historical theories,
inadequacies of established theories of cognition (which exclude
acknowledgement of artefacts and cognition in distributed manner) and
increased emphasis of computer networks.

Stage Four: Popularization
Contribution: Increased awareness of network concepts through
publication of mainstream books, Linked (Barabási, 2002), Six Degrees
(Watts, 2003), Rise of Network Society (Castells, 1996), social
networking sites (SNS), and the development of individual’s network
skills through the use of SNS.

Stage Five: Processes of learning, knowledge, and education
Contribution: Integration of domains one-four in the practice of
education, where learning and knowledge are seen as distributed within
networks, assisted by the use of technology, analyzed with the network
structure principles from related fields, and directed through growth
of network awareness and skills on the part of learners. Connectivism
and networked learning reside at this level.

Works Cited

Araujo, L. (1998). Knowing and learning as networking. Management Learning, 29(3), 317–336.

Barabási, A. L. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.

Baumeister, H-P. (2005). Networked learning in the knowledge economy: A
systemic challenge for universities. European Journal of Open, Distance
and E-learning. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2005/Baumeister.htm

Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition,
history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
13(1). Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Cole, M., & Engeström Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to
distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions:
Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

de Kerchove, D. (1997). Connected intelligence: The arrival of the web society. Toronto, ON, Canada: Somerville House.

de Laat, M. (2006). Networked learning. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://www.e-learning.nl/files/dissertatie%20maarten.pdf

Gruzd, A., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2008). Automated discovery and
analysis of social networks from threaded discussions. Paper presented
at the International Network of Social Network Analysis. St. Pete
Beach, FL, USA

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning
networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.

Haythornthwaite, C., & Gruzd, A. (2007, June). A noun phrase
analysis tool for mining online community. Proceedings of the 3rd
International Communities and Technologies Conference.

Hiltz, S. R. (2004). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood: NJ: Ablex.

Hiltz, S. R., & Goldman, R. (Eds.). (2005). Learning together:
Research on asynchronous learning networks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1981). Network nation: Human communication via computer. Toronto, ON, Canada: Addison-Wesley.

Hiltz, S. R., & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks
as a virtual classroom. Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 44–49.

Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling society. London: Marion Boyars.

Lancaster University. (2004). The networked learning in higher
education project is concluded. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from
Department of Educational Research Web site: http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/index.htm

Lin, J., Halavais, A., & Zhang, B. (2007). The blog network in
America: Blogs as indicators of relationships among US Cities.
Connections, 27(2), 15–23.

Ohio Learning Network. (2007). About OLN. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://www.oln.org/

Open University of the Netherlands. (2006). Learning networks homepage.
Retrieved September 26, 2008, from Research and Development Web site: http://www.learningnetworks.org/

Petróczi, A., Nepusz, T., & Bazsó, F. (2007). Measuring tie-strength in virtual social networks. Connections, 27(2), 39–52.

Rennie, F., & Mason, R. (2004). The connection: Learning for the connected generation. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Salaway, G., & Borreson Caruso, J. (with Nelson, M. R.). (2007).
The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology.
Retrieved September 26, 2008, from EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research
[ECAR] Web site: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0706/rs/ERS0706w.pdf

Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and
educational considerations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Scholz, T. (2007). A history of the social web (draft). Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://www.collectivate.net/journalisms/2007/9/26/a-history-of-the-…

SOCNET. (2008). Listserv, January 2008 Archives. Available from http://www.lists.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0801&L=socnet

University of Helsinki. (n.d.). Home page. Retrieved September 26,
2008, from Centre for Research on Networked Learning and Knowledge
Building Web site: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/networkedlearning/eng/

Veen, W., & Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo zappiens: Growing up in a digital age. Network continuum. London: UK

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Watts, D. J. (2003). Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York: W.W. Norton.

Wellman, B. (2001). Little boxes, globalization, and networked individualization. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/littleboxes/litt…

(Loved ’em Footnotes, gotta admit!)

#InCaseYouMissedIt: #Shorty Awards: What are they – and how they tighten ur #Tweeps Community

18 Jan

Apropos #Shorty Awards…. Saving these in a safe place, perhaps?


  1. RT? “I nominate @MarkLaymon for #Shorty in #nonprofit because of his untiring work with NewTechCommunity.Com #SMCPBC!” http://bit.ly/shorty 3 minutes ago from TweetDeck
  2. I nominate @cruisesource #Shorty‘s #Travel because they took care of every detail – best trade show, @SoCruise #EVER! http://bit.ly/shorty 9 minutes ago from Shorty Awards
  3. I nominate @cruisesource for a Shorty Award in #travel because I wrote this for @MissyWard: http://sn.im/socruiserecap http://bit.ly/shorty 11 minutes ago from Shorty Awards
  4. I nominate @cruisesource for #Shorty Award in #Travel because I met @SoCruise‘s Partner @SoFresh‘s @Jakrose! #Gr8Tweep! http://bit.ly/shorty 15 minutes ago from Shorty Awards

  5. I nominate @cruisesource for #Shorty in #Travel because I got to hangout with @YvetteF & @AlexDC – unforgettable ones! http://bit.ly/shorty 16 minutes ago from Shorty Awards
  6. I nominate @cruisesource for #Shorty Award in #Travel because of him I met @93Octane, @CouchSurfingOri, @DBirdy, et al! http://bit.ly/shorty 16 minutes ago from Shorty Awards
  7. I nominate @cruisesource for a #Shorty Award in #travel because the #Tweetup #BonVoyage was largest #SMCSLF one! http://bit.ly/shorty
  8. I nominate @cruisesource for #Shorty in #travel because I learned a lot in that First #SoCruise – @Papparazos did too! http://bit.ly/shorty 18 minutes ago from Shorty Awards
  9. I nominate @cruisesource #Shorty Award #Travel because he’s putting together #2010’s #SoCruise Alumni Reunion! http://bit.ly/shorty 19 minutes ago from Shorty Awards
  10. I nominate @TweetDeck for #Shorty in #Apps because otherwise this place would not make sense (nor cents!) at all! #MMS http://bit.ly/shorty 22 minutes ago from Shorty Awards
  11. I nominate @MarkLaymon for #Shorty in #nonprofit because of his untiring work with NewTechCommunity.Com – and #SMCPBC! http://bit.ly/shorty 23 minutes ago from Shorty Award
  12. I nominate @FJPalacio for a #Shorty in #Egocentric because he actually fell for this? and voted for himself? Oy Vey! 😉 http://bit.ly/shorty 25 minutes ago from Shorty Awards
  13. I nominate @FJPalacio for a Shorty Award in #Humor because… He’s funny, sometimes? http://bit.ly/shorty 26 minutes ago from Shorty Awards
  14. I nominate @ergeekgoddess for a Shorty Award in #networking because she keeps #LATISM conversation personable 24/7/365! http://bit.ly/shorty 27 minutes ago from Shorty Awards
  15. I nominate @AnaRC for a Shorty Award in #smallbusiness because… [BY NOW I FORGOT; UR APP IS CENSORING ME!] #LATISM http://bit.ly/shorty 38 minutes ago from Shorty Awards
  16. Why #MajorTweep @cruisesource COOL 4 #Shorty in #Travel? ‘Cuz #SoCruise #MajorFactor @Tech_Tonic‘s http://bit.ly/7WZHk2 http://bit.ly/shorty about 1 hour ago from Shorty Awards
  17. I favorited a YouTube video — Downtown’s Got Talent Season 2 – Coming Soon http://youtu.be/QKLBuJ6LHks?a about 1 hour ago from Google
  18. Apropos http://MediaMentoring.Org‘s launch this Quarter FYI to my #LATISM #TOGS, #SoCruise, #SMCPBC Tweeps: http://bit.ly/4Vc4F8 #MMS‘s ‘Go’ about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

Via @ExaminerCom: #BREAKING LOCAL NEWS!… Downtown’s Got Talent, Winner of the Kickoff Session, Friday 01/15/10!

17 Jan

(As posted on @ExaminerCom Today… Here’s for my Facebook Notes to be Updated)

…. here’s a FULL Video selection of EVERYONE who came and participated! Come and VOTE for your Favorites, too!


Watch Friday’s (01/15/10) performances and comment to vote for your “Facebook Fan Favorite” Contest…

http://www.facebook.com/video/?oid=269534585125

…. Winner to be announced on 01/22/10!


Downtown’s Got Talent

Season Two Opener

20100115

FYI:

These are the OFFICIAL videos that ALL our FACEBOOK FANS are to use to cast THEIR VOTE online.

Where? Here! http://www.facebook.com/video/?oid=269534585125

Their comments THERE (on the Event Page’s Videos) will be tallied starting this afternoon (Saturday, 01/16/010) and the winner of the “Facebook Fan Favorite” Vote will be announced next Friday!

Only one vote per fan; that said, feel free to comment as much as you’d like, interact and discuss performances with other fans, and most relevant of all, BRING YOUR FRIENDS to the conversations!

Enjoy!

[NOT HERE ON WORDPRESS.COM, AS THEY WANT ME TO PAY FOR THE EMBED FUNCTIONALITY… SORRY!… GOOGLE’S GIVING IT AWAY!]


Check out the Facebook Videos on The Event Page: http://www.facebook.com/video/?oid=269534585125


The search is back on for the next star. Step into the spotlight and show us what you’ve got. Enjoy weekly performances as the area’s top aspiring singers, dancers, and performers compete for cash and prizes. Don’t miss what everyone is talking about….all ages welcome!

Enter for your chance to win $1,000 in cash and prizes!

Application to be found at:

http://www.downtownatthegardens.com/events-talent-form.asp

*** Follow us on Twitter: @DowntownGardens and get to hear the conversation via #Hashtags: #DowntownGardens and #DowntownTalent ***

*** Also: Watch LIVE on @UStream at:

#DowntownGarden’s TALENT Season Two!!!

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/testing-webcam1

Downtown’s Got Talent Season Two – LIVE BROADCAST!

RT and share via TweetVite: http://Twvt.US/DowntownTalent