Tag Archives: Cloud Computing

End of Days? My Personal #DailyJournal is out again!

10 Jan

OJ Label? Eat ur heart out!

“Put together with concentrates from @ESPN, @FJPalacio, those tweeting last night about #BAMA, #SEC #BCSChampionship and various other sources…”


“… And in other news, recent shutdowns from major sites prompted many to believe that the world had ended when they were unable to poke, like, comment or tweet their #Tweeps…”


“My #Facebook! I can’t change my cover photo three times today! Nooooo!”


And others thought the world had also ended as their devices stopped talking back at them, causing a surge of hysteria!



There! And I did not even have to talk about the weather!


There’s a First Time for Everything! #AudioPost via @WordPress.Com… yay!

4 Jan

Hehehe!… and here’s me thinkin’ about resuscitating the #Cinch account… buyout? reverse engineering? feat’s here, fo’ sho!… so here’s the first one, and with Unlimited Vonage and a handful of minutes on the Cell… well!… Heeeellooooo Woooorld!

#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

#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?



  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

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

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

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.

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.


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

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!)

@ExaminerCom: #LocalOnLocal Initiative (#MMS & #SMCPBC Members: FYI)

11 Jan

Dear Local Examiner,

Examiner.com is the insider’s guide for everything local, and we are committed to being the single, largest source of locally-relevant content on more topics than any other site on the Web via local people writing locally.

Local on Local. Your subject-matter expertise combined with the passion you hold for your city and community are the cornerstone of what we stand for, and what consumers are learning to expect from us.

We have two important tiers of Examiner content: Our National Examiners, who we continue to value and support, and you, our core contributors of locally-relevant content.

Some Examiners have been vocal about the lack of incentives for writing on the local level, and we’ve noticed many slip and write topical content without local relevance. To help, we are introducing a new program to reward effective locally relevant, quality content.

And, we’re making this as easy as possible: All Local Examiners are eligible to participate in the new Local on Local Examiner Incentives program.

To qualify for incentives, you must follow four simple rules of the road:

1) Topical
Articles are written in a manner that is knowledgeable about their assigned subject matter, and provide useful, relevant information to readers who might share a passion about it.

2) Local
If it’s not locally relevant, it’s not a local article. The combination of your topic and your city is the most important aspect of your Examiner contributions.

3) Length
Articles should be 200-400 words on average, and no less than 150 words. Use Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? as a guide.

4) Credibility
Use external sources whenever appropriate; quote and reference them when you do.  Tip: Build real relationships within the community to use as ongoing source material – their credibility will build and strengthen yours.

On January 24, 2010, we will launch the Local on Local Examiner Incentives program.

Effective immediately, we will evaluate content published by Local Examiners to ensure it meets the rules of the road. After January 23, articles that do meet the guidelines will be paid a flat fee per article in addition to the normal performance-based incentives.  After January 23, content from Local Examiners which does not meet the rules of the road will not be eligible for participation, and will be subject to removal from the site.

More information will be released over the next two weeks. In the meantime, all Local Examiners should use the rules of the road as their guide whenever they write an article.

We are very excited about this added benefit, and are excited for you to join us in this extremely important initiative.

Warm regards,

Suzie Austin
SVP, Content & Marketing

#InCaseYouMissedIt: #SeenOnAWallNearYou Series: On #Tone, #Courtesy, #CommonSense – and #Google Searches as responses

10 Jan

  • Cristinella Bella
    Has anyone else ever tried to initiate conversation with someone only to be
    met by the answer: Google it. Seriously, If someone responds that way,
    is it an insult, cause I kind of feel insulted.

Credit: https://i2.wp.com/images4.pocket-lint.com/images/qMTt/google-doodle-wallace-gromit-birthday-0.jpg

Socially Interacting - with People, PEEEEOPLE!!! Puhleeze!... where are your manners!

Yesterday at 3:19pm · Comment

You like this.
Francisco Jose Palacio

Francisco Jose Palacio

Hmmmm…Yes and no; thing is, it’s a tab away!

we post stuff, that may be obscure (yeah, guilty as charged) and
sometimes it feels that sometimes not everyone is aware of how much
BETTER a conversation would be if the research was done before hand……

… not that it’s NOT rude, but perhaps a new way of communicating in these ‘halls’, so to speak?


A Google-ator
Searching for Conversation since The Remotest Past

Yesterday at 3:25pm ·
Cristinella Bella

Cristinella Bella

but if the question is made so as to elicit a person’s personal
opinion, the subject matter of which you are both personably
knowledgeable, the person being asked the question is being rude if
they tell you to google it.Or maybe the person isn’t as knowledgable as you thought they were.

Yesterday at 3:29pm
Francisco Jose Palacio

Francisco Jose Palacio

@ CBDefinitely; and as many say, the problem with CMAC-driven communication, is the lack of ‘tone’

yeah, some of us may be acting rudely dissmissive; yet, for example,
there’s a bunch of my friends, that for example, keep buggin’ me about
translatin’ what I do here in THEIR language; others, bug me about them
being sometimes in three or more languages…

So if I tell them to go to Google Translate more than once, am I being rude?

See the dilemma?

again, as I said earlier: it’s a tab away; I for one, if the synopsis
that is attached to the posting is not enough, given time – and
resources; i.e. sometimes Googling on a phone is painstaking – I will
Google before asking; others? I’ll be on the receiving end, with the
interlocutor on the other end glaring at me, as though we all had the
time, disposition and context to understand everythin’ they’re postin’!

So I think it’s a matter of common sense and courtesy, perhaps? specially when we’re ALL ‘tone-deaf’ in this place?

Credit: https://i2.wp.com/www.babyhearing.org/images/HearingAmp/Choices/hearing_aid.jpg

Tone deafness? May want to review your manners, too!



Ci vedeamo!


BTW, would it be Ok. if I edited this exchange (and what I hope is to
follow) on my blog? it’s precisely centered on the challenges of
computer-mediated communications… Let me know!

Again, salute!

Yesterday at 4:02pm ·
Francisco Jose Palacio

Francisco Jose Palacio

Short version?”there are NO stupid questions” ~ Anonymous!


Yesterday at 4:03pm ·
Cristinella Bella

Cristinella Bella

just send me a link to the blog so I can enjoy reading the fruits of a
conversation. If I could read the entry first, post-editing just so my
perspective is kept in context, if included in anyway, that would be
grand.What does CMAC stand for?

I do wonder tho, for as
many people that ask you to simply translate what you are posting, how
many people on facebook and/or other applications are intuitive enough
to understand what you are doing and ask questions that cause you to
stop and reflect upon some questions in a way that google cannot answer?…

I must comment on the content that results from a google search. For
instance, I recently google’d The SanRemo Music Festival. I did this
search despite knowing full well that my friend, here on facebook,
Franco Corso, could provide me with firsthand information that would be
exactly the kind of answers I was looking for about SanRemo.

the risk of putting myself in a vulnerable position in which my
feelings may have gotten hurt by his lack of response, I googled, and,
of course, the first result was Wikipedia.

There are a lot of
people who have junked up Wikipedia. So, if a person tells me to google
a question, are they purposefully leading me towards false information?

Yesterday at 4:14pm
Cristinella Bella

Cristinella Bella

I know there are no stupid questions, except for the questions that are asked in attempt to make a person look stupid.As I grow older and realize the more I learn the less I know, I am
getting better at giving stupid responses to those kinds of questions.

Yesterday at 4:17pm
Francisco Jose Palacio

Francisco Jose Palacio


Credit: https://i2.wp.com/www.mikeharding.co.uk/other/banjo.jpg

... And yeah, sometimes it's worth to go 'head over heels' for the sake of keeping people engaged in your 'performance'

Not really; once I get permission, as the Clipboardist that I am, I merely move these -as-is/verbatim- over to the blog….

no need to worry about revisions; it’s as fresh as it was here – and we
‘preserve’ these good conversations, as I understand these are one of
the few items that FB actually ‘shreds’ (I mean, how far back can we go
on the wall? have not checked lately, but a few iterations ago, it was
about 60 to 45 days at the most; hence the start of the series, yadda,
yadda, yadda)That said, your last two entries are 100%
copacetic with the entirety of the thread, and yes, illustrate the
‘Fuzzy Logic” that accompanies live in the Cloud Computing.


this FB Group out; I’ve been researching it for a few years, and have
made it the foundation of the business I recently started.

Most of the links are either academic (proven sources/whitepapers/research papers) or when they come out on e-zines or magazines, I’ve tried to keep them as ‘valid’ as any.


… Grazie!… I will come back and preserve this thread in a bit, hafta complete some event coverage from last night.


2 hours ago ·
Francisco Jose Palacio

Francisco Jose Palacio

@ CBHere’s one of the latest ones, on FB, so you can check out the ‘format’ as well

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=261260335358See More

I also ‘tagged’ you so you could find it – and tie the note onto the tread, perhaps?

2 hours ago ·
Cristinella Bella

Cristinella Bella

Cool. You have my permission
55 minutes ago
Francisco Jose Palacio

Francisco Jose Palacio


8 minutes ago ·