Reflection Essay


Online social networking is a phenomenon that has changed the way we communicate and socialise, with sites such as Facebook and Myspace becoming completely engrained in the daily cultural practices of millions of individuals. With the emergence of second-generation web, ways of communicating online were extended and amplified, allowing for the development of online relationships and the ability of individuals to publish and participate (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.1). One of the significant devices to emerge from this new culture of authorship was the weblog (or blog) and the ability to publish text, images, video and sound online easily, quickly and anonymously. This essay explores the development and maintenance of online social networks and the practice of blog authorship, with particular reference to my personal experiences in constructing the DIGC101 web project.

In the construction of ALittleBitOfNice, my web project, I engaged in the construction of an online identity within the StumbleUpon online social network. As boyd and Ellison (2007, pp. 210) point out, ‘there are hundreds of [social network sites], with various technological affordances, supporting a wide range of interests and practices’ and StumbleUpon is one such network. The StumbleUpon network is quite unique among social networking sites as it offers a personalised recommendation system, which directs ‘users to web pages based on the positive ratings of friends or other users with shared interests or similar voting behaviour’ (Holahan 2007, pp. 1). The StumbleUpon social network is a representation of the way in which specific, specialised cultures emerge around particular social network sites, even when their ‘key technological features are fairly consistent’ (boyd and Ellison 2007, pp. 210). So while StumbleUpon is a social network, it is also a specialised search engine that creates a culture of ‘social discovery’ (Holahan 2007, pp. 1), enabling users to create an online network through the discovery of websites and users with similar interests and behaviours. Furthermore, the site allows users to communicate to others the network of individuals with whom we connect and to ‘view and traverse’ other individual’s network of connections (boyd and Ellison 2007, pp.211).

Social network sites, as defined by boyd and Ellison (2007, pp.211), are ‘web-based services that allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system,’ which means that individuals are able to communicate on a many-to-many basis, as opposed to traditional, more restricted forms of communication. Waschauer & Grimes (2007, pp. 13) suggest that ‘ease of posting, locating, viewing, responding to, an ranking multimedia on many sites’ is the reason for this transformation of ‘long-established patterns of social interaction.’ In terms of my web project, the ALittleBitOfNice Tumblr blog is an example of a public profile, which is broadcast to an essentially limitless audience. The ALittleBitOfNice StumbleUpon profile is also a public profile and all information in that profile is accessible by anyone with Internet access. However, while boyd and Ellison (2007, pp. 211) suggest that the norm for social network sites is to facilitate the articulation of a pre-existing social network, ALittleBitOfNice instead aims to create a network from scratch by appealing to an audience. That is to say, my web project is trying to create a set of connections that directly relates to and arises from the content and purpose of the project, rather than being built from a series of connections that already exist in my other social networks, both online and offline.

Directly related to this broadcast specifically for an audience is the use of a public blog. Blogs are accessible to anyone and everyone, and by connecting the StumbleUpon profile and the Tumblr blog, it was hoped the blog would draw a readership that would then instigate connections in the social networking space of StumbleUpon. The blog is essentially in a dairy style, falling ‘within the pre-Internet tradition of dairies and personal letters’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp. 5) but also represents a filter blog and knowledge log, as identified by Herring and her team (Herring et al. 2005). The filter blog is one that filters content from the wider Web and holds ‘observations and analyses of external, typically public, events, and [tends] to correspond to the informational or agitational purpose already described’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.5). The ALittleBitOfNice blog can also be identified as a knowledge log because it provides ‘information and observations on a topic, project, or product’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.5). The web project crosses all of these types: as diary type narrative about my personal experience, as a filter blog through exploration and the posting of ‘observations and analyses’ of content from the ‘broader Web’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.5) and as a knowledge log, developing a knowledge base about a particular social networking site, aiming to ‘provide information and observations’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.5).

Part of the process of publishing my blog has been taking into account the specific audience generated by the digital environment and how I write to that audience. The digital environment and mediation through computers ‘transforms various characteristics of the communication process’ (Moore 2009a, pp. 14), allowing the blog to be a form of interpersonal communication that is indirect, asynchronous and nonverbal and yet it creates a connection without presence, taking my monologue through ‘multiple layers of mediation’ (Moore 2009a). In addition to this, my blog invites interactivity through the ability of users to post comments and reblog, allowing the transformation of the monologue into a dialogue or even a multilogue over time, with users participating to help shape its content through these ‘feedback and evaluation mechanisms’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.2). Though the blog is a public broadcast and has no specific target, I believe I probably write (even if unconsciously) to a specific audience, as this a likely practice in general in blogging culture. While a blogger is aware of the very public nature of their blog, it is usually very likely that the content of that blog is written to reflect the individual behind the blog and attract an audience that relates to and is interested in that bloggers personality.

As mentioned earlier, blogs are accessible by anyone and everyone and while I do seem to write to a particular audience, this obviously does not mean that only this target reads the blogs. Consequently, the public nature of blogs means that often impression management (Moore 2009b, pp.10) on them is somewhat different to that of personal social networking sites and other online interactions. I personally found that the way I interacted and contributed through my blog was significantly different to how I behave in my personal Facebook account, through email or in person. I would write more carefully, edit and consider posts much more and exclude things that I would be comfortable saying in a less public environment. In a social networking site, it is likely that most of your contacts are friends or acquaintances that you can trust and communicate with. In the setting of a blog, anyone can see your content and use it however they chose and furthermore, there is significantly less chance of being able to communicate with and interact with these individuals. This feeling of not having control over who has access to and use of your content and information relates to the idea of an online panopticon (Moore 2009b, pp.10).

In a panopticon, a term coined by Jeremy Bentham in 1791 (Campbell and Carlson 2002, pp. 586), you are perpetually under surveillance: invisible onlookers witness absolutely everything you say and do. In terms of social networks and online culture, your network becomes the ‘guards’ (in terms Benthams original concept of the panopticon as a prison) and every piece of content you post is available to everyone in that network and all their content is in turn available to everyone in their network (Moore 2009b, pp.10). The panopticon, and other systems such as Internet ad servers, ‘employ technologies of information gathering and aggregation in a methodic effort to appraise individuals and populations for various purposes of control’ (Campbell and Carlson 2002, pp.287). This feeling of being in a metaphorical panopticon by participating in social networking sites affected my behaviour and made me significantly more aware of how I was handling impression management. Constant surveillance seemingly leads to self-policing and careful consideration of content posted to try and maintain control over the representation of myself online (Moore 2009c). This cultural practice of impression management is becoming more and more commonplace as issues surrounding privacy and personal information online become increasingly spotlighted by the media.

However, the web also allows for a great deal of anonymity and in doing so, many individuals become less concerned about impression management and online representation because their content is not directly linked to their ‘real’ identity. In the construction of ALittleBitOfNice, while I found that I was more careful about what I wrote and what content I posted, I also found that the anonymity of the blog post released me from a lot of the constrictions of a personal social network. Despite the greater care in posting, writing the ALittleBitOfNice blog allowed me to express opinions and post content that I most likely would not within a social network that I use to maintain personal connections. My approach to anonymous blogging directly relates to what many say about the Internet, particularly blogging, and its ability to foster freedom of expression and honesty of opinion. While my blog was very unlikely to offend or upset anyone, if I was to write something that may offend or be controversial, the anonymity and untraceable nature of the blog would be an ideal platform. The legitimacy of a blog is not tied to its author, as a book is, and therefore blogging content is not likely to be connected to its actual author and effect their reputation. This factor is an important contributor to the cultural practise of blogging, enabling users greater freedom in posting content outside of their personal social network, filling an ‘intermediary role within online genres’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.7).

In constructing the ALittleBitOfNice online identity, I was able to explore social network sites and the use of blogging and particularly the cultural and social practices that form around these platforms. In exploring the development and maintenance of my StumbleUpon identity and the corresponding blog, I could analyse my own practices associated with these platforms and how they differ from more personal, private online and also offline social networks.

References

boyd, d & Ellison, N 2007, ‘Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship’, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, vol.13, no.1, pp.210-230.

Campbell, JE , Carlson, M 2002, ‘Panopticon.com: Online Surveillance and the Commodification of Privacy’, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, vol.46, no.4, pp. 586-606.

Herring, SC, Kouper, I, Paolillo, JC, Scheidt, LA, Tyworth, M, Welsch, P, Wright, E & Yu, N 2005, ‘Conversations in the Blogosphere: An analysis ‘from the bottom up.’ HICSS, vol.4, pp107b, Proceedings of the 38th Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences, (HICSS’05)-Track 4, 2005.

Holahan, C 2007, ‘StumbleUpon’s ‘Social Search’ Upgrade; The maker of the Web browser toolbar aims to mingle ‘social discovery’ with the computing power of major search engines such as Google’ Business Week Online (Oct 24, 2007): NA. Academic OneFile, Gale. University of Wollongong Library, accessed 4 Nov. 2009

Doorn, NV, Zoonen, LV & Wyatt, S 2007, ‘Writing from Experience: Presentations of Gender Identity on Weblogs’, European Journal of Women’s Studies, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 143-159.

Moore, C 2009a, DIGC101 ‘The Web from 1.0 to you (2.0)’, lecture notes, accessed 4/11/2009, http://www.scribd.com/doc/18112095/DIGC101-Week-2-Slides

Moore, C 2009b, DIGC101 ‘Social Networks’, lecture notes, accessed 4/11/2009, http://www.scribd.com/doc/19091227/DIGC101-Week-5-Slides

Moore, C 2009c, Social Networks, lecture, DIGC101, New Media Communication, University of Wollongong, delivered 26 August.

Peters, S 2009, ALittleBitOfNice, Weblog, accessed 5/11/2009, http://alittlebitofnice.tumblr.com/

Waschauer, M & Grimes, D 2007, ‘Audience, Authorship, And Artifact: The Emergent Semiotics of Web 2.0’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 27, pp.1-23.

Second Life Group Blog


Group, includes Sam, Mel, Saskia, Shaun.
As a group we have decided to focus on the label Adidas. As Adidas is a huge international corporation we could use sporting fields, and other events to promote the use of Adidas branded material.
Use marketing tactics such as creating a youtube or vimeo project to promote Adidas in SL. Such as the link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5RM3KRHvpo
We could also sell items in the SL store, which could be ordered and paid for in RL. using real money. As a virtual world entreprener we would enable customers to create there own shoes/accessories through the use of Sl and then have them pay for it in real life. Such as the below link.
https://www.puma.com/secure/mbbq/pindex.jsp?ip=AU
If we were to put real life ads, and television ads within SL, we would be increasing the target audience of this product. This is because a lot of SL and other networking users use the world wide web as the primary source of information and entertainment. Placing ads within second life, such as logo’s and stores could vastly increase sales within the real world.
You could create and network your Avatar’s to be wearing specific branded clothing such as Adidias to further promote the brand. “Promoting”.
Cross promotions, allowing people who buy/attend events in second life can benefit with products and items available to them in real life. Hosting events were there are limited giveaways.
Have a sales Avatar!
The marketing and advertiseing boundaries seem limitless and we promote Adidias through the use of SL.

Academic Integity Video People’s Choice


I am quite surprised by the high standard to which all of the academic integrity videos were produced. Considering the time frame we had to do them in and the difficulties in meeting and organising between group members, they have all come up really well. Some of them are very original and clever and some are quite funny. To be honest, I’m surprised all the groups actually got their vids in on time for the competition.

I thought it was pretty ironic that some of the groups didn’t reference the music they used for the videos, considering the subject they were on.

The videos are all short and too the point (most likely due to the time frame and time restrictions!) but they get the message across clearly and effectively.

My particular favourites were:

  • I <3 Edward- I think the idea of the naturalisation of referencing is clever and the point that almost all of us are all already referencing properly!
  • The Angry Duck video-I loved the UOW inside joke about the Angry Duck.
  • Blair Witch Plagiarism-clever take on a popular movie. Very well put together.

But my favourite had to be:

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

I think it is a really clever little video and I loved the styling and look of it. Very cute and original!

Experimenting with Flickr


This week we were experimenting with Flickr.

At first I found the platform really confusing but once I got into it it actually makes sense. I was searching for a variety of images using random things I was thinking about, which I guess relates to my web project. Then I started using StumbleUpon to prompt my searches. I would do a Stumble, then choose a few key words related to whatever it gave me and use them in a Flickr search.

My results were often completely unrelated and random and would usually change quite significantly between “text” searches and “tag” searches. I guess this relates to the idea of the tag soup and as mentioned in the lecture, the uncontrolled nature of tags and vocabulary-the horseless carriage idea.

According to Flickr, “there are lots of elements that make something ‘interesting’ (or not) on Flickr. Where the clickthroughs are coming from; who comments on it and when; who marks it as a favorite; its tags and many more things which are constantly changing. Interestingness changes over time, as more and more fantastic content and stories are added to Flickr.

So interestingness relates to the input from other users and it seems to me to be a fancier way of saying popularity?

Academic Integity Video


My role in the production of the academic integrity video has been brainstorming, storyboarding and illustrating for the animation. I have been drawing up simple images in the Paint program which Crystal can use in photoshop to create an illustration.

Reflective Essay


In constructing the web project, I have mostly focused on blogs and participating in the blogosphere. My project has evolved into a central blog connected with a Twitter and a StumbleUpon profile, connecting the blogosphere with social networking sites and systems of tagging and bookmarking. The blog is essentially in a diary style, falling ‘within the pre-Internet tradition of diaries and personal letters’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.5) but also represents a filter blog and knowledge log, as identified by Herring and her team (Herring et al., 2005). The filter blog filters content from the wider Web and contains ‘observations and analyses of external, typically public, events, and [tends] to correspond to the informational or agitational purpose already described’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.5). The central blog of the web project could also be referred to a knowledge log, in that it provides ‘information and observations on a topic, project, or product’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.5). The web project crosses all of these types because it is firstly a diary type narrative about my experience within a social network and is therefore personal, describing experiences, problems and reflecting on my own writing and exploration. Secondly, the blog becomes a filter blog through my exploration of StumbleUpon and the posting of ‘observations and analyses’ of content I find on the ‘broader Web’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.5). Finally, my web project blog is knowledge log, developing a knowledge base about a particular social networking site, aiming to ‘provide information and observations’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.5) about StumbleUpon.

The web project blog also represents the dramatic shift in channels of communication enabled by the development of Web 2.0, which caused ‘barriers to online publishing, collaboration, and creative production [to fall] dramatically’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.1). My blog uses ready made and widely available blogging software, the likes of which have allowed ‘users of all types to interact through blogs, collaborate through wikis, play multi-player games, publish podcasts and video, build relationships through social network sites, and otherwise shape the content of the Web’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.2). These interactions are the key aspect of Web 2.0, where the web moved from publication to participation, allowing interactive forms of web usage and, importantly, allowing for networked communities, as opposed to isolated units of content (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.2). Web 2.0 differs from Web 1.0 in that it is ‘an evolution from the linking of information to the linking of people’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.2) and my web project emobodies not only this but the interactive, participatory community that is Web 2.0. StumbleUpon, a participatory social networking site, enables and relies, as Warschauer and Grimes note, on the ‘user-generated tagging of content’ which aggregates into a folksonomy through ‘people [tagging] items online for their own later information retrieval purposes’ (Neal 2007, pp.7). Del.icio.us, a social bookmarking site, which I am also using in my web project, is another example of a website utilizing folksonomies, allowing user’s to store ‘“Favourites” or “Bookmarks” online, tag them and access them on any computer’ (Neal 2007, pp.7). Furthermore, del.icio.us enables the user to view the sites others in the network have tagged, how many have done so and the most popular or most recent tags (Neal 2007, pp.7), as well as allowing all users to ‘contribute their knowledge to the folksonomy’ and tags come to represent ‘the collective knowledge of the users’ (Neal 2007, pp.8).

An important aspect of my blogging process is also the new audience created by the digital environment and the way I write to that audience, as well as how the digital environment and mediation through computers ‘transforms various characteristics of the communication process’ (Moore 2009a, pp.14). The blog is a form of interpersonal communication that it is indirect, asynchronous and nonverbal and yet it creates a connection without presence, taking my monologue through ‘multiple layers of mediation’ (Moore 2009a). Furthermore, the monologue that is my blog, in its invitation to interactivity through user comments and reblogging, becomes a dialogue or even a multilogue in which users participate help shape its content through these ‘feedback and evaluation mechanisms’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.2). As well as being a monologue, my blog is also a broadcast and while I most likely unconsciously write to a specific audience, once published, it has no specific target and is available to anyone and everyone, at any time. This reflects the changed relationships to space and connection brought about by computer-mediated communication, in which my blog becomes a ‘distributed [form] of communication as opposed to [what operates] in face-to-face’ communication (Moore 2009a, pp.17).

ALittleBitOfNice (Peters 2009), also represents the particular nature of authorship in the blogosphere compared to other genres. The blog has a strong authorial voice, which, as Warchauer and Grimes suggest, is more easily achieved her than in print journalism because it ‘encourages an informal, idiosyncratic style and content’ (Waschauer & Grimes 2007, pp.8). This authorial function is further reinforced by ‘the inverted narrative structure of the archive, the consistent voice [and] the time stamp that positions posts in a reference to a temporality shared with readers’ (Chesher 2005). As most blogs have a one contributor, the narrative that emerges does so with a ‘consistent and identifiable voice’ and in terms of authorship, Chesher suggests blogs do transform it but the ‘reader’s capacity to give feedback through comments compensates for the conversational mode of writing’ (Chesher 2005).

This web project also uses several different social networks, including Twitter, Del.icio.us and StumbleUpon, which, as boyd and Ellison define them, are ‘web-based service[s] that allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system’ (boyd and Ellison 2007, pp.211). These sites also allow us to communicate to others the network of individuals with whom we connect and to ‘view and traverse’ other individual’s network of connections (boyd and Ellison 2007, p.211). ALittleBitOfNice (Peters 2009), does not follow the practice which boyd and Ellison suggest is the norm for most social network sites; I am not using these services to articulate and make visible my pre-existing social network (boyd and Ellison 2007 p.211) but rather I am trying to appeal to an audience and to a new set of connections with whom my project relates. The use of the system of blogging ties in with this as it attracts an audience that is anyone and everyone, thereby instigating connections within the social networking sites connected to my blog.

In the writing and construction of ALittleBitOfNice (Peters 2009), I find that my impression management (Moore 2009b, p.10) is not the same as when I contribute to my personal social network sites. When posting content on my personal social networking site, though I (and most other individuals posting) would like to think we do so honestly and without censoring, I do in fact think of the representation of self that my content portrays. This is because being a member of an online social network is like being in a panopticon (Moore 2009b, pp.10), where you are perpetually under surveillance by your network and every single piece of content posted is available to everyone in that network (Moore 2009c). Constant surveillance leads to self policing and careful consideration of content posted so that individuals can retain control over their representation of self and impression management online (Moore 2009c). However, in the construction of ALittleBitOfNice, I have found that I monitor my thoughts significantly less and I am more inclined to post content and express opinions that I may not in a personal network in which I maintain personal social connections. This reflects how the anonymity allowed by the Internet and particularly the blogging system enables new freedom in the expression of alternative personalities and opinion. Blogs in particular can be completely anonymous, which probably accounts for a great deal of their massive popularity as a form of authorship, allowing individuals the freedom to express whatever they want, in any manner they want. While books often rely on the name and reputation of an author to help define and authorise them, the author details of a blog, when revealed, are not a central feature used to legitimise it. Most blogs give emphasis to the username or the name of the blog rather than authorship, meaning that the content of blogs is generally very unlikely to be traced back to the author and effect their reputation and presentation of self.

References

boyd, d & Ellison, N 2007, ‘Social Networking Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship’, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, vol.13, no.1, pp.210-230.

Chesher, C 2005, ‘Blogs and the crisis of authorship’, Blogtalk Downunder, accessed 27/08/09, http://incsub.org/blogtalk/?page_id=40.

Herring, SC, Kouper, I, Paolillo, JC, Scheidt, LA, Tyworth, M, Welsch, P, Wright, E & Yu, N 2005, ‘Conversations in the Blogosphere: An analysis ‘from the bottom up.’ HICSS, vol.4, pp107b, Proceedings of the 38th Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences, (HICSS’05)-Track 4, 2005.

Moore, C 2009a, DIGC101 ‘The Web from 1.0 to you (2.0)’, lecture notes, accessed 26/08/2009, http://www.scribd.com/doc/18112095/DIGC101-Week-2-Slides

Moore, C 2009b, DIGC101 ‘Social Networks’, lecture notes, accessed 27/08/2009, http://www.scribd.com/doc/19091227/DIGC101-Week-5-Slides

Moore, C 2009c, Social Networks, lecture, DIGC101, New Media Communication, University of Wollongong, delivered 26 August.

Neal, D 2007, ‘Introduction: Folksonomies and Image Tagging: Seeing the Future?’, Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (Online), vol.34, no.1, pp.7-11.

Peters, S 2009, ALittleBitOfNice, Weblog, accessed 27/08/2009, http://alittlebitofnice.tumblr.com/

Waschauer, M & Grimes, D 2007, ‘Audience, Authorship, And Artifact: The Emergent Semiotics of Web 2.0’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol.27, pp.1-23.

Censorship will benefit Australian Internet users….


One of the most important factors of the censorship debate in Australia, and one which advocates such as the ACMA and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy repeatedly emphasis, is that it is about protecting children. Conroy recently announced mandatory internet filters with the aim of protecting children from online pornography and violent websites. While these suggestions may have caused outcry from the general public, it is important to understand that the sites that will be blocked are illegal to view in Australia already. Conroy states: “If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.” Furthermore, Senator Conroy says anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service. This means that while adults can access whatever content they like, children are much better protected.

Furthermore, the positive team, mentions that ISP filters will slow down the internet and blacklists could cause problems. However, Senator Conroy claims that “the Government will work with the industry to ensure the filters do not affect the speed of the internet.” Also, ACMA’s blacklist “only blocks sites that are illegal to be shown in Australia anyway”, according to Tech2U’s general manager, Andrew Robson, “if people actually took the time to look at the creation of the list, the fear would go away.”

Your Rights At….Facebook


Week 5 Blog Task: Research a current issue facing SNS, investigate and report on your rights as a SNS user.

YOUR RIGHT AT FACEBOOK (or lack thereof ???)

Firstly, Facebook states “you own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how we share your content through your privacy and application settings”  yet for content that is covered by intellectual property rights, “you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook”.

So actually, you own your content but not really-once its on Facebook it’s almost out of your control.

“When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).”

Meaning Facebook still have all your information even after you delete your account with them?

“We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them)”.

Interpretation: once you’ve said it, its ours and actually we said it.

Then comes a rather long list of things you WILL NOT DO, however all of these seem very reasonable and understandable and in the best interests of Facebook users. “We do our best to keep Facebook safe, but we cannot guarantee it. We need your help in order to do that”.

The Terms of Service document continues in this way, and it seems that most of the conditions set out by Facebook are reasonably fair.

It’s true they use content and information from you but they also provide a service free of charge.

Idea finalised…now for implementation!


Had a chat with Chris today and have got my head around how to go about my new idea.

Instead of simply sourcing music clips and unusual or inventive projects I’m going to centre my Web Project around an exploration of StumbleUpon. As I’m almost completely new to StumbleUpon I will be able to document the creation of a profile from the very start. The cool stuff (that should probably be in inverted commas!) I find can supplement my blog and still be a part of it but it will have an interesting base and be more cohesive. I can use blogs, sites, videos, images etc I find through StumbleUpon to help explain my experiences/problems/discoveries/tags, how I think it works, etc. I’d also like to explore groups and the StumbleUpon community and see how user interact and connect.

I’m going to use a Tumblr blog for the documentation of my discoveries and posting the “cool stuff” I find (now that I’ve figured out how to use the platform I figure I’d better to stick to what I know…technology implosion pending) and connect this to Twitter and StumbleUpon (hopefully) so that there is a central base around which all the aspects of my web project can sit.

Yay! I have an idea that I actually like. +)