<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;attention&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:36:18 PST</pubDate>
<title>The Problems Of Patent Trolls Continuing To Get Mainstream Attention</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121222/01200121474/problems-patent-trolls-continuing-to-get-mainstream-attention.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121222/01200121474/problems-patent-trolls-continuing-to-get-mainstream-attention.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's been a recent uptick in stories about patent trolling getting mainstream media attention, and the latest example is a recent segment on CBS's national morning program, <i>CBS This Morning</i>, which <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57560405/patent-trolls-how-some-say-theyre-hurting-u.s-economy" target="_blank">explored how patent trolls are hurting the US economy</a>, mainly by focusing on the story of Uniloc <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120923/23002120494/x-plane-developer-sued-patent-troll-ponders-shuttering-business-defending.shtml">suing</a> the maker of X-plane.
<center>
<embed src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#333333" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="si=254&#038;&contentValue=50137574&#038;shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57560405/patent-trolls-how-some-say-theyre-hurting-u.s-economy" />
</center>
When we last wrote about that lawsuit, X-plane developer Laminer Research wasn't sure if it was going to fight the lawsuit, but as you can see in the video above, Laminer's Austin Meyer has decided he's going to fight the case no matter what -- even if it costs him $1.5 million (way more than it would cost to settle).  Of course, this is how the trolls operate, by trying to make it cheaper to settle than to fight, but sometimes people have to take a stand and Meyer has decided to do exactly that.
<br /><br />
The overall piece is well done, and includes some excellent commentary from the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121219/17305721444/mark-cuban-funds-effs-new-mark-cuban-chair-to-eliminate-stupid-patents.shtml">newly appointed</a> Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents, Julie Samuels (though, the segment was apparently put together before she got that title, so she's merely described as the more mortal "EFF staff attorney" in the segment).
<br /><br />
Either way, the whole thing demonstrates in a nice capsule just how ridiculous patent trolling is and how prevalent it has become.  And, best of all, they really kept repeating the key point: this is hurting innovation in the US.  After the segment, done by Jeff Glor, one of the anchors specifically says to him: "So it sounds like this is really stifling innovation and it hurts small businesses!"  Yes, yes it is, but for years we've been told no one in the public cares.  However, as this issue gets more and more mainstream attention, people are going to realize that it cannot be allowed to continue.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121222/01200121474/problems-patent-trolls-continuing-to-get-mainstream-attention.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121222/01200121474/problems-patent-trolls-continuing-to-get-mainstream-attention.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121222/01200121474/problems-patent-trolls-continuing-to-get-mainstream-attention.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-news</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121222/01200121474</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 8 Mar 2012 07:51:23 PST</pubDate>
<title>Teaching Style, Not Computers, Appears To Be Biggest Factor In Classroom Distraction</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/04472217925/teaching-style-not-computers-appears-to-be-biggest-factor-classroom-distraction.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/04472217925/teaching-style-not-computers-appears-to-be-biggest-factor-classroom-distraction.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031014/115239.shtml">many years</a>, we've covered various stories of professors struggling with the idea of students having their laptops open in the classroom.  Our argument has always been that the computers themselves are neutral, and it's up to the professors to adapt and make sure their teaching strategies either do a good job incorporating the computers, or come up with ways to keep students' attention.  Some have argued that this is an impossible task.  A few years back, we even wrote about professors looking to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090210/0617533719.shtml">ban</a> computers in classrooms -- which <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080418/170854893.shtml">won't do much</a> to actually make boring professors any more interesting.  Meanwhile, other professors found that, with a little education, students could learn to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090317/1020304153.shtml">pay more attention</a>.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/#!/ericgoldman/statuses/174654460663054337" target="_blank">Eric Goldman</a> points us to an interesting discussion of a new empirical study that looked at <a href="http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2012/02/new-teaching-scholarship-before-you-ban-empirical-data-on-student-laptop-use.html" target="_blank">how law students used computers in the classroom</a>, and the data suggests that there clearly are teaching strategies that can overcome any issues.  It also found that, even with laptops, not every student was off surfing celebrity gossip sites while they were supposed to be learning about the law.  The study itself is by Kim Novak Morse.
<blockquote><i>
The results from the study reveal that indeed students are off task in class; however, it is not as extensive as we thought, nor is it the population of students we thought it was (of course, this depends on whether you are an optimist or pessimist). Second-year students were off task the most time, at 42% of the entire semester. First-years were off task approximately 35% of the time for the semester while third-years spent approximately 28% of their class time off task. Regarding how many individual students were ON-task at a given instant, roughly 82% of third-years, 69% of first years, and 50% of second-years were NOT misusing their laptops (chart 1).
</i></blockquote>
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/s6Wz9"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/s6Wz9.jpg" alt="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" /></a>
</center>
Another tidbit?  Students who had <i>higher LSAT scores</i> tended to be <i>more off-task</i>.  I would imagine there are a few possible interpretations of that factoid, including the idea that those who did well on the LSAT are able to grasp some of these topics more quickly (or picked them up elsewhere) and quickly move on to "other tasks," when a professor hits topics they're already familiar with or know they can teach themselves.
<br /><br />
There is a rather stunning result on the question of how being off task impacts grades:
<blockquote><i>
While the numbers indicate that students are off-task, my second research question sought to answer whether more off-task behavior might correlate to lower final course grade. Through statistical analysis, the results indicate that <b>there is no correlation between high off-task behavior and lower final course grade</b> (chart 4). Nor is there a correlation between low off-task behavior and higher final course grade. Such results support the idea that students learn outside of class as well as in class and, though they may miss ideas in class due to off-task behavior, they often learn or supplement it through readings, study groups, clinics, etc.
</i></blockquote>
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/Ei5Im"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/Ei5Im.jpg" alt="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" /></a>
</center>
Shorter version: sorry, professor, the relevance of your actual lecture to a student's ability to learn the material might not be that big.
<br /><br />
That said, the study also found that certain actions "promoted off-task behavior":
<ol><i>
<li>Student laptop users tend to go off-task when X-(anything) occurs for 4 minutes or more...</li>
<li>When professor is engaged in Socratic method with one student, there is a an increase in off-task behavior by other students</li>
<li>When a classmate engages with professor, there is an increase in off-task behavior by other students.</li>
<li>When professor is monotone, or, overly uses one linguistic intonation style, students tend to increase off-task behavior</li>
<li>Approximately 40 minutes into class, off-task behavior increases.</li>
<li>When professor calls on students in expected order, off-task behavior increases.</li>
</i></ol>
That shows what to avoid.  What about strategies to get people to pay attention?  The report has some answers there as well:
<blockquote><i>
<p>1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &#8220;Announcing-the-Good-Stuff&#8221; Strategy: Students redirect attention away from off-task behavior when professor provides big-point-summaries, rule formations, definitions, and conclusions.&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>&#8220;Ultimately, courts look at X...&#8221;;&nbsp; &#8220;The upshot is...&#8221;</strong></p>
<p>&nbsp;2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Using the &#8220;Rupture Strategy&#8221;: Students decrease off-task behavior when directed to an item in a book, chalkboard, digital presentation, in-class task, etc.</p>
<p><strong>&#8220;Look at page X...&#8221;;&nbsp;&nbsp; &#8220;On the chalkboard you see...&#8221;;&nbsp; </strong></p>
<p><strong>&#8220;On the screen, notice X...&#8221;, &#8220;Write a brief X...&#8221;</strong></p>
<p>3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &#8220;Changing-up-the-Voice&#8221; Strategy: Students redirect attention away from off-task behavior when the professor prefaces content with signal phrases like:</p>
<p><strong>&#8220;This would be a good exam question...&#8221;</strong></p>
<p><strong>&#8220; I want to flag for you...&#8221; , &#8220;The critical idea here is...&#8221;</strong></p>
<p>Or, by using linguistic mannerisms like intonation, especially rising intonation found in questions:</p>
<p><strong>&#8220;And, how would you know&nbsp;&nbsp; X&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ?&#8221;;&nbsp; &#8220;Because........?&#8221;</strong></p>
<p>4)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &#8220;Problem-Posing&#8221; Strategy:<strong> </strong>Students redirect attention when the professor asks a problem-solving question <em>to the class</em> (less so than targeting one student).</p>
<p><strong>&#8220;How might we determine X...?&#8221; </strong></p>
<p><strong>&#8220;If we alter X, what might Y?&#8221;</strong></p>
<p>5)&#8220;Keep-the-Show-Moving&#8221; Strategy:</p>
<p>Students redirect attention away from off-task behavior when the professor manages &#8220;the duration of any X&#8221; so it doesn&#8217;t exceed 4-5 minutes. For example, the professor&nbsp;&nbsp; 1) may present info (5 min or less) switch 2) ask a question to the class (5 min or less)&nbsp; switch 3) direct students to book (5 min or less) switch 4) ask an individual a question and have student respond (5 min or less). switch, etc.&nbsp; 6)&#8220;Moving-into-student&#8217;s-space&#8221; Strategy: Students redirect attention when professor moves toward off-task individuals (but surprisingly only for a short time).</p>
</i></blockquote>
I'm sure it's easy for professors to want to ban computers because they think it's a bad thing that students aren't paying attention to them.  However, this study suggests something different: that the students already know they can get a better grasp on the material elsewhere, or they're just not that interested in what's happening in the classroom.  The first point means that professors probably shouldn't worry so much about this issue.  The second, however is something where many professors might want to focus on improving...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/04472217925/teaching-style-not-computers-appears-to-be-biggest-factor-classroom-distraction.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/04472217925/teaching-style-not-computers-appears-to-be-biggest-factor-classroom-distraction.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/04472217925/teaching-style-not-computers-appears-to-be-biggest-factor-classroom-distraction.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>let's-go-to-the-data</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120301/04472217925</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Cooley Law School Sued Over Its Supposedly 'Misleading Employment Stats'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110813/00470615514/cooley-law-school-sued-over-its-supposedly-misleading-employment-stats.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110813/00470615514/cooley-law-school-sued-over-its-supposedly-misleading-employment-stats.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We recently wrote about how the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, whose sole actual claim to fame appears to be that it takes on more students than any other law school, was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/02404115428/how-to-make-mockery-your-own-law-school-sue-your-critics.shtml">suing some online critics</a>.  It had actually filed two lawsuits, one was against some online critics, and the other was against a law firm that had clearly been sniffing around some Cooley practices.  Well, now the other shoe has dropped and, as ShellMG points out, that same law firm <a href="http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20110810/NEWS01/308100037/Cooley-Law-School-sued-alleged-misleading-employment-statistics?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE" target="_blank">has sued Cooley in a class action lawsuit</a>, claiming that the school posts false claims about its postgraduate employment rates.  This is, clearly, what Cooley was trying to stave off with its original lawsuit, since in its lawsuit against the Kurzon Strauss law firm, it highlighted a message posted to a legal board asking students to come forward with information about Cooley's employment stats.  Of course, the fact that Cooley sued first (with, as many people pointed out, lawyers who graduated from <i>other schools</i>) kind of makes you wonder what the school is hiding.  That is, rather than wait to see if the law firm actually had anything, Cooley filed what could be described as a SLAPP suit, in that it appears it sought to stop the law firm from actually getting its message out to former students.  It certainly makes for an interesting defamation claim.  Can you accuse a class action law firm of defamation for reaching out to find people who had a bad experience?
<br /><br />
In the end, I still think that Cooley comes out of this looking terribly.  Suing critics never looks good.   And now its stats are likely to get a lot more scrutiny.  I'm curious how comfortable Cooley is with that...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110813/00470615514/cooley-law-school-sued-over-its-supposedly-misleading-employment-stats.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110813/00470615514/cooley-law-school-sued-over-its-supposedly-misleading-employment-stats.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110813/00470615514/cooley-law-school-sued-over-its-supposedly-misleading-employment-stats.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>so-that's-why-it-sued</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110813/00470615514</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Robots Mimicking Humans...</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110310/11243913429/dailydirt-robots-mimicking-humans.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110310/11243913429/dailydirt-robots-mimicking-humans.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Everyone universally hated 'Clippy' when it popped up and tried to be helpful.  So imagine the hate that could arise if a humanoid robot wondered around and tried to be helpful all the time.  Thankfully, the field of robotics is not quite up to letting such a machine loose on the general population, but plenty of researchers are working on how to improve human-bot relations.  C3PO has some early ancestors in a few of the following links.
<ul>
<li> <a title="http://www.theengineer.co.uk/sectors/electronics/news/robot-understands-when-it-has-gained-a-humans-attention/1007767.article" href="http://bit.ly/h4fm2D">Georgia Tech has a robot named Simon that knows when he has your attention -- with about 80% accuracy.</a> Maybe they should rename the bot to Simona and get about half of the population's attention. [<a href="http://www.theengineer.co.uk/sectors/electronics/news/robot-understands-when-it-has-gained-a-humans-attention/1007767.article">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZlLNVmaPbM" href="http://bit.ly/exKMpf">The Geminoid DK robot has been getting some attention...</a> for being really, really creepy-looking. [<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZlLNVmaPbM">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-human-cues-user-friendliness.html" href="http://bit.ly/eV9qFi">Binghamton University researchers are developing software for judging people's expressions -- anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, and surprise.</a> Not necessarily in that order.  [<a href="http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-human-cues-user-friendliness.html">url</a>]</li>
<li><b>To discover more interesting AI-related content, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:29" href="http://bit.ly/h0iGmR">check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:29">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110310/11243913429/dailydirt-robots-mimicking-humans.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110310/11243913429/dailydirt-robots-mimicking-humans.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110310/11243913429/dailydirt-robots-mimicking-humans.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110310/11243913429</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:30:05 PST</pubDate>
<title>Redskins Owner Sues Local Paper Over Satirical Listing Of Grievances... Making Sure More People Read It</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/01253512962/redskins-owner-sues-local-paper-over-satirical-listing-grievances-making-sure-more-people-read-it.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/01253512962/redskins-owner-sues-local-paper-over-satirical-listing-grievances-making-sure-more-people-read-it.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked about the ridiculous management of the Washington Redskins a few times before.  This is the football team that took the extraordinary step of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0042326099.shtml">suing a bunch of fans</a> who, due to the economic crisis, were unable to pay for season tickets they had ordered.  While most other teams simply take back the tickets and find other buyers, the Redskins sued over 100 such fans (probably ex-fans now).  The team has also been extremely aggressive in terms of what it requires of reporters, including trying to claim that posting photos of disgruntled fans <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/0110566471.shtml">was prohibited</a> and creating "media guidelines" that seriously <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100925/12004911166/washington-redskins-trying-to-silence-beat-reporters-on-social-media.shtml">stifle</a> what reporters can talk about, if they want to continue to be given any access to the team.
<br /><br />
The latest situation is even more extreme.  The team's owner, Dan Snyder, appears to be the subject of much displeasure among Redskins fans.  There are lots of fans of lots of sports teams who dislike the ownership.  However, I don't think I've ever heard the level of dislike towards an owner like the publicly expressed feelings many fans have towards Dan Snyder.  The local Washington City Paper has, of course, played up on this general dislike of Snyder, and back in November published an amusing <a href="http://mirror.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/40063/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder.html" target="_blank">Cranky Redskins Fan's Guide to Dan Snyder</a>, which includes an A to Z listing of "offenses."  You see this kind of column all the time about various sports owners.  And most ignore it.
<br /><br />
But not Dan Snyder.
<br /><br />
He had his lawyers send a threat letter not to Washington City Paper, but to Atalaya Capital Management, the investment firm that owns Creative Loafing, which is the company that publishes Washington City Paper.  Got that?  Atalaya pointed out that they have nothing to do with the management of the paper -- and especially have nothing to do with the content of the paper, but even so, sent back a wonderful letter explaining the basics of the First Amendment to Snyder, especially with regards to public figures.  The full letter is embedded below (and worth the read), but a few choice snippets:
<blockquote><i>
The purpose of this letter is not to correct each of your misstatements and mischaracterizations but rather to assert the media's First Amendment right to comment on public figures (which your client undeniably is) and matters of public interest (into which your client voluntarily injected himself through his prominent ownership of the Washington Redskins).
<br /><br />
The Column plainly is a tongue-in-cheek opinion piece expressing fans' frustration with your client's ownership of the Redskins.  This is quintessential First Amendment-protected speech.  Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that "one of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures.  Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks."
</i></blockquote>
The letter also highlights that Atalaya had been informed by the paper that it was more than happy to allow Mr. Snyder the ability to respond in the pages of its publication.
<br /><br />
Snyder, apparently, decided not to pay much heed to this letter, as he <a href="http://mirror.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2011/02/02/snyder-sues.html" target="_blank">proceeded with the lawsuit</a> (full suit embedded below), in which he makes a number of claims.  Now, there certainly were some statements that were made in the original article that, if untrue, could be defamatory.  However, some of the claims were just downright crazy.  The most ridiculous, of course, is his decision to claim that the illustration that accompanied the original article (shown below) was somehow anti-semitic.
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/zMl6i.png" />
</center>
Yeah, that's a photo of Dan Snyder with a scribbling of devil horns and facial hair.  I'm not sure how a childish scribbling to make someone look like the devil is anti-semitic.  And that's because it's not.  At all.  And Snyder is being <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/02/oh-cut-the-crap-simon-wiesenthal-center/70735/" target="_blank">widely mocked</a> for thinking otherwise.
<br /><br />
Of course, the even bigger issue is that in bringing this lawsuit, you can bet that a hell of a lot more people have now seen the original article totally trashing Dan Snyder.  If his goal was to suppress this content, then he's failed badly (yet again).  On top of that, a lot more folks now think that Snyder has an incredibly thin skin.  I would also imagine that Snyder will not enjoy any actual legal fight, in which the various assertions about him in that original column are dragged into court and examined for accuracy.  Even if there are libelous statements in there, is Snyder really interested in going through a courtroom analysis of each of the claims in the column?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/01253512962/redskins-owner-sues-local-paper-over-satirical-listing-grievances-making-sure-more-people-read-it.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/01253512962/redskins-owner-sues-local-paper-over-satirical-listing-grievances-making-sure-more-people-read-it.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/01253512962/redskins-owner-sues-local-paper-over-satirical-listing-grievances-making-sure-more-people-read-it.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hello-ms.-streisand</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110204/01253512962</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 Jan 2011 22:10:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Are Tweets And Text Messaging Actually Increasing The Appeal Of Long Form Writing?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101228/15570512436/are-tweets-text-messaging-actually-increasing-appeal-long-form-writing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101228/15570512436/are-tweets-text-messaging-actually-increasing-appeal-long-form-writing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ To hear Nick Carr explain the internet these days, you'd think that it was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080610/0146101362.shtml">killing off interest</a> in long form reading.  Of course, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100607/0224269710.shtml">that's not actually true</a>.  Carr made a classic error in the thesis for his last book, not realizing that a large segment of the population used to do <i>no</i> long form reading at all -- and the fact that many of them are now reading something is actually showing increased readership, rather than decreased.
<br /><br />
Clive Thompson has now stepped into this debate (not directly naming Carr, but it certainly sounds like he's referencing him), suggesting that all this tweeting and texting has actually <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/st_thompson_short_long/" target="_blank">increased an appreciation for long form writing</a>, though potentially decreased interest in <i>middle form</i> writing.  His argument is anecdotal, so I'd really like to see some more data on it, but it does match at least some of what I've found.  The crux of his argument is that people who just have a little bit to write now use things like Twitter to pass that along, rather than writing a short blog post, which are all almost always longer than your typical tweet.  But, they do save up the "big ideas" and write much longer posts.  And he notes that many bloggers have found that those longer, more in-depth posts, seem to get more attention.
<br /><br />
To some extent, we've seen the same thing.  While we still do have shorter "mid-form" posts, the posts on Techdirt are now a hell of a lot longer than they used to be a few years back, and the longer ones do seem to get more attention.  For years, I ridiculously tried to keep to a rule that all Techdirt posts should fit within one paragraph.  The idea was to keep them short and focused, but at times, when explaining deeper concepts, this got silly and made for exceptionally cramped blog posts (hello, wall of text).  At some point I realized that was pointless, and switched to a style that went to what was appropriate.   And it was about that time that Techdirt's traffic shot up and we actually started building a decent following.  I can't say that there's direct cause-and-effect, but at least my experience seems to mesh with what Thompson suggests.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101228/15570512436/are-tweets-text-messaging-actually-increasing-appeal-long-form-writing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101228/15570512436/are-tweets-text-messaging-actually-increasing-appeal-long-form-writing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101228/15570512436/are-tweets-text-messaging-actually-increasing-appeal-long-form-writing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>entirely-possible</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101228/15570512436</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 19:39:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Forget Information Overload: What If The Real Problem Is Information Underload</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101109/22185211787/forget-information-overload-what-if-the-real-problem-is-information-underload.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101109/22185211787/forget-information-overload-what-if-the-real-problem-is-information-underload.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years, I've definitely been a believer in the idea that there's information overload today.  After all, there are so many new sources of information out there that <i>of course</i> one of the problems many people believe they face is that they simply can't keep up.  However, I may need to seriously rethink that concept after reading this article, <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/cshirky/statuses/28923306573" target="_blank">pointed out by Clay Shirky</a> and written by Mike O'Malley, which suggests we've got the problem backwards.  The issue today <a href="http://theaporetic.com/?p=228" target="_blank">isn't information <b>overload</b>, but information <b>underload</b></a>.  Here's the basic example, arguing that people in the past had to know a hell of a lot more than we do today:
<blockquote><i>
<center>
<img src="http://imgur.com/vjqQX.jpg" />
</center>
Here's an image of pastoral life, taken early in the twentieth century in North Dakota. Rustic simplicity, except that the farmer in charge has labor management problems--who are these workers, how is he compensating them? He has to manage the horses--how is their health? Do they need feeding and watering? He's got to get the harvested wheat stored properly: he's checking the weather <b>all the time</b>--just imagine how much information is involved, in an age before reliable forecasts, in guessing the weather! He's scanning the crop itself, to see how much he lost to insects or disease. He's got a good idea of crop prices in Chicago and whether they're trending up or down. The scene was information-dense, and if you click on the image, you can see how the original title frames the scene.
<br /><br />
The modern farmer climbs into the air conditioned cab of a combine harvester, and turns on the radio. The radio fills the attention spaces left by, say, reading the weather signs or managing the workers or the animals.
</i></blockquote>
Now, I would imagine that many modern farmers would take issue with some aspect of this simplification.  There is still plenty of information that the modern farmer needs to be aware of, but it is a different level and a different type of information.  But, to a certain extent, that is O'Malley's point.  The "information overload" we face today is of a very different nature than the information overload of the past, and that is that today's information overload is often filling areas that are less about necessities:
<blockquote><i>
So what appears to us as "too much information" could just be the freedom from necessity. I don't have to worry about finding and cutting and storing fire­wood: I don't even have to manage a coal furnace.  That attention has been freed up for other things. What we see as "too much information" is probably something more like "a surplus of free attention."
<br /><br />
As a historian, I no longer have to spend hours scanning texts to find the smaller sets of information I need. They pop up quickly when I deal with digitized texts, and the search process is streamlined and automated much in the way a gas burner streamlines and automates a wood stove.
</i></blockquote>
In the end, he suggests that our attention is pretty much constant, and if it's not engaged in one thing (e.g., trying to predict the weather), it'll get engaged in something else (e.g., reading up on some blog rant).  It's just the nature of the way that we work -- but it's not an indication that we're actually dealing with information overload.  I'm not sure I totally agree, but it is a different way of looking at the questions surrounding how we deal with the amount of information presented to us at any given time.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101109/22185211787/forget-information-overload-what-if-the-real-problem-is-information-underload.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101109/22185211787/forget-information-overload-what-if-the-real-problem-is-information-underload.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101109/22185211787/forget-information-overload-what-if-the-real-problem-is-information-underload.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>shift-your-perspective</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101109/22185211787</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:30:40 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Movie Debuts In Theater And On The Pirate Bay (On Purpose)</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100917/17191211064/movie-debuts-in-theater-and-on-the-pirate-bay-on-purpose.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100917/17191211064/movie-debuts-in-theater-and-on-the-pirate-bay-on-purpose.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Often, when we talk about films that creators choose to share via BitTorrent, one of the snarky comments we'll get is that they only did this because they couldn't get the film into a theater.  So it's interesting to see that the filmmakers behind the new Swedish film <i>Die Beauty</i> have decided to <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/filmmaker-premieres-movie-in-theaters-and-on-the-pirate-bay-100917/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29" target="_blank">release the film in theaters <i>and</i> on The Pirate Bay</a> at the same time.
<br /><br />
Most interesting of all may be the statement of the filmmaker, about the power of using BitTorrent and The Pirate Bay to reach a wider audience -- and how all the works of filmmakers in the past who never got the attention they deserved can now have a new life:
<blockquote><i>
"Sometimes I think about all the filmmakers and musicians who passed away. Those who never got to be a part of the world wide web. No matter how hard they worked or no matter how much money they put into distribution, they couldnt reach more than a small part ofthe world.<br />
<br />
Now their work have the opportunity to get new life. The possibility to be rediscovered by a new generation. A new world. To reject that,to prevent that from happening, is a sin. I think Charlie Chaplin would have one thing to say to all those people who do: Idiots.<br />
<br />
Die Beauty is my first feature and releasing the film here is an obvious thing to do. And the fact that The Pirate Bay decided to give the film a world wide premiere on the frontpage makes me speechless. It's a privilege to be able to introduce the film to the greatest audience in the world."
</i></blockquote>
Nice to see more filmmakers embracing what's possible, rather than <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/23061910980.shtml">hating</a> what's possible.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100917/17191211064/movie-debuts-in-theater-and-on-the-pirate-bay-on-purpose.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100917/17191211064/movie-debuts-in-theater-and-on-the-pirate-bay-on-purpose.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100917/17191211064/movie-debuts-in-theater-and-on-the-pirate-bay-on-purpose.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>with-a-nice-message</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100917/17191211064</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Even If You Know About The Gorilla, You Might Not Catch The Unexpected</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/03225710210.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/03225710210.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's a very famous perception experiment, which many of you have probably seen.  If you haven't, you should watch it here before reading on:
<center>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vJG698U2Mvo&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vJG698U2Mvo&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
</center>
I will admit that the first time I saw it (at a conference), I totally missed the gorilla.  Totally.  Of course, once you've seen it or know about it, it's hard not to see it.  And, by this point, so many people have seen it, that the overall video test has lost much of its power.  So the folks behind it decided to see what would happen if they knew you were looking for the gorilla, and came up with the following:
<center>
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IGQmdoK_ZfY&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IGQmdoK_ZfY&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
</center>
Basically, they assumed that people were now looking for the gorilla, and got people to more or less focus on that, and miss the "new" changes.  Once again, I have to admit I totally missed the changes.  As the researchers are pointing out, this suggests that <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0713/Invisible-Gorilla-test-returns-showing-that-we-re-still-not-paying-attention" target="_blank">even if you're "expecting the unexpected," it's often difficult to notice it</a> actually happening.  As the researchers behind the videos note, many of the folks out there who use their original video to teach people to "expect the unexpected" are missing the point:
<blockquote><i>
"A lot of people seem to take the message of our original gorilla study to be that people don't pay enough attention to what is happening around them, and that by paying more attention and 'expecting the unexpected,' we will be able to notice anything important," he added. "The new experiment shows that even when people know that they are doing a task in which an unexpected thing might happen, that doesn't suddenly help them notice other unexpected things."
</i></blockquote>
The guys behind the videos have done some other unique experiments as well, which you can find on <a href="http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/videos.html" target="_blank">their website</a>.  The other one I really like is this experiment involving a guy asking a pedestrian for directions, where the guy asking for directions is secretly "switched" with someone else in the middle, and 50% of people don't even notice:
<center>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FWSxSQsspiQ&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FWSxSQsspiQ&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/03225710210.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/03225710210.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/03225710210.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>did-you-see-it?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100714/03225710210</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:30:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Chamber Of Commerce Sues Yes Men; Someone Just Gave Protestors A Lot More Attention</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1640336682.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1640336682.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While we weren't sure that the EFF was correct in suggesting the Yes Men's fake U.S. Chamber of Commerce website was a parody, we did think that it was rather short-sighted of the CoC to try to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/1837596646.shtml">takedown</a> the site, since it would only serve to give the Yes Men and their anti-CoC campaign more attention.  Apparently, the folks at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce still haven't quite figured this out.  They've now gone a step further and are <a href="http://www.uschamber.org/press/releases/2009/october/091026_complaint.htm" target="_blank">suing the Yes Men</a> for trademark infringement.  Again, the trademark claim is probably stronger than the original copyright claim, but this is a really dumb move.  All the Yes Men want is <i>more attention</i> in their campaign against the CoC's stance on climate change, and you know what gets them a lot of attention?  Getting sued.  Of course, given how <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091001/0410036386.shtml">backwards</a> the Chamber's views on intellectual property are, perhaps it's no surprise that they wouldn't realize how such a plan would backfire.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1640336682.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1640336682.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1640336682.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>a-lot-of-happy-yes-men</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091026/1640336682</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 9 Jul 2009 07:11:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>LeBron James Discovering What Happens When You Try To Suppress Something</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090709/0043495491.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090709/0043495491.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Every time you think people understand that trying to suppress some kind of information only draws <i>more attention</i> to it, it happens again.  The latest, as pointed out by <a href="http://twitter.com/timoreilly/statuses/2544552608" target="_new">Tim O'Reilly</a> is that basketball star LeBron James <a href="http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/LeBron-gets-dunked-on-by-Xavier-player-confisca?urn=ncaab,175293" target="_new">had videos confiscated</a> after he was dunked on by a college sophomore -- and because of that it's now being written up on various news sites and blogs.  If he'd just let the video go out it may have amused a few people but no one would have thought any less of James, one of the best players ever to play the game.  Instead, even more people are finding out about it and makes James look really insecure and controlling.  In fact, the Rivals.com points out that because the video can't be seen, people will just <i>assume</i> it makes James look as bad as possible:
<blockquote><i>
The Crawford dunk would have been a temporary embarrassment for LeBron. Let's say the video was put on YouTube. It blows up for a bit, dominates blogs for 36 hours, everyone has a good chuckle and then it's forgotten about.
<br /><br />
But by censoring the tape, LeBron turns the dunk into a legend. On video, it's just a dunk. Without video, the jam can reach mythic proportions. Because nobody can see it, the story of the dunk will grow in stature with each telling. Today, it was a simple two-handed slam. In a few days, it will be a 360-degree windmill. By the time Crawford makes his Xavier debut in October, he will have jumped off LeBron's shoulders, flipped in the air, slammed the ball home with his left pinkie and then handed LeBron $3.99 for his dry cleaning. 
</i></blockquote>
One day, perhaps, people will learn...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090709/0043495491.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090709/0043495491.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090709/0043495491.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>calling-attention...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090709/0043495491</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 Jul 2009 15:30:15 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Cheap Trick: More Afraid Of Being Ignored Than Ripped Off</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/0245355467.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/0245355467.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week on the <i>Colbert Report</i>, Stephen Colbert did a gag about the new <i>Cheap Trick</i> album coming out on 8-track.  I assumed it was just a joke, but apparently it's real.  The band, as a little marketing gimmick <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/cheap-trick-brings-back-the-8-track/article1205531/" target="_new">is actually releasing the album as an 8-track</a> (for you kids out there, the 8-track was a briefly popular form of cassette music, though it lived on at radio stations for years after it disappeared from public use).  But, much more interesting is a quote at the end of the article about plans to offer the digital tracks at a steep discount from the typical iTunes price:
<blockquote><i>
"We're kind of more worried about being ignored than being ripped off."
</i></blockquote>
Indeed.  This is just another way of saying that "obscurity is a bigger fear than piracy."  And while such things are usually applied to new, up-and-coming artists, it's nice to see that more well known artists recognize the same formula applies to them, as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/0245355467.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/0245355467.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/0245355467.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>indeed</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090707/0245355467</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:48:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>In Defense Of Mobile E-Mail 'Addiction'</title>
<dc:creator>Derek Kerton</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090612/1501285215.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090612/1501285215.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There is an interesting Reuters article about how former NY state Democratic Majority Leader Malcolm Smith had a meeting scheduled with billionaire Tom Golisano, a major political fund contributor. (Eschewing the issue of how political contributions are accepted without question, as paid access to our elected officials,) the article describes <a href="http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090611/tc_nm/us_workplace_etiquette_1">how Mr. Smith spent enough time on his Blackberry to offend Golisano</a>. The billionaire has clout, and subsequently engineered the ouster of Smith. The article's true focus, then, is how dangerous it is for people to use their mobile email devices during meetings, during social engagements, in the car with family, etc. It points out how rude it can be, and also point out how it can actually be <em>less efficient</em>, because a person's attention is split. 
<br /><br />
That is all true, but whenever one of these opinion pieces comes out, it ignores the other case: that oftentimes at meetings, our attention simply isn't necessary or productive. In any given multi-person meeting, for what % of the time is each person's participation and attention truly productive? Is every topic related to you? Could a quick check of email be more productive? I would argue that optimal participation is usually less than 100%. Same goes for conferences: Sometimes the conference agenda will include a speaker that is just not very relevant to your individual interests. Yes, you could learn something by listening, but perhaps you could be more productive by responding to your clients, staff, or boss on your mobile device. I've met a few people who take offense at every sighting of a Blackberry, but that's usually attached to a big ego that takes offense too easily. <em>Not every word you say is golden, or even directed at me</em>. In a one on one meeting, obviously one should be focused on the person in front, and one should not feign listening while actually reading. But in multi-party meetings, there are good opportunities to mentally duck out. A blanket Blackberry backlash isn't well-reasoned. As in most debates, a balance needs to be struck.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090612/1501285215.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090612/1501285215.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090612/1501285215.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>Best-Use-Of-Your-Time</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090612/1501285215</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 1 Oct 2008 16:58:01 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Focus On Attention First, And The Money Will Follow</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080929/0251592402.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080929/0251592402.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Kevin Kelly's latest post tackles a pretty common subject around here, about how <a href="http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/09/where_attention.php" target="_new">the most important thing in a business model is getting attention</a>, and from there, the money will follow.  It's a response to those who insist that everything needs to be paid for up front.  The problem is that that doesn't work when no one understands why they should give you any money.  In some ways, it's just another way of saying the phrase that obscurity is a much bigger threat than piracy.  As with most of Kelly's writings, it's a worthwhile read.  I'm hopeful that he'll take this further and start to note how <i>attention</i> is very much a part of the economic equation as well, because attention is a very important scarce good.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080929/0251592402.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080929/0251592402.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080929/0251592402.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>indeed</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080929/0251592402</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:39:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Are Blog Comments Like A Laser Pointer To A Cat?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080312/184920520.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080312/184920520.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Despite writing Techdirt for over a decade at this point, I still can't predict very well which stories will actually get a lot of comments and which won't (also, by the way, more comments often does not correlate to more page views, though I haven't quite figured out why).  However, certain stories have a cascade effect, where they suddenly start getting a ton of comments, and the conversation goes on for quite a while.  Take <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/003240458.shtml">this story</a> from last week, which racked up over 200 comments.   There's an interesting column by Lee Gomes in the Wall Street Journal suggesting that <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120527756506928579.html?mod=technology_main_promo_left" target="_new">blog comments on thought-provoking posts are sort of like a laser pointer to a cat</a>.  That may sound marginally insulting, but the idea is that for many types of people, our brains are simply hard wired to not be able to turn away from conversations like those held in the comments sometimes.  I'm not sure that the cat:laser pointer analogy fully holds, but it does seem like some people just can't turn away from a comment debate (and, yes, I'm guilty of this).  Personally, while sometimes those debates get frustrating (and repetitive) they also help keep me sharp -- rethinking, reformulating and revising my arguments to make sure they really make sense.
<br /><br />
However, it is rather interesting to think about this from an evolutionary standpoint.  As Gomes notes, "new" pieces of information that get you to think about things differently didn't always come along very often.  So people's minds became somewhat hardwired to pay attention and think through the ideas more thoroughly.  However, now, with information "abundant" it's much more difficult for people to actually turn away.  While I tend to think that the term "addiction" <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071119/003003.shtml">shouldn't apply</a> to things like the internet, this actually gives a reasonable explanation for why some people may feel compelled to keep digging for information beyond the point where it's no longer healthy.  As Gomes suggests in the end, in many ways (beyond being similar to the cat and the laser pointer), it's similar to the obesity epidemic, where our bodies are trained to eat as much as possible now on the assumption that there may not be food later.  But in an age where there's abundant food, that causes problems -- and combining that with abundant information that causes people to sit immobile in front of their computer screens for hours on end probably isn't helping.  So, for any contribution we've made to information obesity, I apologize.  But I'm not putting away the laser pointer any time soon...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080312/184920520.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080312/184920520.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080312/184920520.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>join-in-the-fun</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080312/184920520</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>