33
   

Has everyone moved over to Facebook?

 
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 12:10 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Well, I'll hunt for the article this afternoon. I wouldn't have been creeped out by just having it somehow newly planned for the fb member to add their own photos.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 12:34 pm
I have both accounts and this has never happened. They are two totally different companies. If you want to link the photo's you can do so.
The issue was facebook owning your info/photos, which it doesn't and whether or not you wanted your photos linked to google. Which you can choose to do or not.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 01:13 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

I don't have the article saved - because I lost saved articles in my recent computer crash - but my memory is that if you have a Flickr account, or that of other online sites, let's say with your real name, and have a FB account under that name, they will pick up your photos from Flickr and deposit them in your FB acct. Don't trust me since I read about this new plan of theirs about three weeks ago and haven't tried to verify it. If my understanding of what I read is true, I find that infuriating..

I 'd be infuriated.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 01:20 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Ossobuco is probably referring to this feature on Facebook:
Quote:
Facebook can’t stop people from posting your picture. But there’s a Facebook setting that prevents other users from finding photos tagged with your name. Choose that setting, and other users won’t be able to search for photos of you...If one of your friends on Facebook has already tagged you in a photo, look beneath it for the label “In this photo.” Your own name will have an extra link next to it, “remove tag.” Click it. The tag with your name goes away. Even better, no one else will be able to tag you in that shot again.

http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/how-to-block-facebook-photos-of-yourself/?scp=2&sq=facebook%20copyright%20picture&st=cse

Even the NYT "expert" got confused with that one, and had to post a correction, at the same link:
Quote:
Correction: As several readers pointed out, I misunderstood Facebook’s response to my question. There is no way to prevent someone from tagging a photo with either your username, or your name as a tag. What’s possible is you can prevent other users from searching for photos of you.
mushypancakes
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 04:32 pm
@martybarker,
Hi Marty!

Personally, I haven't been around here much BUT not because I moved to Facebook and also not because of having an issue with the not-so-new-anymore-A2K.
It was simply a good excuse (the change over) for me to spend a bit less time on my computer; which was something I had been intending to do for a while there.

Anyways, good to know you are living the life and all is well with you.

Whatever is going on here, or will come to pass - - A2K to me has been a great place and there are so many wonderful people, I'll be popping in and out until either the site or myself dies. Wink It's rare to meet folks online that you don't forget but carry with you in every day life. That's what a lot of the people here are to me.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 06:28 pm
What's 'facebook'?
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 06:32 pm
@Merry Andrew,
is that sarcasm? Lack of competency with Google? What?
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 06:33 pm
@High Seas,
Nope, or at least I don't think so... but a fair guess, High Seas.

Time for me to look for the article.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 06:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

is that sarcasm? Lack of competency with Google? What?


<clap clap clap>

Congratulations. You really can recognize sarcasm from time to time.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 06:36 pm
@Ceili,
I know it hasn't happened, it was an announced plan - whether or not I can find that citation.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 07:20 pm
@ossobuco,
I'm not sure if this is the article, but it's at least similar; I know the one I saw talked about FriendFeed as an aggregator)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/15/AR2009081500040.html?hpid=moreheadlines

So, calling it a plan may have been rash. Let's say a capability.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 08:06 pm
@ossobuco,
It's still about user control.

Quote:
Once you initially tell it where to look, it will collect everything and tell it to the world.


If you don't want photos you've put on flickr (not necessarily photos of you) in the feed, you wouldn't link it in.

Quote:
The goal is to make automatic that which is all too annoying to do manually. If I like an article enough to Digg it, why should I then have to tell all my friends via Facebook or Twitter, as well? The social-media landscape has become disparate enough -- so many start-ups controlling so many different pieces of our lives -- that we need a central place that will organize all of our actions for us. That place is FriendFeed.


again, you would choose what connections to make.

Quote:
So here's a theory: FriendFeed is going to become the companion to Facebook Connect; Facebook Connect pipes Facebook out to other sites, while FriendFeed's technology pipes other sites in.

How do I deduce this? It's reasonable to assume that Facebook won't somehow combine FriendFeed's user database with Facebook's. It's likely all FriendFeeders are Facebookers, and the two networks aren't set up to be compatible. And unlike much of the tech press, I don't believe this acquisition is about real-time search or a competition with Twitter.

Instead, I think this is about social aggregation. Facebook bought FriendFeed so it could become the Huffington Post of your social life.


Quote:
To understand the allure of this kind of aggregator, one only has to look to successful news aggregators. Take the devilishly popular Huffington Post, for example. For better or worse, the site's mash-up of news from disparate sources has struck a cord among its 7 million monthly visitors. Its home page is a mix of links to blog posts from Huffington Post contributors and links to outside stories from the news media. Rather than hunt and peck through all these other sites, people go to the Huffington Post to be delivered a smattering of links. Aggregators work because they do all the hard work for you.


I actually find this bit quite interesting, as one of the things I missed most about Abuzz was that it had an easy to access list of all the links you'd ever posted. Facebook has a similar link system, but I don't tend to have "conversations/discussions" at FB. I'd still love to be able to see all the links I'd ever posted at A2K in one spot. My preference would be not to use an aggregator, but I can see that's what I will end up doing.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 09:10 pm
@ehBeth,
That makes sense, but whatever article I saw didn't address user control - I'm allllllmost positive - which is why I was concerned. I would assume it wouldn't fly for long without at least some user control.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 09:17 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
I'd still love to be able to see all the links I'd ever posted at A2K in one spot.


... like right now. I know I've linked to Patchwork Nation at the Christian Science Monitor at A2k before, but where where where

Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 09:23 pm
@ehBeth,
You might want to consider using either delicious.com from Yahoo, or Google web history (or Google Desktop). I've used each (right now I use delicious) to store my links that I want to remember. With Google Desktop you get a search engine of everything you visit.

But what you describe is similar to something I have planned for a2k, it wouldn't work on every link posted in threads, but would be a new topic type aimed at sharing links, that would come with a search engine for the links you've shared.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 09:28 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I'll give delicious another crack. Maybe I wasn't ready for it the first time I tried it - or didn't realize how I could make it work the way I wanted. I'm definitely ready now.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 09:33 pm
@ehBeth,
I find it works best if you install a plugin (you can also use a javascript bookmarklet) into your browser, so that you can bookmark right from your browser. Here are the official options: http://delicious.com/help/tools

That's how I use it, I install the plugin on each browser I use, and then it just replaces browser bookmarks for me. I don't use any of the social features of delicious (e.g. their popular links etc) it's just a cross-computer bookmark library for me.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How to use the new able2know - Discussion by Craven de Kere
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
I'm the developer - Discussion by Nick Ashley
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
A2K censors tags? - Discussion by hingehead
New A2K Bugs - Discussion by sozobe
New A2K annoyances - Discussion by sozobe
The a2k world is changing 3: about voting - Discussion by Craven de Kere
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Welcome to the 'New' My Posts - Discussion by Nick Ashley
The "I get folksonomy" club - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 04:46:17