Two things come out at me from this article, about Google moving towards a hyperlocal ad revenue stream
1) Before, I would have said this was a major invasion of privacy, using the phones GPS unit, or triangulating the location using the cell towers, to send out local ads to Google results. But really, this is useful for a lot of people. While many searches done today are not necessarily location-dependent, those who are searching on the go, on their mobile devices, probably care about the distance to what they are searching for. From personal experience, I know that when I Google something on the go, it’s because I’m curious as to its location. However, this doesn’t necessarily have to be on google.com – I usually do this in the Maps application, which is supposed to be able to access the GPS unit and NOT necessarily store my searches and connect it to my google screenname. hmm, sounds like I’m being suspicious, but I’m not! i think it’s great to allow for local searching. Trust me. I’ll all for it.
2) Googles comment about how they envision the majority of their revenue coming from mobile searches. Interesting comment – I wonder how they quantify this. Do they have a projection setup predicting the number of mobile users in the future compared to desktop users? I supposed they’ve seen more traffic coming in from mobile versions of popular browsers – how do they account for users of the Google mobile app? When I did a brief research project on user perceptions of mobile device usage, I found that people were still using Google SMS to do their searches for them. I’m not too familiar with this, but I imagine Google doesn’t get much, if any, revenue for this…do they sell your number to get revenue?
Anyway…I, for one, look forward to our Overlord Google dominating us. I say this while I Google news articles in Google Chrome…
Source: Google Brings Hyperlocal Ads to Mobile Search
Sometimes, I really regret giving up on being a programmer/engineer. I started UCLA as a Computer Science and Engineering major, but dropped out after a semester to transition to Math, then eventualy to a double major in Math and Sociology.
Along the way, I ended up taking some basic programming classes – I did fairly well in C++ and studied MatLab in a few of my math classes. But in the end, I don’t have the programming background to really get a computer type job. It’s only know that I’m four years out of college that I’m realizing how useful a programming background could be, especially with the types of things I enjoy doing.
I want to get involved more in interactive design, user interfaces, etc. I’m trying to learn Ruby on Rails and PHP.
It’s just really time consuming, to do those things along with everything else I’m doing with my life.
It’s terrible to think that there is a whole generation of kids who are excited and willing to join the military to fly the latest plane or man the newest drone – but they can’t program them to save their lives. It feels like a consequence of the digital age – though we are surrounded by new technology, we are not really aware of the inner workings of it. We take things for face value.
Source: Why Johnny Can’t Program: A New Medium Requires A New Literacy
So I’m currently trying to get through this book that I found at Barnes and Noble: The Construction of Social Reality. It’s kinda too deep for me, and it makes me feel like I’m back at UCLA studying for my sociology classes, but I like it.
It’s been a while since I’ve been challenged on a different level by a book. Most of my reading for SJSU SLIS has been technical reading – learning how to do things not learning about how things work (especially in a sociological sense). I’m only about 10 pages in, but it’s already really good and has forced me to reread everything twice to make sure I understand everything.
Here’s an example:
With consciousness comes intentionality, the capacity of the mind to represent objects and states of affairs in the world other than itself.
-John Searle, The Construction of Social Reality
In this case, intentionality is not about cause/effect, but rather aboutness – so an object or thought has intentionality when can be about something or create something…I think? See? It’s confusing…and it’s only the tenth page!
I have a feeling I’ll be reading this book very, very, VERY slowly….
One thing that I’ve been meaning to do has been to do stuff. I’m in this rut where I just don’t feel like doing anything cool.
I haven’t knitted anything in forever. I haven’t finished any of my art projects. I haven’t been studying Processing.
Looks like I’m not only in this rut. According to a new study, less people are creating content. Less new content, more eyeballs looking at the same content. This is definitely a bad thing in terms of Internet culture – with the same users creating content, this can fork one of two ways: we might end up with creators constantly reinventing themselves to come up with new and exciting ideas, or we might end up with creators rehashing the same, stale ideas constantly.
I’d like to hope that new creators show up – maybe teens or young adults just discovering their voice, encouraged by what they see on the Internet, transitioning from a Spectator to a Creator. Older people can contribute as well – they offer a different perspective on the Internet and Internet culture as whole. I especially would like to see those on the cusp to partake in creation – those users who were born in the 80s and know what it’s like to not use a computer to do their homework, but also have lived through the digital revolution. The Digital Half-Natives.
Source:Social Networking Users are Creating Less Content