racoma.netInside the mind of J. Angelo Racoma

Since we both started working from home, my wife and I developed a habit of watching movies on TV or DVD during evenings when we didn’t have much workload. Lately, every Thursday evening, we enjoy catching the latest episode of Harper’s Island, which is a grisly suspense series not for the squeamish. The premise is that at least one character is violently killed in every episode. And the killer is only revealed at or near the end of the series.

What a fun way to spend an evening–waiting and wondering who will die. Actually, part of the fun is that the actors are supposedly unaware of when their character will be killed off until the day the episode is taped. It only runs for one season, though–13 episodes. Sadly, the series itself has been killed off (what an appropriate use of words) because of plummeting ratings. The only consolation is that networks are not cutting it off without closure. Most networks will continue to air the series until the last episode.

The show seemed to have been overhyped. But as hype goes, it dies down pretty quickly, too. Or murdered violently, perhaps, as in the case of Harper’s Island. My take is that this kind of TV show has a very limited niche audience–probably made up of people with really twisted minds. After all, who’d want to watch people die?

This has made me think of blogs and blogging. Will a blog survive without an audience? Will a blogger remain passionate about writing even without a readership?

When I first started blogging back in 2003-2004, it was for personal satisfaction. I wrote with myself as my own audience. I kind of marveled at how I could easily publish content online. Of course, I’d been able to author websites since the late 1990s, but blogging made it all easier. Then I began to be the blogging equivalent of a stat whore, meaning I was growing obsessed with gaining visitors and page views and comment counts. And while my viewership did, indeed, grow, so did my thirst for more. I wanted to gain traction. I wanted online popularity. I wanted to be someone.

The problem with this kind of mindset is that one’s writing tends to favor only what the audience wants. You tend to turn back on your artistic goals in favor of the commercial ones. It’s like comparing a passionately-produced, masterfully-created indie film to a no-holds-barred, swashbuckling, multimillion-dollar, CGI-infested summer blockbuster. Sure, blockbusters can be artfully-created, too. But most of the time, art takes a backseat to box-office draw.

And at this point, I could perhaps say I’ve reached the pinnacle, and I’m now going back to my roots.

Unlike broadcast media, which relies on ratings, eyeballs and sponsors, a blog will survive with simply a niche audience. Blogs are inexpensive to maintain. The only important resource you have to invest in writing a good blog would be your time and effort. Unless you want to earn big bucks from CPC ads, affiliate products and text links, that is. But if your reason for blogging is writing in itself, and to achieve that self-assurance that you can write and you can self-publish, then you can get a total audience of just one reader, and you would still be happy.

And in some cases, that one reader would even have to be you.

Image credit: flickr/dreadfuldan

The hot news recently about Twitter is how “uncomfortable” it is becoming with third parties using the word “tweet” in their user interfaces. TechCrunch cites a snippet of a email conversation between Twitter and a third-party developer, and how Twitter is trying to protect its intellectual property.

Twitter, Inc is uncomfortable with the use of the word Tweet (our trademark) and the similarity in your UI and our own. How can we go about having you change your UI to better differentiate your offering from our own?

You might recall how this had likewise been a concern by Google, Inc., when it enforced its trademark by trying to prevent people from using the term as a verb meaning “to search.” Or perhaps you would also recall how WordPress is likewise trying to protect its trademark by asking people not to use “wordpress” in their domains or business names.

However, “Google” and “WordPress” are not common words. They are brands coined by the services’ respective creators. In the case of “tweet,” one’s first impression might be of astonishment at how a common word such as Tweet would be trademarked by a company. Note that Twitter, Inc., has applied for a trademark with the USPTO last April 19, 2009.

This is not uncommon, though. Take for instance the trademarks held by Apple, Inc. for several common words in the English language, like Leopard, Panther, Tiger, Cocoa, Sand, Shuffle, and even Apple, itself. I’m not a lawyer, but in the course of my working in the IT industry, I’ve encountered trademark and patent applications, and I do realize that a trademark does not only constitute the name, but rather also the appearance of the name or logo, down to the very specific colors (i.e., Pantone number), shapes, and the like.

A trademark or trade mark, identified by the symbols ™ (not yet registered) and ® (registered), is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities. -Wikipedia

I believe the context here is that Twitter, Inc. is trying to ask third party developers to cease from using the word Tweet in conjunction with making their user interface or appearance similar to that of Twitter’s. This, after all, might be confusing. Users of the third party services might confuse the service to be internal to Twitter. And whatever faults they might find in it could be attributed to Twitter, and dilute the image of Twitter, Inc.’s brand. Likewise, the third parties could be unduly profiting from appearing like Twitter, and using the trademarked Tweet word in the context of an application with a UI similar to twitter.com.

And so, per se, Twitter, Inc. might not necessarily be doing bad with enforcing their trademark. They explain it, in brief, in a recent blog post.

We have applied to trademark Tweet because it is clearly attached to Twitter from a brand perspective but we have no intention of “going after” the wonderful applications and services that use the word in their name when associated with Twitter. In fact, we encourage the use of the word Tweet. However, if we come across a confusing or damaging project, the recourse to act responsibly to protect both users and our brand is important.

But there are other implications.

The bigger question here is how this enforcing of their Tweet trademark would affect their image. Twitter has grown in popularity, user-base and authority from its humble beginnings. Much like Google, Twitter has grown to become today’s It application, the poster-boy of social media, the go-to site for all things cool.

Has Twitter’s head grown bloated from all this popularity? Would it have thought of enforcing its trademark if it were still just a small startup with only a couple of thousand users?

Come to think of it, using the word “tweet” in the context of sending messages, short status updates, links and even grassroots news reporting, Twitter stands a chance of becoming ingrained in popular culture as yet another IT company that has earned its own dictionary word (like Google), or at least added to the definition of an existing one. Say “tweet” and you don’t think of birds chirping. Say “tweet” and you think of posting a message or status update 140 characters or less.

I don’t think Twitter intended this piece of information to leak out into the public. It’s supposedly private communication between the folks from Twitter and those from the developers’ side. And so perhaps there’s no aggressive enforcement of their Tweet trademark in public. It looks like they’re just asking nicely. But of course, public perception is, well, in the public eye. And TechCrunch’s making a big fuss out of it (in the usual TechCrunch fashion) has brought this issue to light. And in this regard, Twitter has to make the most of it, and be the good guys we think them to be.

Image credit: flickr/tamerkoseli

New media has changed the way we consume and spread information. Social media mavens might want you to believe that blogs, tweets and social networks are all it takes to spread news. And fast. That sort of takes traditional media out of the picture. It’s dying after all, right? Or is it?

I learned of Michael Jackson’s death via email. Not by Twitter, not by blogs, but by email. One of the first things I do when I wake up in the morning is get online. And when I get online, I usually check emails first, Tweets next, then blogs. Afterwards, I might get my fill of news from NYTimes, Inquirer.net or other online newspaper sites. Might.

And I learned of his death from an email by a financial news website I’m subscribed to. Financial news, of all things!

And so social media has been instrumental in spreading the word about the demise of the King of Pop. In a Loose Wire column by Jeremey Wagstaff, he maps out the flow of information during this eventful day. He also asks the important question: where did you hear of MJ’s death?

It’s not easy for traditional media to cover any type of story these days, what with so many amateurs, semi-amateurs, so-called pro-ams (professional amateurs), in the game.

But all that tells me is that the game probably needs to be changed.

Traditional media are used to confirming things before they run them.

But what happens in a world where information travels so quickly, through so many different channels?

It no longer makes sense to say nothing until you can say something.

Mr. Wagstaff points out how new media channels beat traditional media by about an hour in reporting this news. Of course, newspaper and other broadcast media need to verify information from reliable sources before running stories. And that is all right. That is their responsibility. And that’s how social media and traditional media complement each other–new media breaks it, traditional media confirms it.

In cases of news like this breaking fast like wildfire, people tend to jump the gun, and spread the word without thinking about the repercussions. Just yesterday, Twitter was abuzz with the supposed “death” of Rick Astley. Someone posted the “news” on user-contributed iReport and the word was spread on Twitter. Fast. And probably because iReport looks like a real online version of a traditional newspaper, people believed the report.

We’ve been Rickrolled all over again. And it’s not even April 1st.

What are the roles of the different media?

And so, folks, we’ve defined the roles of the different mediums, and let me reiterate. Social media like blogs and microblogging services aid in grassroots reporting. People are on the scene, and they take photos. They publish blog posts. They tweet. And the word spreads. At this point, traditional media folks would already be doing their rounds of fact-checking, getting in touch with contacts on the scene, drafting the articles, and passing it through the usual editorial channels.

But then, as the Loose Wire column did, let me highlight the role of Twitter here. While Google is the first place you would go to search for relevant information, Twitter would probably be the best place to go if you want fresh information. Google, after all, does have a lag in crawling websites for content.

Google News buckled under the pressure, firstly from all the attention and then latterly because the results from its own little automatic bots which go out and index news pages didn’t show up on Google News until 2246—an hour and a half after TMZ.com’s story saying Jackson was dead.

Meanwhile, on Twitter, if people are posting about it, it’s searchable. Right there and then. You don’t know if the information is valid. But the fact that it’s being talked about–and probably trending, too–means it’s currently hot and fresh!

But what is the lesson here?

The lesson here is simple. We, users of social media, are reminded to be responsible with how we consume and share information. If you read an interesting news tidbit online (e.g., “Rick Astley Dies”), don’t be too quick in retweeting or reposting it. Reposting without checking your facts is like incessantly forwarding those chain or joke emails. It’s tacky. And you might end up making a fool out of yourself, especially if Rick Astley suddenly makes an appearance, alive and well. Never gonna give you up!

A simple cross-checking wouldn’t hurt. And perhaps you can more carefully word your posts or tweets. Stating something as a fact is surely different from stating something as a claim, conditional on being verified first.

Still, there is no denying that the information landscape is fast changing. And we are all participants, whether we like it or not.

And that, folks, is how news breaks.

Image credit: flickr/jk5854

Recently, I’ve seen an upsurge in followership of my Twitter account. I used to just ignore these email notifications, except for those cases where I personally know the new follower (at least by name) or if the name or username seems interesting enough.

However, lately, I’ve also been checking the basic stats of those who have started following me–their friend count, follower count, and tweets. While these are rudimentary statistics, they give me an overview of the person’s tweeting habits.

For instance, if you’re following significantly more people than the number of followers you have, you’re probably not that interactive (and it’s likely that you’re only using Twitter for marketing or perhaps research). If your follower list is significantly larger than your friend list, then you’re probably a celebrity. If you have hundreds of friends, but only a couple of tweets, then you’re probably just getting the hang of tweeting.

Then I try to visit the new follower’s profile. I check his/her bio, and the latest tweets on the timeline. If the account looks like that of a real person, then great. I will likely follow. But if the account is most likely used for marketing or even spam, then sorry. (I do follow a few accounts used for updates on services, software or even corporate news, though.)

Twitter makes it freakishly simple to add a person to your friend list. Just hit the follow button, and you’re all set to go. But I think you shouldn’t stop here if you really want to connect. Most other social networking sites–and even instant messaging services–add another step, and that is adding a message to the person you want to add, saying something about yourself and why you are adding him/her. Makes sense, doesn’t it? If you know someone to be your classmate in high school, a former colleague, or a childhood friend, you would have no qualms about adding that person to your friend list.

If a total stranger starts following you, the first thing you would probably feel is flattery. But then you tend to wonder–are you being followed by a real person, or a bot, or someone who wants to spam you? Isn’t it better if a person messages you the reason he’s following you?

Message your friends when you follow them.

So here’s what I propose. When you follow someone, send him a message telling him a bit about yourself and why you’re following him/her–in 140 characters or less, of course. It’s nice. It helps you connect. And it gives you better chances of the connection being reciprocated.

Note: At this point, I realize you can’t DM people not following you, so I’ve edited the post to mean sending the person a @message instead of DM.

If you know someone already, you can probably say:

Hi, I’m Angelo. We used to be classmates back in kindergarten. Nice seeing you here.

Or if you’re following a stranger or someone you only know online:

Hi. I’m an avid reader of your blog and articles. Great to read your updates on Twitter, too!

And perhaps if you’re following a celeb:

I’m a big fan! Can I stalk you on Twitter?

I think I’ll start trying this on my next follow.

Image credit: Flickr

The New York Times has run a story on David Rohde, a journalist who was kidnapped by the Taliban in Afghanistan. From November of 2008 to June this year, the NY Times had scrambled to keep information of his kidnapping from being publicized, for fear that the kidnappers would use this to their advantage, and potentially endangering the life of Mr. Rohde.

Times executives believed that publicity would raise Mr. Rohde’s value to his captors as a bargaining chip and reduce his chance of survival. Persuading another publication or a broadcaster not to report the kidnapping usually meant just a phone call from one editor to another, said Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times.

But Wikipedia, which operates under the philosophy that anyone can be an editor, and that all information should be public, is a vastly different world.

The article stressed how difficult it was for Wikipedia’s staff to keep Mr. Rohde’s Wikipedia profile sanitized, due to persistence by several editors (in the case of Wikipedia, virtually anyone who knows how to edit an article on the site) in including information of his kidnapping. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, himself, intervened in this activity.

While I understand that the intent of the editors in adding the kidnap information to the Wikipedia profile is in keeping information freely available to everyone, I think people should consider the implications of such freedom of information if lives would be at stake.

So in this case, it’s either you keep the world informed or you keep one person alive. Sure, posting about a kidnapping on Wikipedia might not necessarily mean the death of the victim. But are you willing to risk it?

I don’t understand the persistence of the Wikipedia editors who kept trying to insert this piece of information into Mr. Rodhe’s profile. While they probably had no ill will, they may not also have realized that their actions could potentially lead to trouble–even death–on the part of the kidnapped journalist. Perhaps if the Wikipedia administrators could have explained why such information would be sensitive, the would-be-editors would have relented. But they claim they had no way of raising this point without creating a big public issue out of it.

If you ask me, I’d choose life over freedom of expression or information. Then, perhaps, when the person concerned is no longer in danger, that’s the time one can freely write about the situation. When you refer to David Rohde’s Wikipedia profile today, it already includes information on his kidnapping and escape.

This makes me realize–I should think and rethink before hitting that “publish” button on a blog post, tweet or just about any piece of online communication, private or public. Before you hit “send,” think about the effects and implications of what you are sending.

Image credit: Flickr

You’ve probably read it one time or another. They say print media has finally met its demise.

That movement is leading to a lot less revenue for printed media due to fewer sales in general and secondarily through loss of advertising because of the lower sales. It’s a pretty vicious cycle to be caught in, especially since the cost of publication doesn’t really scale down as the sales do, so they are spending the same (or more in some cases) and making a lot less. Sooner or later something is bound to snap, and that’s what we are seeing now.

I’m a digital type of person. My handwriting is so bad that I prefer to type notes rather than write them down. I lose both paper and .txt files all the same, anyway. And i don’t keep a pen-and-paper calendar. Paper organizers don’t have alarms, after all. I use my smartphone for that purpose. I read my news online. A lot of books I’ve read lately are e-books, either downloaded free or bought from Mobipocket.

But give me a glossy newsmagazine, and I’ll be in awe at the presentation of each article. I’d read it from cover to cover (usually starting from the back, because that’s where the fun stuff is). And even years after, I’ll still go back to old stuff I’ve read before.

Same with books. Yes, I’ve enjoyed reading ebooks, but there’s something about a hardbound or paperback that gives one a better reading experience. Perhaps it’s the tactile and olfactory aspects of it. Sure, paper can smell moldy and mildewy, and might breed dust mites if left uncared for. But that rough texture and the sometimes dusty scent can evoke memories. That’s something digital media cannot give you.

No. Print media is not dead. Perhaps print media as a business is a declining trade. It’s a sunset industry. But print media as tangible objects will always hold a special place in my heart, and perhaps in the heart of many other folks out there. It’s not dead, because it’s something we keep alive.

Read a book today. Better yet, touch a book. Smell a book. Feel a book. (Maybe you can throw a book at someone, too.) Talk to it. Hear it talk back to you. Yes, you’re probably crazy, it will tell you. That’s how you know it is still alive.

Image credit: Flickr

If you’re anyone like me, you’re probably dyslexic, obsessive-compulsive and have a mild case of attention deficit disorder (without the hyperactivity). And so I’ve often relied on handheld gadgets to help track down tasks, schedules, short notes and whatnot. But I often lose track of these anyway. Somehow, PDAs and big-ish smartphones are not really ideal because I tend to leave these on the desk or in the bag somewhere. Paper-based notebooks are easily lost, not to mention my handwriting is really bad.

The best tool I’ve had so far are my mobile phone. And right now, I think my main phone, a Nokia E51 is very much an ideal device. I’ve configured it to do pretty much anything I can get my main work computer to do, such as access my various email inboxes (through Gmail mobile), browse the web, and Twitter (through Gravity). It also wakes me up every morning with an alarm (if I do wake up from the alarm at all), and it keeps track of my tasks and schedules.

But still a lot of times I lose track of tasks and schedules. I guess it’s really a matter of discipline and focus. No amount of gadgetry can help me keep my life organized if I’m always distracted by a lot of things. I’ve therefore arrived at a conclusion that the best productivity gadget would be of no use if you don’t actually pay much attention to it. Or at the very least, usefulness is subjective. A smartphone could be a great get-things-done tool for me. But other people might prefer pocket-sized notebooks. Yet other people have their internal clocks wired to tell them what to do at any given time without any external sensory inputs. Talk about an internal clock!

For now, My Nokia E51 serves as my main PDA. I get my email, web access, multimedia, and even YouTube access (with Google’s recent release of udpated apps for the Symbian Series 60 platform). Not only is it a PDA, it’s also a great big time-waster, with YouTube video access and Gravity for Twitter (which can be addicting, but of course is still part of my work and business).

Still, sometimes I forget to do things on the todo list. Sometimes the list gets so long that I tend to ignore it altogether. It’s like that bad habit of thinking something will just disappear if you don’t think about it too much. Tasks, unfortunately, don’t just disappear into thin air. You have to do them.

And so, I’m still on the hunt for that great productivity gadget. Pretty soon I might have to take meds that help me focus more so I won’t have to ignore my way into disappearing tasks (is it the blue pill or the red pill?). Or maybe when someone graciously gives me a free iPhone, I could use that as a productivity gadget.

Image credit: flickr/pigpogm

A lot of people have been calling me “J” if just for the initial that stands for my first name. A few folks know what exactly it stands for (it’s part of public record, you know), but a most do not, or don’t care. If you’re wondering what’s behind the name “J. Angelo,” then read on.

Back when I was in preschool, I had a hard time writing my complete name. I had a habit of using a ruler as a guide, and it took me minutes just to finish writing my name.

Jxxxxx Angelo B. Racoma

And so my mother told me I could just initialize the first name instead of writing it whole.

J. Angelo B. Racoma

At some point, I think about 4th grade, I even dropped the middle initial.

J. Angelo Racoma

By about 7th grade, I thought having an initial was uncool, and for simplicity’s sake, I dropped the “J.” altogether. That’s why most of my schoolworks since then didn’t have this feature.

Angelo Racoma

Throughout high school, I mostly used just “Angelo Racoma,” and most works during that time bear this name, including exam papers, submissions in the school’s literary and news magazines, and the like.

But then Internet services started becoming popular (that was the late 1990’s). And I found it increasingly difficult to just get “angelo” as a sign in name. And so I added “j” which made it “jangelo” and decided to include the initial “J.” since I was already using it anyway.

J. Angelo Racoma

I realized it was a good move, since it’s my legal name, after all. Even if it were initialized, it still represents Jxxxxx. And so most of the time, you’d see me signing “J. Angelo Racoma” on emails and letters. I’d even include the middle initial on legal documents, for completeness’ sake: “J. Angelo B. Racoma.”

But people still call me “Angelo” and not “J.” except for a few folks who know me as “J. Angelo” and probably think it’s simpler to call me by my initial. But I do have a cousin whose nickname is Jay, and I think calling me “Jay Racoma” would definitely be confusing.

So I’m sticking with Angelo.

And that, folks, is the history behind “J. Angelo.”

Does your name have a history?

Some discussions I’ve chanced by ask whether it’s better to launch many niche sites, or just launch one or two flagship sites, and build up smaller sites around them?

Either way, I think it would take much effort and money to launch a lot of sites–at least if they’re launched at the same time. But at least with this setup, the more successful sites can take the slack of the non-performing ones. If you only have one site, then if it fails, you’ve invested 100% in a project that will not give you any RoI.

So perhaps one can build up one or a few sites that have good potential, and run a few smaller ones around it. Sound sensible?

I’m trying to find out!

I haven’t much time to write these days. And racoma.com.ph seems to be a busy site anyway, so I thought of relaunching this domain as my personal blog on all sorts of stuff. I will keep racoma.com.ph as my archives page, and will still be posting relevant articles there–about technology and how it affects us.

So watch this space. There’s more to come.

Of course, if you’re looking for more content, you can check out racoma.com.ph, where i keep my four years’ worth of personal blog posts.