I’d find it hard to be a journalist today.

Journalism is a fantastic career. I’ve got a BA in Journalism and played around in a role with the Rural Press for a wee while. Good journalists are inquisitive and energetic, and can be cynical and circumspect (which helps). Quite often, they’re eloquent writers who are passionate about communicating.

In other words, they like to be heard.

The reason I’d find it hard to be a journo, today? I don’t know if I could juggle the tug of social media with the demands of my media managers.

The world is changing for journalists.

In the traditional world of journalism, you get a story, write it up, submit to your editor, and if it’s good enough it’s published or broadcast. There’s a variety of means to distribute the news, and above all you always want to beat the competition.

But now we’ve got Twitter, right? It’s an instant broadcast medium. I’ve written on this blog before, that I’ve often received my newsbreaks on Twitter. Heck, people are taking it into their own hands now: this week Malcolm Turnbull announced his resignation on Twitter and Jim Carrey announced his divorce (not from Turnbull, but from Jenny McCarthey).

How do journalists feel about that?

Pretty darn frustrated and conflicted, is my guess.

How does it feel to sit on a ‘scoop’ while your story is edited, prepared for print or broadcast? You could easily share the news instantly on Twitter. But you have an obligation to your company, right? You need to follow their content model. Even if you have an online presence – say, an AdelaideNow – your story still takes more time to write up and post than a 140 character tweet.

This is just one of many issues facing journalism today – other vexing issues include paid/unpaid content, copyright, relevance and interactivity – all too complex for me to go into today! I don’t know what the answer is, but it seems to me that journalists need more forbearance and nouse than ever before.

What do you do, when you meet a ‘tweet’ pal for the first time In Real Life?

It’s a question that I wrestle with, because I regularly meet people face-to-face after first making a connection with them through Twitter. They’re not blind dates, but they’re pretty close in terms of how awkward you can feel.

In my experience, tweet-ups have been fantastic and I’ve not been disappointed with anyone yet (it’s true!) However I’ve come to recognise a few ‘dance steps’ and wonder if you have, too:

• Nervously wait at assigned meeting point
• Crane your neck, keep look-out for person who will resemble the thumbnail you’ve been communicating with for past weeks/months/years
• See someone vaguely resembling the thumbnail
• Wonder if it’s them
• Realise it IS them
• Wonder if it’s too late to pretend you’re not there
• Awkwardly start moving toward each other
• Think to yourself: do we shake hands? Hug? Cry and hold onto each other like reunited siblings?
• Go for an awkward hand shake
• Settle into warm and relaxed conversation

It’s the physical contact that I find most problematic. @Problogger recounted a story at the recent #cnow social media conference, about a follower who rushed toward him, embraced him fully, and cried onto his neck! She had been following him online for so long, she felt such a strong connection, that she was moved to make physical contact with someone who would ordinarily be a stranger.

I have been tweeting @Jadecraven for quite some time, she’s a fantastic Twitter pal. We met at #cnow for the first time and – knowing we live in separate cities and may not come face to face ever again – I rubbed her arm as we laughed and sighed with relief at finding each other. Later, we hugged goodbye, but when we first met IRL it still felt too forward to hug. (Though I reckon we should have, Jade!)

In many cases, your Twitter pals are your emotional crutches. They listen to you when you vent. They provide helpful information when you tweet a question. They LOL at your mishaps. They endorse your TGIFs. When other friends, or family, are absent or asleep or disinterested, there’s always a tweep available to fill the void.

So it makes sense that they’re pals IRL, right?

Or does it?

Photo by @idrewthis , with @markgamtcheff @missbiancab and @ashsimmonds at a #socadl tweetup.

On election day in South Australia, I take a last-minute look at what political candidates have been doing on Twitter.

This is a follow up to my ‘Politicians and Twitter’ blog a few weeks ago ...

Premier Mike Rann hasn’t tweeted for past two days. Too much to do, to tweet? I would’ve thought using your own direct broadcast channel and conversing with the electorate was more important now, than it ever was. Would have loved to see tweets from the Premier sharing insights like:

• What’s it like, the night before the election?
• How does he feel, going into the polling booth?
• Is he glad election day has finally come?
• What’s his message to the electorate today?
• What party does he have planned tonight? What happens if he loses?

The Premier’s Twitter account did contain a few Twitpics recently – not terribly insightful – and he also attempted to start a #premiermikerann hashtag that didn’t turn out to be too popular.

Opposition Leader and Premier-hopeful Isobel Redmond hasn’t tweeted for the past three days, and the last tweet seems to be clarifying a policy. In fact, her last few tweets are attempting to clear up what’s she’s called “incorrect” media reports. Not a good look to leave on your Twitter page. Why not some positive announcements and tweet interaction with your voters, going into election day?

On the plus side, Ms Redmond did respond to some tweet queries from others, and used the #saelection hashtag – fantastic way to be part of the community stream on the topic. (I’d love to see her team load a branded Twitter background for her, though. You’ve got to use every opportunity to brand yourself, people!)

Michael Wright continues to be largely a conduit for the Premier’s tweets (why bother – I guess he’s playing it safe?); Mark Parnell hadn’t tweeted for the past four days.

Jamie Briggs has been tweeting regularly throughout the election period, including today, commenting on a “great feeling”. He’s had a consistent tweet theme : “rann's time is up and redmond is ready” .. did you notice?

Best examples include Kat Nicholson for Gamers4Croydon regularly tweets, replies, uses hashtags and posts twitpics. And Dr Jane Lomax-Smith continues to communicate to a high standard, today sending out a few tweets about what she’s doing on election morning and feeling “buoyed by level of support today” .

What I’d like to see happen on Day 1 of the new government:
The communications team sits down and starts to work out how to best use social media to engage with the people who put them there.

What have you seen happening on Twitter during the #SAelection?

I was staring at my PC screen recently.

Staring at an owl wearing a hard hat. Hootsuite was down for maintenance and it was darn annoying.

It brought home the fact that I rely on Hootsuite a great deal to manage multiple social media accounts. Many of us do it now – we’re using Hootsuite, Tweetdeck, Seesmic, Facebook, YouTube, FlickR, YouTube, Blogger – for business.

When our telephone line goes down, we call our phone provider. If the electricity fizzles out, we call the building manager. If the newspaper doesn’t get delivered to the office on time, we can call the newsagent and ask what’s going on. They’re all being paid by us. They’ve got service agreements with us. And there are consequences to those services being unavailable.

But when happens when our free online tools fall over?

Not much.

Services like Hootsuite, quite rightly, do not promise they’ll always be there for you. In its terms, owner Invoke Media states in part:

“Your use of the Service is at your sole risk. The service is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis ... Invoke Media does not warrant that (i) the service will meet your specific requirements, (ii) the service will be uninterrupted, timely, secure, or error-free, (iii) the results that may be obtained from the use of the service will be accurate or reliable, (iv) the quality of any products, services, information, or other material purchased or obtained by you through the service will meet your expectations ...” http://hootsuite.com/terms

But it’s no fickle matter if these services are unavailable. Increasingly, we’re relying on free social platforms as main communication channels. We’ve all read about major companies like Pepsi, Coca Cola, Ford and Holden devoting more resources to sites like Facebook, rather than official sites. When these online tools are gone, it’s an interruption to our services.

Imagine a world where social media is ‘taken away’ (hideous, isn’t it?) The Social Media God decides the experiment is over, and we all need to go back and play on our standard dotcoms.

Boom! In an instant, you’ve lost your thousands of Fans – their names, locations, likes and dislikes. You’ve lost all the comments you’ve been gathering, all the interaction you’ve built up. You’ve lost photos and videos. Not to mention search engine listings.

That’s why it’s important to back up that information. How many of us do that? When was the last time you archived a social media account? (I’m making a mental note ...)

What better time to take a look at state politicians’ tweets than now - at the official beginning of the South Australian election period?

It’s fantastic that some pollies have delved into social media, using platforms like Twitter. This means they get it – right?

Er ... maybe not.

Taking a cursory look at some SA politicians tweets, it appears they use Twitter as a broadcasting platform rather than as an opportunity for conversation. They broadcast messages about themselves and only seldom do they publicly reply to followers, or retweet others.

Now, I’m not sure whether the pollies are only direct replying (DM) to their constituents. So I can’t categorically say they’re using one-way communication on Twitter. But to the general public, that’s how it appears.

This means most SA politicians haven’t really grasped what Twitter is about – that it’s a conversation. It’s not an opportunity for them to spout their views / tell us where they are / have a go at the opposition and then log off.

Let’s look at a few examples:
http://twitter.com/premiermikerann
There’s very little two-way interaction from South Australia’s current Premier. His Twitter account is full of paragraphs about what he’s doing, but you have to trawl thoroughly to see a single Reply to anyone else.

If you use search.twitter.com and look for @premiermikerann you will see that others are tweeting the Premier, asking him questions and sharing their opinion. Does he respond directly and privately? Or not at all? Who knows?

http://twitter.com/isobelredmond
The would-be Premier and Leader of the SA Liberal Party appears to be relatively new to Twitter. Similarly to Mike Rann, there is little interaction and conversation with followers on her Twitter account. And again, if you go to search.twitter.com it’s easy to see that people are asking her questions and trying to interact.

The following MPs have scant public interaction with followers on Twitter (at least over past few days .. I have not done an exhaustive search over the week):

http://twitter.com/MichaelWrightMP
Few replies – he does retweet the Premier quite often.

http://twitter.com/MarkParnellMLC
I had to travel past 23 tweets before I saw a reply – and that was to a Senator.

http://twitter.com/DavidWinderlich
At least he’s trying to start a hashtag - #davidteam . This MP interacts at least within every 10 tweets, but doesn’t always appear to be David tweeting, as it’s been written in the third person, ie

"... thanks mate, check out David's website at www.davidwinderlich.com thanks for your support #DavidTeam"

Michael Pengilly has protected his tweets. http://twitter.com/MichaelPengilly What’s up with that? Is he following only? Why use Twitter if you don’t want to chat with others in a public forum? (ps Michael, change your colour design! Ouch).

And now we come to the exception to the rule – Dr Jane Lomax Smith, tourism and education minister, who’s been using Twitter for quite some time. http://twitter.com/DrJaneLS

Dr Lomax-Smith often responds and interacts with followers, shares more personal information, (such as what she’s looking forward to for dinner tonight), funny anecdotes and blunders and shows personality:

“ Can't stand reading tweets from fitness fanatics about rides runs and swims while bothered by calf injury and sulking around house”.

Of course, she also talks politics and spruiks what her government is doing. But she gets points for replying to followers and being real. Dr Lomax-Smith needs to grab her colleagues and run a Twitter workshop.

What have you noticed from SA pollies on Twitter? I’m especially interested to know if they’re direct-replying rather than publicly replying.

If they are DM-ing, why? If they have something to say to a constituent, surely they want to share that information with all of us?

Note: since publishing this blog, I've received numerous tweets to say Premier Mike Rann used to interact and reply to followers, but this appears to have dropped off during recent weeks. [23 Feb 2010.]

On the back of all commentary about “the internet killing mainstream media ...”

.. consider how Twitter encourages live TV viewing.

Have you ever sat back in front of the tele, relaxing in your favourite armchair, with your mobile phone open to Twitter?

If you answered Yes, you’re not the only one.

I’m increasingly enjoying watching live TV with a gang of friends – on Twitter.

While some people may have been doing this for some time, it only recently kicked in for me during My Kitchen Rules, the Channel 7 ‘reality’ series pitting passionate cooking couples against each other. I’ve been enjoying tweeting comments about the show and sharing views with others. We tweet about what the Kitchen couples are like, how the food looks, and how hot the celebrity chefs are. All brought together under a hash tag (one of the superior evolutions of Twitter).

On any given night of the week, you’ll find similar hash tag debates bringing Australian lounge rooms together: #spicksandspecks #cougartown #lost and much more. Longer show titles get a shortened version, such as #mkr for My Kitchen Rules or #sytycd (So You Think You Can Dance).

So, what are TV stations doing to capitalise on this?

I must admit I was surprised to see Daryl Somers gloating about Hey Hey It’s Saturday being a trending topic on Twitter some months ago, when Hey Hey had a comeback special. Still not sure he knows what Twitter is ... but besides this, have you seen many TV corporation references to Twitter?

Free to air television is finding its environment increasingly competitive, with audiences being pulled toward downloading content, DVDs, and viewing on demand without commercials in general.

Now, its strength just may be in encouraging audiences to watch alongside pals online as the show airs in real time, enjoying the show in an interactive forum they’ve never been able to experience before.

Last night, I tweeted about My Kitchen Rules for the entire program. And you know what’s really interesting for TV channels – and their advertisers? I tweeted about the commercials during the show. So did my tweet pals. We critiqued the commercials, the advocates featured in them, the creative used and how we felt about them.

There’s some real audience connection, market research and advocacy going on.
Let me know if you’ve seen TV stations encouraging social media take up anywhere.

Interesting articles:

Live TV's Alive as Ever, Boosted by Social Media

TV and Social Media Engagement

This is a blog about South Australia’s new internet commentary laws. For background, you might want to read this article on AdelaideNow .

Myth 1:If you’ve got something to say, you should be brave enough to put your name to it

Guess what. We’re not all brave, chest-beating types prepared for the wrath of family, friends and colleagues based on what we’re written.

There are legitimate reasons for people to want to blog anonymously. Take these scenarios:

· Government is proposing new laws on child abuse. A woman has been abused as a child; she wants to take part in the debate but doesn’t want to let her partner know of her past just yet. She writes an anonymous blog. Outlawed under SA censorship law.

· Government proposes new immigration laws. Man wants to support them, but is afraid to share his name and address because of the ethnicity of the community he lives in, where there is high sensitivity to the issue. He outlines his well-thought out comments in a blog without using his real address. Outlawed under SA censorship law.

· Married couple decides to write a story (let’s face it, that’s what forms many blogs) about their experience living in the same street as a bikie gang, also debating anti-bikie laws. They decide not to publish their name and address because they don’t want a Molotov cocktail thrown onto their front lawn or Harley Davison’s riding past at all hours. Outlawed.

· A man’s employer has made it clear where he stands on the subject of a new local development. The employer is overbearing and petty. The man feels differently – he wants to protect his local park. He writes a blog to share with other community members, but doesn’t sign his name in case his employer can identify him ... outlawed.

It’s okay for journalists to use confidential sources. And anonymous columns (particularly political) have been a media stalwart for centuries. How so? We need to recall the reasons for this, to understand what is so wrong with the new SA censorship laws.

Journalists use confidential sources so that source can speak without fear. Anonymous columns are published for great debate to be shared rather than hidden. Which brings me to my next myth ...

Myth 2:Bloggers only want to share outrageous, defamatory comments

Mr Atkinson has said he wants people to stop calling him outrageous names. In an email to me, he said it’d be nice if people refrained from calling him a ‘kiddy-fiddler, paedophile, douche bag ..’
I can’t begin to outline how paranoid and self centred the laws are.

I’m a blogger. I’m not interested in calling Mr Atkinson any names. And yet the new laws would have affected me.

Many bloggers are eloquent, cautious people who take time to think through debate. They may or may not like to use curious pseudonyms. They have their own readers and followers. They usually allow comment on their blogs, and are ready to debate on their blogs. They are also governed by the same defamation laws as the rest of the public.

Believe it or not, there are bloggers who like to write about issues; their world doesn’t revolve around anonymously defaming politicians.

Myth 3: “I’m not interested in what you have to say unless you put your name to it"

Really? Content is king – and for my money, I reckon you’ll read great content whether it’s signed or not. It’s human nature.

‘Anonymous’ is one of the most prolific, funny, sarcastic, witty and pertinent writers of our time.
If we didn’t like to read comments unless they had the name and address of the author, the many ‘Diary of a ...’ publications would never be read.

In election periods, I would have thought the veracity of the debate, the genius behind the ideas, were always more compelling than whether or not it’s signed.

The most boring pieces you’ll ever read? Those signed by a politician, with their profile picture published alongside. And why is that? They’ve got their name attached, so they’re scared to say anything of substance ...

Myth 4: Bloggers are the 17-year-old ‘net generation’

Attorney General Michael Atkinson – and some mainstream media commentators – has contributed to the myth that the censorship laws were overturned to meet the needs of the ‘blogger generation’. Mr Atkinson even went so far as to say he consulted his own children, who helped attune him to the expectations of ‘young bloggers’.

Young people aren’t bloggers. They aren’t even microbloggers (that is Twitter by the way).
By and large, they focus on Facebook, SMS and email. They want to talk to their friends, not debate policy with strangers. This has been backed up by published research this week.

The people up in arms about the censorship laws and most active are 30+ and, dare I say 40+.
Anyone with a real interest in public debate should hook into Twitter, the ultimate debating forum. In my Twitter stream over the past week, it’s been people in the 30+ age bracket who have been up in arms over Michael Atkinson’s actions.

I’m 39. I have ethical standards. I am sensitive to others. People opposing the censorship laws were most decidedly not young ‘net gens who imagine they can get away with anything online, in some abstract new brutal netiquette age.

Myth 5: The new laws are all about honesty

The new laws are all about protecting politicians.

If they were about honesty, they’d exist outside the election period.

The laws are completely politician-centric. Mr Atkinson’s comments about the names he’s been called confirm this. Some people want to debate policy and social change and guess what –sometimes this can be achieved without mentioning a single politician’s name!

The new laws are about making it more difficult for party stooges to enter debate anonymously. But in trying to protect pollies and make political hacks more accountable, they’re reducing safety for the general public. We need to err on the side of safety for the rest of us; politicians have entered the political fray, they’re protected by defamation laws, and need to ‘take their lumps’ as Mr Atkinson would say.

Why do I blog?
Please don't debate about blogs or social media if you don’t understand them.

Why did I choose to write this as a blog?
· This text wouldn’t fit in a Letter to the Editor
· I can publish my own blog – maybe other publishers wouldn’t consider it fit to print
· I can share my views with my connections
· It helps me think through my views – and indeed, debate myself

As always, I’d be glad to read your comments.

Mobile phone etiquette used to be all about whether to take a phone call during a meeting or restaurant meal.

It was good fodder for late night comics and ammunition for disgruntled spouses at the dinner table. We debated when you should ignore a call, whether to turn your phone off or onto silent mode, how loud you should speak while on the phone in a public place and more.

Now, as we use our mobile phones in more ways, putting them away is like holding your breath for 2 minutes. Tricky and uncomfortable.

Today's mobile phone offers you a window onto the world and it can be tricky to shut that window down. Our phones are our media portals, networking spaces, event listings, maps and more.

And when we’re socialising at nightclubs or restaurants, we’re so used to being ‘social’ via our phones that it’s doubly hard to turn our back on them. What if a friend is trying to find you? What if they’ve sent a tweet and you missed it? Did you remember to check in on Foursquare? Has someone sent you a text?

Then of course, your phone is a powerful camera. You need to take it out, to record the fun you’re having. And you may as well share it instantly, so you visit your favourite app to upload that fresh image to your favourite social media space …

In the end, there may seem to be more reasons TO use the mobile phone than not to.

My thoughts? It depends on the company you’re keeping. If I’m dining with my husband, I know he wants me to look at him, not my Nokia screen. But if I’m with some girlfriends, it’s acceptable for us to have our phones in our palms, to share what’s in our tweet stream, to check in on Foursquare, and to upload ridiculous pictures of each other.

Our mobile phones are part of a fun, easy atmosphere where we share tips for social media alongside gossip about acquaintances. It’s all interconnected. And while we may be having a drink with four or five gal pals, we know there are plenty of other friends on the other end of our phones, tweeting from wherever they are, able to arrange to meet us, or discuss recommendations for our next pit stop.

Judge your audience and have respect for them. It’s simple.

Speaking of audiences: who can forget the episode when Hugh Jackman and Daniel Craig had their theatre performance interrupted by a mobile phone in the audience?

It’s essential to turn phones off in cinemas and theatres. I’m also in favour of enjoying a rock concert without filming the whole thing on your mobile. Mosh pits are for dancing and absorbing the moment, not for viewing hardworking musos via a tiny screen. Get real!

I’m getting a kick out of using Foursquare, a social network newly available in Adelaide. Foursquare has been another phenomenon in the US, but only recently added Adelaide to its list of cities (read Foursquare Goes Global).

Foursquare is so new, when you Google it, the first page of search results contain references to the old schoolground game.

Foursquare is for mobile phone users who like to get out a lot. Every time you visit your favourite coffee house / restaurant / shopping centre or other venue, you can ‘check in’ there on Foursquare. It gives you points for your check ins, and you can become ‘Mayor’ of the spots you frequent the most.

Your friends on Foursquare (who you find like you did when starting out with Twitter or Facebook), can see where you are. If they’re at that same spot, you’ll both know via Foursquare.

You can add tips about your favourite places, building up a wealth of shared information. (For example, I let people know that Kwiksticks in North Adelaide has ‘kids eat free’ nights every Tuesday).

So it’s part game, part locator, part status update, part venue review.

It launched in the US last year and had an estimated 100,000 users in November 2009.

It’s been called “addictive and slightly creepy”...

Using Foursquare
Here’s some good advice from Jason Moffatt, in a recent review of Foursquare vs Gowalla: if you want to avoid ‘stalkers’, check in on Foursquare as you’re leaving a location. (And remember – when you check in, you don’t have to share with friends at all. You can gain points by checking in, but untick the normal friend feeds that disseminate the updates).

What’s in it for me?
Personally, it’s only week one on Foursquare for me, so with these fresh eyes it’s too soon to judge whether a) I will quickly grow tired of it and let it lapse or b) I become so addicted my family arranges an intervention.

For the application itself, people are really talking up its potential. And why wouldn’t you – for an application that encourages people to get out and about, invite their friends and write reviews? If user numbers grow, it will be of obvious interest to countless industries.

“So far, about 200 venues, as diverse as bars and frames shops, have promotions offering discounts and other perks to Foursquare users in the system … “ read more.

Get on board, give it a go. Oh, and apparently it’s already overtaken Gowalla in terms of user numbers. Available in iPhone app, Blackberry app and on m.foursquare.com

More good Foursquare articles:

Why Foursquare Might Matter

Now you can play Foursquare anywhere

Lately I've been pondering .. all this hoo-ha about our Twitter and Facebook feeds being indexed by Google and Bing.

This means our status updates can be seen on search engine pages. It has the potential for embarassment. (Like the time I Googled myself, only to see my Twitter ranting about 'earwigs' was on page 1 of the results).

However, on the flipside: it's possible to write glowing things about yourself on Twitter and Facebook, in the hopes of seeing this reflected in search engines. Right?

So what would happen if I tweeted things like:

• Having fun being a model citizen. And gosh gee, I love my job!
• Children are precious. I love my boys. Spending time with them is the highlight of my day.
• Working extremely long hours for a client. I'm committed. I'm doing my best!
• Was tempted to water the garden. But then I remembered our water restrictions. And I didn't turn on the hose. No sirree.

Or even:

• Michelle Prak is the very model of a modern Major Social Mediarist ...

So I'm feeling like Google's eyes (the Eye of the Spider?) are watching my every move. I need to behave. And this is where we move into science fiction mode ...

How does God assess us? When we reach the pearly gates, what key words are important? What will get us through?

God surely doesn't need to watch over us any more. He can just Google us. If the right words match our names, we're in. So if he Googles 'Michelle Prak' how will weigh up words like 'bourbon, Buffy, hangover, marshmallows, Bruce Willis' against words like 'swimming, typing, grammar, early night, parent teach interview"?

Does this mean then, that Google spiders are the new Gabriel? They're God's angels?

Mind you, I don't believe in God. Just musing. Unless of course he IS real and indexing this page. In which case, can I add these key words quickly: hard working, striving, clean, made beds every day, loved my children, cherished my friends ... and fed the fish.

What's with the pressure to be funny on Twitter?

I thought it was just me. And then I Googled it just in case (as you do). And I found I'm not the only one .. it's a big topic out there.

Apparently those 140 characters aren't simply about being clear and succinct. They need to be funny, pithy, whimsical ... or at the very least, sarcastic. If you don't get a few LOLs, LMFAO or Hee Hees a day, you're #failing.

This applies to tweets from journalists, social media commentators, web developers, retailers, the ordinary Joe in the street.

I once saw this tweet posted: "I'm not following X Company any more. They're just not funny". What the?

Sure, there's plenty of other themes on Twitter. Many of them far from funny.

There's the soapbox brigade lobbying for something or railing against something. There's earnest awareness raising, fundraising and cause-promoting tweets. But hotdamn, those funny Twitterers are the best aren't they? Even better: the fake accounts that tweet in character.

Sure, fake Twitter accounts are 'naughty' but hell they're creative. (But can be so disappointing when they stop tweeting. I enjoyed JackFknBauer while it lasted. And BrosLife just doesn't tweet enough!)

If you want to succumb and sign up to more 'funny tweets', see Mashable's recommendations, this Twibe's list, and this one from PC World.

What else would you talk about when you land on Wave but ... Wave?


I'm in about 20 Waves now (posted discussions where lots of people contribute) and the main topic is How to Use This Darn Google Wave.


Second topic of note: Social Media.


And third: Adelaide's new social media grouping, #socadl, and what its objectives are.


Wave is quite difficult to read right now. Waves tend to become very lengthy, and it's not obvious how to dive in and head straight to the updates only. I tend to re-read posts and become lost. (@theskullcave recently gave me the hot tip: using your PgDown key to get to the end. Ooops. Thanks. See what an expert I am, peeps).


Everyone's new to Wave. So very few of us know how to organise it yet. Discussions go off on tangents and the Wave just gets longer and longer.


In time, I guess we'll learn how to focus. To post on one very clear topic (or document) and stick to it. (Or how to use our keyboard to greater effect).


As one Twitter friend put it: Wave seems too much like work. (@derekandkong). True, so far. But I'm going to stick with it to see how it evolves. Same as I did with Twitter.

I'm still to play with Google Wave ...

... but one thing I am hearing from Google Wave newbies, is that they're 'lonely' there.

At least, that's my interpretation.

I've seen tweets and comments like: 'Why is nobody waving at me?' 'I'm here .. now what?' and 'Um, I have Google Wave. Anyone want invites? Maybe I can finally make it a fun thing if I have contacts".

Like any online social or collaboration tool, it doesn't make sense unless you have your peeps there with you.

It reminds me of when I started out on Twitter. Landed there, set my profile, wrote my first tweet .. and, then what? It took me a while to follow people who tweeted anything meaningful with me. To build up contacts (and understand the context).

But after a few lonely forays, where I felt like I was butting into people's conversations, Twitter became a lively meeting place for me, full of knowledge-sharing and new (crazy) online friends.

Today, I'm still hearing Twitter newbies complain that they "don't get it". I always remind them: you need to stay on; reply to people; interact. It's not all about posting your own thoughts or links. It must be two-way.

I'm convinced this will happen with Google Wave. When it reaches its critical mass, it will take off. It's built around interactions - and that's pretty darn hard when you've only got a few mates there. It may be lonely now, but watch and see it evolve.

(Oh, and invite your friends, help them learn with you along the way .. and wave at me!)

... if you guessed Twitter, you're brilliant!

In the past 12 hours, Twitter has brought me this news first:

• local fire at a plastic factory (I wondered what that strange smell was ...)


• Australian Rules Football player leaving MY team and moving on to another state (sob sob)


• death of Patrick Swayze (RIP. And that surname is really hard to type).

Hours later, these stories were broadcast by TV stations and discussed on other social media forums like Facebook.

That's part of my respect for Twitter. I bump into many people who still poo-poo it. But hey, 140 characters is all you need to let me know there's a fire in my neighbourhood, or that a former heart throb is no longer with us ...

Another Sunday night in August ...

.. another season of Australian Idol.

This time around: the audition process didn't appear so harsh. Did Channel 10 sanitise it, post the Kyle Sandilands debacle?

There were fewer weird contestants - those ones that make you cringe.

Sure, there were a few squeaky voices, horrendous dance moves and karaoke queens. [That guy playing Imagine on the guitar? He was from outer space, dude]. But overall, Idol showed us a solid group of singers who I'm looking forward to following.

The big thing for me? Kyle. It was actually, er, good to see him again.

I can't stand the Kyle and Jackie O show. But Kyle is okay on Idol. He listens, he looks people in the eye, he has funny comments, he asks the questions we all want to ask ['What's in your pockets?']

Sure, he stuffed up on radio the other week .. that lie detector test was sick. But the whole Austereo station is to blame.

Kyle and Idol? It's a different product. And I'm willing to buy it.

There's a 'save Kyle' petition starting up on the Idol forums. And check out the BringBackKyle on Twitter. I'm following .. because I want to see what happens!

FYI, the Adelaide teacher was singing a Radiohead song. Nice rendition.

And p.s. Is it just me, or is Kyle really hard to type? I keep typing 'Kylie'.

Status updates ...

... they're a touchy subject. Some people think status updates in social media are childish timewasters (the Twitter naysayers), others think they're a valuable and fun way to keep our networks updated.

I like them.

But I don't like swearing in status updates.

I'm getting a growing number of Facebook friends who feel the need to vent, using every expletive, on their Facebook status updates. And frankly, it's leaving me feeling kind of soiled. I'm reading updates like:

• f*#k sick of people f*#kn jerking me around. say what you mean!


• i hate fat f#*k bitches throwing their weight around trying to tell me what the f#$k to do with my life. get outta my face!!


• why is life always so F#$kn hard? i need a f#$kn holiday now

You get my drift ... [and yes, I am as offended by double exclamation marks as I am by the cussing].

Now, many of you will begin wondering about my friends. I have to put it on record: the majority are fab, wholesome go-getters who - although occasionally drinking themselves into oblivion on a Friday night after a hard week at the office - wouldn't swear on their status updates and are altogether 'clean cut and law abiding'. They know the thin line between having a Facebook profile that your buddies see, and having a Facebook profile that's visible to 1) your potential future employers and 2) your dear sweet old granny.

However, I've connected with a small amount of old, old friends ... the ones I went to primary school and high school with for example. And some have gone in weird and wonderful directions, with divorces, mid life crises and so on. And they DO like to say f#$k the world.

I'm no prude. I say f##k it all the time. When something surprises me, I say f##k me! But I don't feel a need to use the ol qwerty keyboard and share it with Facebook friends young and old.

There's a Facebook forum on this topic. [Of course there is, I hear you say]. I think popular opinion swings my way ...

Recently, I had to ditch an old acquaintance. I couldn't take her angry, cursing status updates anymore. It was clear her life had turned sour and she was using Facebook as a forum for a continuing argument with people unknown ... But for me, this friend was yelling at me. She was swearing at me. I couldn't take it anymore. And I clicked on the ol' 'Remove Friend" button. Adios.

And f##k you, too.