Franky says Truemors was stillborn–dead even before launch. Imagine, a web app supposed to have been in the likeness of Digg, user-submission, voting and all. Truemors was heavily hyped up before launch, and then suddenly, the bubble bursts (and quite prematurely, I would say).

I’m one to follow the comings and goings of web applications. There are web apps that look promising. And there are those that would then disappoint. Then again, there are web apps that fly under my radar, and then rise into popularity all of a sudden. Truemors is not one of them.

I’m not much of a Digg fan, but Digg does have its merits. For one, it’s niche-based. It started off focusing only on tech-related topics. So tech geeks of all kinds found a great community with which to share their passions. But Truemors doesn’t have such a focus. Rumors? Anyone can be fond of rumors. You’ve got a very broad audience. So how will your marketing be done? Who will your audience be (in terms of advertisers, this can be very important).

Also, one thing I dislike about Truemors is that you don’t need an account to submit item, nor to vote. Just key in a “truemor” and let people vote it up or down. And you don’t even need an account to vote items up or down. Just click your preference (up if you like the rumor, down if you don’t) and the system will count your vote. This makes truemors very prone to gaming. You don’t have the usual safeguards of limiting voting rights only to registered users. And you cannot track and monitor trends and activity in terms of submission and voting. So it’s very easy to cheat.

To me, Truemors looks like half-baked. It’s been in beta for a while before the guys behind the site launched it. A little more effort, guys (actually, Guy, since Guy Kawasaki is behind Truemors), and maybe you’ll get it right.

One of my fellow editors here at JOAB is quite fond of Twitter. Frankly, I don’t quite give a damn about Twitter. It’s just one of those new annoying nuisances that have become a craze in the online community. I once signed up for the service, added friends, and activated IM notifications, and I was blasted with all sorts of junk a dozen times a minute. I turned it off, since then, not seeing the point why I’d like to be updated whenever a friend of mine passes gas at 3 in the morning, or when someone eats chocolate cake (like what I’m actually doing right now).

Of course, I thought this about blogging too, when it first came into popular use. So does this mean Twitter will fly like blogging did? We have yet to see.

But I’ve always thought that Twitter, like any other “personal publishing” platform will soon claim its casualties, in particular when it comes to the foot-in-mouth syndrome everyone is vulnerable to. First to fall was Steve Rubel (or at least first known person), in that dreadful I-probably-shouldn’t-have-said-that moment. And here’s what he said.

PC Mag is another. I have a free sub but it goes in the trash,

Thing is, Steve is a top exec at top PR firm Edelman (the same Edelman of the Windows Vista/Acer Ferrari Notebook infamy). He handles lots of accounts in the tech industry, and these mostly benefit from advertisements, product placements, and reviews on PC Magazine and its affiliate publications. PC Mag, in turn, thought of boycotting all of Edelman’s clients.

Damn, that must have caused Steve to resort to a lot of forehead slapping. Here’s his letter of apology, which I think is quite sincere (yeah, basically saying it was easy to take things out of context and all that).

In a world where it’s already easy enough to steal your identity or personal information via online means, and where social engineering is key to this being successfully perpetrated, why the heck would I actively give out this stalkee information to potential evildoers? I also risk divulging too much in those fits of carelessness, drunkenness, or simple loose-lippedness.

I just finished eating chocolate cake. Moving on to blueberry cheesecake.

(Is that 140 characters already?)

By the way, my copy of PC Mag came in the mail today–it just went straight to the trash.

Oh, NY Times has an article on Twitter due out tomorrow. Got that link from Steve Rubel’s twitter. And no, I didn’t get it via IM (I actually went to his status page).

I’ve read about the pitfalls of Twitter’s being used as a public chatroom. People are likening Twitter to CB radio , which was popular from the 1960′s to the 80′s*. While Twitter’s primary purpose is for people to answer the question what are you doing right now? a lot of people are publicly sending messages to each other, responding to one another’s tweets.

And you know what, I think you can’t blame them (actually, us since I’m fond of chatting via Twitter, too). Twitter is essentially a social network, but it lacks most of the sophisticated features that other social networks have, like the actual network of friends (being friends in twitter is just one level deep: your friends and your followers, and no concept of friend-of-a-friend).

And unlike a blogging service, readers cannot comment on tweets posted by twitter users. So what if you wanted to respond to a post? Just tweet yourself!

Hence it’s common to see Twitter updates bearing names of other Twitter members, which means that particular update is intended for the other person. So a typical thread would look like so:

*Bob*: Having Lunch in a while. _5 minutes ago_
*Jim*: @Bob What’s for lunch? _4 minutes ago_
*Bob*: @Jim Steak and pasta. Yum! _3 minutes ago_
*Jim*: @Bob Enjoy! _3 minutes ago_

… and so forth.

What’s wrong with that? Well, it’s just like sending instant messages that are readable by the public. And that could have privacy implications, especially if you’re haphazard with what you tweet about. So you’d better not chat on Twitter about things you’d rather keep to yourself, or a select group of people. Even if your Twitter updates are restricted to friends only, that still means that all of your friends can read whatever you’re writing, even if it’s intended for one of them only.

I think chatting via Twitter is all right if you’re fully aware that tweets are intended to be public in the first place. So Twitter should not just be about what you’re doing right now, but also what you want to say right now.

*Essentially because CB comprised of non-secure public broadcasts, so everyone can listen in to conversations.

Last time I raved about Twitter, the latest hot thing in the Web 2.0 world (okay, it’s been up for quite a while now, but it’s only now that its popularity is taking off). But not everyone is happy with Twitter. And they do have their reasons. One such person is Abe Olandres, erstwhile editor of the Blog Herald, and my problogger compatriot. He cites five reasons why we won’t see him on Twitter.

# It’s so like blogging in 1999 all over again.
# I’m always invisible (or offline) in all my Instant Messengers. Why would I want to be visible on Twitter?
# I don’t like to be watched.
# I don’t have enough time.
# Imagine Twittering on your phone. It could get really expensive.

I’m aware Abe is usually busy with a lot of business and personal undertakings, and being on Twitter is just like telling everyone you’re open to chat. But I think he misses the point when it comes to the microblogging aspect of Twitter. Sure, it’s like 1999 all over again, with micro updates and super-short entries. But then for me, Twitter isn’t meant to replace my regular blog/s. Twitter is meant to compliment my regular blogs, where I would rather post meatier and more substantial material.

Twitter is not for everyone, especially those who value their privacy much (to the point of being paranoid?). But for me, you don’t necessarily have to answer the question what are you doing right now (in 140 characters or less). Some use Twitter as a CB radio of sorts–to broadcast messages to their network of friends (and the public as well, whomever might be listening in).

If you’re not much for Twitter, what are your reasons?

Matt Cutts, de facto spokesperson of Google in the blogosphere, posts here how to report paid links to Google. The meat of the discussion (although quite implied) is that Google wants to downgrade sites that sell links. Now I’m not one to question Google’s methods, but this sounds like discrimination to me. And it sounds like Google is admitting that their algorithm still cannot match human intelligence when it comes to filtering content.

Tony Hung, over at Deep Jive Interests, wonders whether this is Google’s Achilles’ heel.

Personally, I’m beginning to wonder whether or not if Google will EVER be able to meaningfully track paid links if they’re not overtly notified as such on your blog. Google’s worries are valid: paid links are fine for traffic, but not when it comes to alerting search engine results — or page rank. The problem is that links can be paid for and sold without any notification on your blog, and there would be impossible to tell. For example, not that I would do it (or AM doing it for that matter), but there is no way of knowing whether or not reviews of anything, including web2.0 properties, have been discretely paid for behind Google’s back. The presumption is that the link is “organic” and that its ranking in Google is based on the worth I’m placing towards the link destination.

Wait a minute. So does this mean each and every blog that sells links–yes, even through Text Link Ads and other similar link programs–run the chance of getting downgraded in their pagerank/trustrank? We are opening a very big can of worms here, so to speak. It’s not only the ethical issues (i.e., what constitutes link spamming? How many paid links is too much?). It’s also the business issues I’m concerned with.

Is this the end of TLA, ReviewMe, and even other paid link/review programs? Is this the end of private link sales on sites and blogs? A lot of blogs and sites thrive on paid links and affiliate marketing. And I don’t think all sites that sell links and ad space are bad. Yes, some sites live solely for the purpose of selling links. But this doesn’t mean all sites that sell links are like that.

Then there’s the question of abuse. It’s like DIGG users ganging on certain other DIGG users, burying stories en masse. What if a group of no-gooders decides to gang up on sites they don’t like, and report to Google as link sellers? What if competitors report each other? What if I decide to report sites out of the blue?

This might make people who write PayPerPost or ReviewMe articles choose not to disclose their writing for compensation.

901am reports on the first ever major Web 3.0 application, Freebase. Wait a minute, did they just say they’re trying to create a world database with all of the world’s information? I thought Google already did that. Oh wait, comprehensive as Google is, they still don’t have everything. But you can’t have everything, can you?

Danny Hillis has launched an early version of what might just be the the first major Web 3.0 application. The application called Freebase, has its aims right in line with those of Google. Hillis told the New York Times that, “We’re trying to create the world’s database, with all of the world’s information.”

In fairness, Freebase says it is supposed to add something that Google or even Wikipedia doesn’t have, as roughtype reports.

Freebase is a user-generated brain. Like Wikipedia, it allows people to freely add information to it, in the form of text or images or, one assumes, anything else that can be rendered digitally. But it also allows users to add “metadata” about the information – tags that describe what a word or picture is and how it relates to other information.

Give us a break guys. You reinvented the wheel and tried to give it another name (like Wheel 2.0? Or Wheel 3.0 perhaps?). I wonder what will happen to Freebase if Wikipedia and Google think about adopting the use of such metadata.

So Wired bought DIGGs (the votes, not the site itself, dummy). TechCrunch says DIGG should sue Wired because of vested interests. And Valleywag says screw all of ‘em. The rest of the blogosphere nods in unison.

I say so what?

Everyone’s tried to game DIGG one way or another. Not everyone has been successful at bringing DIGG down, but I reckon some of these attempts to game the system have actually met some success. There’s the DIGG army. And there’s the burying army. And there’s the digging for DIGG conspiracies. I’ve been part of these in my time, and I can say it was fun while it lasted. Now everytime I read about someone successfully gaming DIGG, it just sounds so old.

It’s like reading about how someone’s blog had been recently DUGG, and now he’s already giving tips on how to get dugg. Come on, it’s not as if you’re the only person who has been DUGG.

And as for the “I gamed DIGG” crowd, this happens all the time. It’s not as if you’re the only person who has successfully gamed DIGG.

Oh, and what great DIGG-bait your articles and counter-articles are!

I know you DIGG-lovers out there are probably going to bash me for this post. But it’s been quite a long time that I’ve noticed how popular stories there tend to be crappy most of the time. I mean, come on! I’ve had enough of weird and offbeat news from DIGG. But add on other social news sites like Netscape? Kind of makes me wonder why I still check out these sites every so often.

Still, you can’t blame me for complaining. Who would’ve thought putting social along with news would result to something not so desirable? Who would’ve ever thought citizen journalism would closely resemble yellow journalism?

Does this mean that society is not fit to decide what information is to be considered important? Does this mean we still need information gateways, like newspaper editors and publishers, and teachers and librarians. Has social media failed? Or does this simply mean that the DIGG crowd (and those of other social news sites) are mostly weird, offbeat people themselves?

Probably the latter.

I’ll believe in social news when it’s not dominated by a single clique (i.e., the techie crowd who seem to dominate the popular social news sites). In an argument, those who are loudly vocal may not always have the most valid points. When everyone has an equal say, then social news would be more believable.

Disturbing news a couple of weeks ago. I’ve been expecting this to happen one time or another, and apparently they’ve figured it out. Google–a company whose motto is “do no evil”–has been used for evil purposes. Specifically, suspected terrorists have been found to use Google Earth to plot their schemes. This time, they have the position of some British forces on hand via aerial images.

Terrorists attacking British bases in Basra are using aerial footage displayed by the Google Earth internet tool to pinpoint their attacks, say Army intelligence sources.

Documents seized during raids on the homes of insurgents last week uncovered print-outs from photographs taken from Google.

The satellite photographs show in detail the buildings inside the bases and vulnerable areas such as tented accommodation, lavatory blocks and where lightly armoured Land Rovers are parked.

Written on the back of one set of photographs taken of the Shatt al Arab Hotel, headquarters for the 1,000 men of the Staffordshire Regiment battle group, officers found the camp’s precise longitude and latitude. -The Telegraph

Is it Google’s fault? Not directly. Any media–including new media–can be used for evil purposes. Just like how newspapers, television networks and radio stations can be used by evil regimes for propaganda, the same goes with the web. Evil people can still get to use products and services that everyone else uses, and they use these in their own twisted ways.

However, Google probably slipped up. Before aerial images became popular web destinations for armchair tourists, these were usually limited to engineering teams, mapping companies and reconnaissance/intelligence personnel. High-security government and military installations would also usually require a certain no-fly radius, so they cannot be included in aerial photographs. Of course, satellites could always take pictures of these. Even planes can take photos of no-fly zones (from different angles, though). But no one has gone as far as making these publicly available until Google launched Earth and Maps.

Suddenly, secret encampments found themselves in the public eye. Google should have had some sort of protocol where supposedly classified info was kept that way. And true enough some establishments have been greyed-out on Google Earth and Maps. But not all, apparently.

The British security services are concerned that terrorists will be able to examine in detail sensitive infrastructure such as electricity stations, military basis, and their own headquarters in London.

And yes, even if Google were to take these images down now, those planning to do evil would have already had their hands on the information by now.

Okay, I’ve probably said the word “evil” more than I should, and I’m probably crossing the line on political correctedness, but that’s what I’m here for, right?

Duncan Riley writes over at 901am that Wikipedia has expressed financial difficulties unless it gets more funding real soon. I agree with Duncan that this smells of an attempt, indeed, to get sympathy from the general public.

In a rather extraordinary example of begging for money, Florence Devouard, Chairwoman of the Wikimedia foundation has told an audience at the Lift07 conference that Wikipedia has the financial resources to run its servers for another 3-4 months, and that without further funding Wikipedia “might disappear”.

Does Wikipedia really need money to keep on running? Probably, yes. It is one of the most visited destinations online (I’d say 30% of my daily surfing is on Wikipedia–checking out episode recaps of my favorite shows). And that amount of traffic requires a ton of processing power, bandwidth and people to make sure nothing screws up. But should Wikipedia really have difficulty sourcing funds? I think not.

After all, as I just said a few sentences ago, Wikipedia is one of the most visited destinations online. and it’s only reasonable for a site of Wikipedia’s stature to be able to raise funds easily.

However, it may not be that easy for Wikipedia to find a good business model. First and foremost, it’s seen by the public as a trustworthy and authoritative source of facts and information. Wikipedia practically controls the truth. Now any monetization activities might just taint that reputation. If Wikipedia starts to get corporate sponsorship, then there is a risk that the site gets branded as a sell-off (possibly biased towards the interests of the advertisers). If Wikipedia gets acquired/bought by another company (say any one of the biggies like Google, Microsoft, News Corp, etc.), then there is also a high likelihood that the site might be seen as serving the interests of its new owners.

Is it really that difficult to make a business out of Wikipedia? Well, in the first place, I would say something of Wikipedia’s status in the community is really difficult to turn into a business in the first place, if it intends to keep the trust value high. When money is involved, there will inevitably a general perception of self-serving interests being catered to.

But Wikipedia has to keep afloat. It would be useless if they choose principle over money but end up closing shop.

Here’s one question to you: Would you feel comfortable having ads served on Wikipedia pages?