The Fine Line of Attribution

New York City is home to many people who hold what we deem a "slash" career.  A lawyer - slash - English as a second language professor.  A bartender - slash - screenwriter.  I'm a real estate saleperson - slash - health coach.  Somewhere in there, you will see improvisational artists or actors or comedy writers, and all they want is to participate in an event or have their one big script gain traction.  Maybe make a little bit of money.  Maybe even get famous.  Or even just have that 15 minutes of fame and then fade away into obscurity.

The advent of social media in these careers should theoretically add another layer of immortality to their career goals.  But what we've seen is the scale get skewed in many different directions that still  cater to the big guy and allow people with not-the-best-of-intentions to profit from the creativity and property of the little guy who may or may not have the types of connections that the "big guy" has.

I've said for awhile that being a "blogger" is a dying art form (yes, I do recognize the irony as I write a blog post on it myself).  People are eager for all types of content, whether video, photos or microblogs.  Short, sweet, to the point in this electronic day and age where opinions and info are plentiful, and so is attention deficit disorder.  The blogs that we see with tons of traction or followers usually have a built in following, and many people who try to build their brand organically have to have an unusual mix of luck, timeliness...essentially, being at the right place at the right time.

Majoring in English literature and minoring in writing/journalism, I wrote a lot of papers, as one could imagine.  I always erred on the side of caution by maybe including too many quotes and attributing my sources to as many as possible in my footnotes.  I had a professor try to counsel me, but far it be for me to get expelled over something as simple as misrepresenting a quote or a source.

On social media, the only people who threaten your way of life by non-attribution or "plagiarizing" are the little guy.  And people can always get away with stealing digital property by claiming they "didn't know" or that "I thought we were cool and that I could use it."

I learned my first lesson long ago when I started my baseball blog.  I had a friend who had sent me a picture she had taken, and said if I wanted to use it, just be sure to give her proper attribution...which I did in a blog post.  However, I posted it as a link on my site too, where it wasn't really clear that it was hers.  She wasn't upset; she just pointed it out.  I quickly fixed it.  No harm, no foul.  I was lucky we were friendly; I was relatively new to the blogosphere, and this could've been career suicide for me. 

A few years ago, I noticed a fine line of attribution occurring on Twitter.  Twitter reactions are very real-time based, and I've mentioned several times on this site that I am a sports nut.  During a game, two people I follow (and I am actually very close with) had almost identical tweets, creating a name for a player in the process.  Later that evening, a prominent analyst on a sports network used the same line in his report.  Both of the tweeters (while I am sure they were not the only two who had used this moniker, it was just unique and very timely) mentioned that this reporter had taken their content.

I've had several people use my terms and wit, that I have repeated several times and use in my daily vernacular if I'm talking about my sports teams.  Sometimes people give me credit; some don't.  I am not trademarked.  It shouldn't bother me.  For the most part, it does not.  But recently I've had "discussions" with people who claim they were the people who came up with a line that I'm sort of synonymous with.  And I know this because each time I've used it, they were the first to say it was clever.  Now they're taking credit for it.  Since this is Twitter, unless you're immediately trademarking it or using it in other forums from long ago, it's your word against theirs.

"The Fat Jew" Josh Ostrovsky had a fallout this week.

And mind you, I am pretty small time! I do not have the following that say, the "Fat Jew" Josh Ostrovsky does.  I heard about this guy, probably from someone sharing one of his photos from Instagram, which are usually meme based.  Here is a guy who has 3.5 MILLION (yes, you read that right) followers on Instagram.  I don't know this guy from a hole in the wall.  He's everywhere in New York City, his likeness that is (I've seen him on Seamless web billboards, as an example, and he's been featured on NBC's Today show in addition to being interviewed by Katie Couric, influential in her own right).  With the mindless entertainment that a simple meme or photo can provide an audience, he seems to have really found his niche.

Not so fast.  A few days ago, several media outlets, comedians, improv artists and other creative types started lambasting Ostrovsky in the media, claiming that his memes and shared items are not his property and that he has made his empire on the backs of other comedians with zero attribution.  Essentially, we are going back to writing term papers in college, but this time with social media.  Attribution is important, and not crediting the proper creator is akin to plagiarism.  Except you cannot be expelled from the real world.  (The worst that happened was a creative deal with Ostrovsky was apparently pulled from Comedy Central, though both sides claimed this fell through before the creative accusations were happening).  The only claim he's had in the past with people claiming he stole their creative property was that an intern must have gotten it, or he simply "forgot."

With great power comes great responsibility.  And regular Joe Schmoes like Ostrovsky are all of a sudden given a boatload of power in social media.  And unfortunately, it translates into real dollars lost for those whose creative property is stolen without attribution.

I've seen this first hand in sports blogging.  I've seen regular guys come to great power by creating online products that fans use religiously.  Yet, if the owners of these sites are called into question with unethical practices, they'll use the same excuses thrown around by Ostrovsky, either blaming an intern, promising to take down the questionable item on their site, or using the phrase, "I'm just a fan like you" (meanwhile, they make money off the same fan machine their passions do).  Meanwhile, with great power, the responsibility of appeasing someone who does not have same power they do is not something they prioritize.  "Regular fans" do not have the back-up of millions of fan followers or more back-up in the form of profits that the people they steal creative works from do.

A passionate baseball fan and photographer I know who travels a lot to different stadiums has had several run-ins with powerful figures in the social media universe.  She is very gracious about posting her work via social media forums; however, very recently she has taken to task several of their influences when they've taken property of hers and have redistributed it without proper attribution.

This has happened several times, and because of the influence of the user, her work was recirculated without her permission or credit to the original author.  And as we all know through social media, it becomes very much like that old school shampoo commercial.  "I told one person, and they told one person...and so on, and so on and so on!"  It gets tough to give original attribution, and then we have cautionary tales like Josh Ostrovsky.

And so on, and so on, and so on...(source: old shampoo commercials)

For the original poster, it becomes a question of misappropriation, which happened to my baseball buddy.


As for the likes of Josh Ostrovsky or the powerful members of the sports social media whom I know, they'll walk away scot-free without a care in the world.  Ostrovsky's scandal even got him MORE air time on the Today show, where he said he was going to make things "right."  The reality is, he's barely lost any followship, and I'm sure his likeness will not disappear from the billboards that get his name around.  

I'm not sure there is a reasonable and workable solution for this right now because the numbers on the Web are certainly larger than we can ever imagine.  I'm a big believer that we should be a little more kind to each other, and the Internet has certainly served as a way for people sitting in their underwear in their mom's basement to grow a set of virtual balls that allows them to say things they'd never ever say in real life.  Proper attribution is one way to do this.  If I see a cool picture or funny meme, you better believe I'm going to be extra careful in giving proper attribution.  

With great power comes great responsibility.  That doesn't just occur in Peter Parker's world with his Uncle Benjamin, but when you realize a piece you are sharing doesn't necessarily belong to you, be sure to give credit where it is certainly due.

(And PS - it looks like Stan Lee might have pilfered that power/responsibility from somewhere else.  How appropriate.)

Isolation

Someone, who didn't own a smart phone let alone have interactions on Twitter or Instagram or Facebook, once told me that when history looks at this period of time, it will be looked upon as the "decline of civilization."

I found it funny because while I didn't know this person well, the reason I was in this setting was because I knew the majority of folks at this event THROUGH social media.

This gentleman's argument was that while we were at a social function, most of us were either taking pictures or attending to items on social media.

I saw his point, though I disagreed with it.  Social media, warts and all, has brought a lot of joy in my life.  It's kept me posted on world and current events, and has put me more in touch with distant family members and friends. 

The point was, we were in a social function setting...but we were attending to our smartphones.

Yes, he said, when history looked at this period, they would see the decline of civilization.

In some ways, social media has taken things too far, but in others, it's made us better people.  Perhaps more understanding.

Yet, if someone was an introvert, hermit-like or isolated to begin with, I think that social media can unintentionally amplify those behaviors.

Then, there is the advent of the selfie.  Selfies are officially defined as:

"A photograph that one takes of oneself with a digital camera or a front-facing smartphone, tablet, or webcam, especially for posting on a social-networking or photo-sharing website."

Selfies can be fun.  Heck, Ellen Degeneres put selfies on the map at the Oscars last year, infamously taking one and posting it during the actual ceremony.   We can get in a group of friends and make funny faces.  It's also a safety issue.  If I'm in a touristy place where I don't know a lot of people, and I want to take a pic of myself, I'd rather take it myself than worry about some dishonest person try to take my phone.  

How many times have we joked that "I need longer arms, lol!" to take a photo?  

Well, fret not folks...because earlier in 2014, the selfie "stick" was born.

VOILA! A selfie-stick!

A long arm type of device that you can put your phone or point-and-shoot camera, selfie sticks have popped up all over.  

And my question is...why?  Why is this needed?

And I guess it was something that's needed, because I see them everywhere.  EVERY.  DAMN.  WHERE.

I saw that at a fall conference I attended.  I see them on the streets.  I saw them all over New York City from tourists.

I admit, I have been known to take a selfie at times if I didn't exactly trust another person in the area to my own picture with my camera or phone.  Now, the selfie stick not only takes away the awkwardness of asking a total stranger to take your photo...

It also increases the isolation that the gentleman I met over a year ago warned us all about.

Think about it: selfie sticks aren't just used for groups of people who "need those longer arms - lol!"  It's for people who are traveling on their own or want to keep themselves isolated, if not for protection but to reduce their human interaction to a further degree.

A few months ago, my husband and I were going to the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade which runs right through our neighborhood in New York City, and a few tourists asked if they could follow us, as they wanted to go where the "locals" went.  We were happy to oblige.  We found out that they were visiting from the United Kingdom, one of their travel companions had broken his foot a few months earlier and couldn't get around as well as he wanted, and they didn't want to be "annoying tourists." 

These folks could have minded their own bees wax, taken selfies themselves or just been "annoying tourists."  Instead, we had a nice time answering these folks' questions (and trust me...I know from **annoying tourists**), and chatting them up.  

We'll probably never see them again, but that's not the point.  Instead, we were able to give these folks some survival guide tips that they can share with their friends who make the trip over as well.  Or they could go back to whatever city they were from, and tell them about the "brilliant New Yorkers they met" (I'm making that up of course).

It used to be that we'd go overseas or be social for just that...the social interactions that add a layer to our lives.  The selfie stick allows more tourists and visitors to keep to themselves, thus leaving the social interaction part dormant.

Also, you look like a jerk.

Selfies were coined for the teenager making duck faces in their bedroom, and they have kind of taken on an irony of their own.   The selfie stick is just another layer to add to a self-perpetuating culture of selfishness and isolation, which is antithetical to what the social media movement is trying to achieve.

I see what the gentleman was saying about the decline of civilization...I don't believe it to be true.  But what's next in this culture of isolation...talking to one self on social media?  Well, I guess we do see that sometimes. 

I Hate Technology

I didn't ask Apple to support THIS machine

In order to run an operating system upgrade, I had to get a patch.  However, the hard drive kicked the bucket, and I have to replace my poor laptop that has been through the technology war and back.  Good thing I believe in backing up my documents and external hard drives.  

Today, I don't come in praise of technology but to bury it.  I really hate technology. 

Why now, you may ask?

Because by the time you get used to one form, it becomes "outdated" or "vintage" and you are forced to upgrade whether you are ready or not.

I had a Macbook Pro laptop.  I entered the Apple world after years of being a Windows user in 2008.  I was single when I made the purchase, so for the first few years of its existence, I was the only person using this.  Add my husband using it a few years later, it's just around five years old and things start breaking.  Like, the "N" key sticks on the keyboard, and it runs slowly and I'm constantly backing up documents and photos (which turned out to be a good thing).

When the keyboard started sticking, the geniuses at the Apple Store tell me my laptop is not considered "vintage," and they no longer make parts for this.

I guess five years is like 100 years in technology time.

I unexpectedly had to upgrade my laptop to a full blown desktop.  My new iMac kicks serious booty.  It's refreshing to have a fast and working computer, with a non-sticking keyboard.  But prior to it dying, I was fine with my broke ass laptop, sticking keyboard and all.  I guess I just don't like being forced to do anything, ya know?

Of course I see my iPhone is now at a point where I should replace it.  It is nearly three years old.  Yet, I find smartphones to be the worst technology offender of all.  As consumers we are almost encouraged to spend an average $200 each year to upgrade these suckers, otherwise we're left in the dust with smarter and faster phones.  

Gordon Gecko started this trend, I'm convinced

I was almost envious of my aunt a few months ago, when she showed at least a seven year old cell phone -- read: NOT a smartphone -- that she still used.  I had to cut my Facebook usage down by not having it on my phone at all, but I still manage to find a million ways to be attached to my phone. Music, email, texting, Twitter, following weather radar...it's any wonder I barely use my phone to call anyone. Who has time to do that with all those other distractions???

(And don't get me started on my husband.  He's never owned a cell phone.  NEVER.  Back when cell phones were used primarily to call people, he didn't like being on the phone.  The important people knew where to find him.)

I might have to roll my eyes at the word "smart" to describe a phone.  How smart are we that we live in a world where we are forced to keep up with the Joneses, technology-wise, not to impress anyone, but because the technology manufacturers no longer support the technology we do have?

Sometimes, I wonder what we did before technology pervaded our lives.

Not too long ago, one would buy a newspaper, look at job listings in the Help Wanted section, and physically mail our resume and carefully tailored cover letter. 

Not very long ago, people had one phone number in order for people to reach them.

Computers weren't in every home, but when they were, baby boomers and early Gen Xers were hardly staring at screens for hours on end, at least not work-related, and certainly weren't in such a mad rush to get back on when they had a chance.  See, the home computer was functional.  This is where you could write up and print out those resumes and letters to mail out.  Perhaps they helped the kids do homework.  Of course, there were items like chat rooms and instant messaging.  I know that I, for one, came around late on the technology party.  I never got

Today, there are so many different reasons why people use computers and smartphones and technology in general.  The reason I needed to run a patch on my laptop was that I needed to install an application for my out-in-the-field job.  The install didn't take, and neither did the patch, subsequently.  I couldn't NOT be without a computer.  I had hours to account for, and if I did not, I didn't get paid...not to mention all the other stuff we do that requires use a computer, not a phone. 

I hate technology.  I hate that I needed it. 

Unfortunately, we do.  We all do.  Unless you're living in a cave, under a rock, or in the Yukon, being and staying connected is of utmost importance.  Mostly because those home phone numbers I discussed earlier?  They no longer exist.  And we no longer exist if we're not in a social profile.

I remember a few years ago, reading that an older generation person made a comment that our generation (Gen X, Millennials) didn't know how good we had it.  Heck, the "greatest generation" got along just fine without the use of smartphones and computers.

I hate to say it, but things are different now.  The United States, specifically, switched from a manufacturer economy to being part of a global consumer economy.  We are all consumers now.  Credit is also cheap and more readily available.  As a result, time is more attached to money, and not being connected could mean the difference between making the deal of a century or losing billions of dollars.  Eat or be eaten, at least in the technological world. 

Technology has provided a perfect storm, in a vicious and never ending cycle.  It's like the Hotel California: you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave. 

So technology, I hate you. I hate that you've added a layer to my life that I can't live without or at least without for a very long time.  I hate that in a breath, you are considered obsolete.  What's worse is that no one bats an eyelash when an upgrade is needed.  And I hate that even if I'm not mentally ready, I have to be physically ready to make a purchase. 

I guess the silver lining is that I do like my new computer.  Although my phone now needs an upgrade, and my husband may join in the technology club now that I've been an inspiration. 

The Passion of the Teenager

Since when have teenagers (or "tweens" for that matter) become so influential?

Most don't work.  As far as consumerism goes, they are at the mercy of their parents or guardians for stimulating the economy, with allowances and all that jazz.  Years ago, my mother worked for a company that did tween and teen focused makeup lines.  It was seriously one of her biggest sellers.

Teens set the trends, and I'm baffled as to why and how.  Yet it seems the next bastion of teen influence is going to be in social media. 

Seems to them the almighty Facebook has jumped the proverbial shark. 

(Of course, I'm showing my age by using that reference.  But that's besides the point.)

I've gotten older and crankier as time has gone on, but I have to say I agree with them.  I'm on my second Facebook detox of this year, and I have to say, I am not eager to get back.  Quite frankly, it's been too distracting.  Sure, I can just not log in, and no one in any way is forcing me to stare blankly at my iPad, and comment on my friends' pictures.  But if I don't have the temptation, I won't go on.  And it's been great! 

According to research done in previous years, Facebook was the king of all social media to teens, Twitter was behind.  With the advent of Instagram, and almost it's instant gratification to a degree, Twitter has emerged as a more popular medium.  I can get behind that, I suppose.  Instant gratification is easy to understand. 

Yet, there's a simple reason why teens are flocking to these alternatives to Facebook: expression.

“Teens who used sites like Twitter and Instagram reported feeling like they could better express themselves on these platforms, where they felt freed from the social expectations and constraints of Facebook,” the (Pew Research) report said.

It's hard enough being a teenager these days what with peer pressure, school stress and feeling like living in fish bowl.  Facebook can be too much of a good thing, expression-wise and getting noticed.  For a culture that thrives on ADD activity like Twitter, Facebook may be too slow of an instant gratification process. 

Expression is something else to consider.  I had a lot to say, but really no outlets when I was a teen.  I don't know if Facebook would have been good for someone like me when I was a teenager.  But getting a constant flow of info, like Twitter or visual like Instagram. 

There's also the element of hobbies and activities.  Sites like Tumblr, Twitter or Instagram can be easily customized to get tailored info for what interests you - the true definition of user-generated news. 

So what is the real issue at hand?  Are teens really that influential?  Or is their leaving Facebook an epidemic?  It could be, because it seems that what made Facebook unique and special isn't so much anymore.  I often said that when Facebook was new, it was great.  Then it grew, and it's more of a sounding platform of businesses and a place to share memes.  We could go elsewhere for that.  There seems to be a gravitational pull of mini-sites to take away what we like about Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and make that the focus.  I like the photos and info sharing.  I can keep in touch with my friends in other ways. 

Facebook used to be one giant distraction.  In 2013, there are multiple elements to distract us.  That's the ADD culture I am used to. 

You Probably Think This Post Is About You

For years and years, the songstress Carly Simon was rumored to have written her epic "You're So Vain" about Warren Beatty, after seeing him walk into a party and someone commented, "Well he looks like he just walked onto a yacht."  Now, rumors are rumors, she's apparently only told one person on record about who the song, if anyone, was written about. 

Rumor has it, Beatty himself believed the tune was about him.  There have been some other attachments to it, but the idea is...a person obsessed with vanity thinks the world revolves around them.

What I find funny is that the title itself of the very song says much.  "You're So Vain/You Probably Think This Song Is About You" speaks to the very truth of social media.  Substitute "Facebook status/Tweet/blog post" for "song." 

How many times does one believe that a blog post, a tweet or a Facebook status is about THEM?

I wrote a blog post last week on an item in baseball news.  I was responding, in general, to mainstream media hysteria, which is pretty easy to do.  Yet, someone sent me an email, defending their position. 

Please note: I hadn't called this writer or person out, and at that point, hadn't even read their response on the topic I had written about.  I felt it telling that this writer, someone I respect on so many levels, felt the need to address it. 

When I hadn't even called that person out, personally.

There is truth, of course, to times that I do take issue with someone, and you will know about it.

There's the phenomenon of "subtweeting" that is basically calling someone out on Twitter without calling them out, specifically.  Say, someone is writing about their cat.  Then someone else following that person says something about a cat, without addressing the original tweeter, but definitely undermining or calling them out on something. 

I've certainly done my fair share of subtweeting, but it's usually in reference to several tweeters in general, not just a single person.  Although during the MLB playoffs, I was calling out specific and multiple holier-than-thou tweeters, and someone did respond to me.   Yet, I didn't mind chatting about the topic.  I wouldn't have written about it if I didn't think it was significant (silly or fair).

Then there's the topic of Facebook status, where a vague status is suddenly thought of as "OMG IS THAT ABOUT ME?????!!?!" 

I know a story of someone who had several friends outside of Facebook, and they all interacted there. All of a sudden, many of them weren't speaking to each other.   Why?  Someone had written a vague Facebook status, and one of the parties thought it was about themselves.  It was about a family member, but the damage had been done. 

It makes me wonder, however, what light people seem to think of themselves.  If someone writes something degrading in a post, and someone else thinks it's about them, why is that?  Do they feel like a bad person, or someone who needs to be the center of attention?

Which leads me what I think Mark Zuckerberg's famous social experiment is about: the narcissism and voyeuristic nature of humanity.

We like to watch and stare, and can either covet what others have or be happy for one another.  Then add in a layer of being self-centered and all of a sudden, the "ME" generation thinks everything is about them, even when it could be the furthest thing from the truth.

I had a conversation with a friend of mine before, and we talked about my recent Facebook purge, where I took a break.  I haven't been on in two weeks, and it's been very cleansing.  It frees up a lot of time, and to say I've suffered from burn out would be an understatement.  And yes, my friend, this paragraph WAS about you.

I found that my need to be connected at all times is very tiring, not to mention time-consuming.  But the very thing that draws us to these types of media can sometimes consume us: the need to be around people.  But what draws us away, the narcissism, over-sharing and vanity layer, can wear thin. 

**SPOILER ALERT**

NOTE TO ANYONE WHO IS ABOUT TO READ THIS BLOG.

WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ CONTAINS A ***SPOILER ALERT***. 

A SPOILER ALERT FOR AN EPISODE OF WALKING DEAD THAT HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PART OF THIS SEASON BACK IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.

I NEED TO COVER ALL OF MY BASES IN CASE SOMEONE DOES NOT HAVE A CABLE PROVIDER WHO HAS AMC OR IF THEY DO NOT HAVE A TV.

NOW THAT YOU HAVE HAD AMPLE WARNING, I CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE IF I SPOIL SOMETHING FOR YOU RE: WALKING DEAD.

@texasbennet oh for love of Pete. Stay off twitter. lol
— Taryn Cooper (@TarynItUpNY) February 11, 2013

Not a day goes by that I see a gazillion or more people complaining on Twitter or Facebook or whatever social medium they choose about an ending or episode or some television event about seeing a "spoiler."

Spoilers are nothing new.  I remember I used to work with a guy on Sundays, and he was a huge football fan.  Typically, he worked till around 4 pm, and if his team was playing the one o'clock game, he'd have to "tape" it (back before there were such things like DVRs or TiVo).  He would resist visiting sites like ESPN or CBS to see scores.  If someone was following the game, and they started to talk about it, he'd start covering his ears with the "LALALALALALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOUUUUUUU" song.

He did well for a few weeks.  As he came home from his shift, just moments before watching the game he had taped, a cab had driven in front of him...with a prompter on the top of the car with scores from ESPN fed into it.

Guess what game he saw the results of inadvertently?

So you see, no one is perfect, and no method is failsafe when it comes to spoilers or avoiding them.  They do eventually slip through the cracks.  Now with social media, our universes have expanded so greatly that even with all our might, we still manage to find out the results of things whether we like to or not.

Here's my advice: stay the hell off either one if you do not want a spoiler or the chance of something being spoiled.

Seriously, my conversation with @TexasBennet a few weeks ago wasn't intentional.  He told me that he doesn't invest in cable but rather a Netflix account.  He's a little behind on the seasons.  Meanwhile, this episode happened several MONTHS ago.  It wasn't like it happened last week, and I shouldn't have said anything for fear people have DVR backup.

Generally, I give a few days grace period before talking about a critical episode.  Like last week, I had finished watching an episode of Law & Order: SVU, and since it was brand new, and people who are following on the West Coast might not have seen it, this is what I wrote.

Holy shit SVU was fucked up!!!!
— Taryn Cooper (@TarynItUpNY) February 14, 2013

See?  Simple.  My philosophy is that if you are dying to talk about a pop culture event, like the Oscars or a television show, chances are that the social media are going to be abuzz.   If you are purposely staying away from the event, or for reasons beyond your control cannot watch it as it unfolds real time, wouldn't it make sense to stay away from Twitter or Facebook while they occur?  Isn't it human nature to want to share what's going on, or make a reference to it without getting all up in arms?

Don't be so sanctimonious about it, for crying out loud.

And while I feel bad that I may have divulged a little much about what I thought was common knowledge amongst Walking Dead aficionados, the reality is, the event itself had taken place three or four months before.  I'm surprised he was able to last that long without finding out what's going on.  I mean, heck, when (Another **SPOILER ALERT** for anyone who is Netflixing Dexter episodes that are over THREE YEARS OLD) Rita was killed on Dexter, I had a friend who doesn't have Showtime nor watches the show who knew about it a few days later.

Spoiler alerts happen.  But if you're going to be up in arms about it, blame yourself, not the people who share it.  If you want the element of surprise, don't think Twitter is going to be discrete about it just because you want it to be. 

Fair Game

Fair or Foul?

A few weeks ago, I was using Twitter, like many in this universe, and I heard from several people that my Tweets were found on GardenVision, and I see them scroll during games on MSG Network.

When they pop up on the screen, it gives full attribution and your Twitter handle. 

So my question is, what is fair game in the world of Twitter?

It's been well-documented that employers can use social media or Google to check your social media history.  So if you're posting anything illegal, they can certainly see that.  Free speech is certainly protected, so think of Twitter as another means of using information and a soapbox that is constitutionally protected (though you may be outed as an idiot). 

But where do we go?  I guess when I was growing up, I was so fearful of plagiarism, or taking items that weren't my own and representing it as my own I knew was not cool and most importantly, ILLEGAL and grounds for me to get kicked out of school.  Or at the very least, failure in my courses.

So I'm careful that if I take information on Twitter, or anywhere really, I do my damndest to give proper attribution.  It's something called the "Retweet" on Twitter, that you may agree with and share the same views (or you may be outing someone else as an idiot, but that's neither here nor there).

I ask this question because two of my friends were affected by a reported on a major network.  Now, attribution is tough in Twitter, especially since there is a chicken-or-egg thing going on.  Since things happen so quickly, and you can't possibly be following everyone available in the Twitterverse, you could say something and five people could see it or 1000 people could see it.

I have a friend who was retweeted ad nauseum for a picture she posted, and she won an award for it.  Everyone knew it was from her.  Yet, over the weekend, my two friends had used a term and tweeted it, only to have it appear on a major news network with, you got it, NO attribution,  According to the reporter, Twitter is fair game. 

Is it?

Look, I know if there is something not really clever that's being posted and several people use it, chances are it's not easy to figure who came up with it first.  But at the very least the Twitter handle could be used or an image of the Tweet could be used in the broadcast.  Neither of them were used.

At the end of the day, a major news network with its own marketing and sales team, and worldwide recognition was using information or creative control from a schmoe on the Internet.  When we're in school, we learn early on that plagiarism isn't just wrong, it's illegal.

What about Twitter though?  Can we use things with reckless abandonment that are on the Internet without proper attribution?

Amplified Human Behaviors

There are some human behaviors that have transcended time.  Like greed, romantic love, among others.  We talk about forgiveness and forgetting that has biblical connotations, yet holding grudges is also a human behavior that not only transcends those eras, but seems to be more commonplace more than ever.

I tend to hold total strangers in higher regard than others.  There are some folks with whom I can be emotionally attached, but if a stranger behaves poorly, I just blow it off. I am neither disappointed nor surprised.  Friends or family, though, that is a different story.  They behave poorly, I am willing to cut them off immediately.  I know this is something that is hardly unique to me, but perhaps I feel like I've become more easily disappointed as years go on, but more willing to cut someone out because of poor behavior.

I know these attitudes are nothing new like the list of human behaviors I've listed above.  I feel as though things are more amplified in this day and age, because of the advent of social media tools, where we are more connected to each other than ever.

We hear about "deleting" or "unfollowing" people on different media, but the word substitution connotes the same idea: that we're cutting people out of our lives.  Sometimes it's warranted.  As an example, my husband interacted with a fellow who was disrespectful to me on several occasions.  I won't go into specifics, but it wasn't cool and at the end of the day, this person wasn't someone who my husband was emotionally invested with so it was an easy "delete." 

But what about the folks we do have an emotional investment in?  My networks have certainly expanded as a result of social media tools, but this also increases the number of people with whom I have an attachment.  This does not mean I have a gajillion more people I hang out, but there are generally more people I care about their wellbeing and what happens to them for sure.  That said, behaviors and perceived sleights are amplified.

Take for example, the "birthday."  There's no hidden meaning there, it's just the day of your birth.  It's one of the identifying characteristics we have on most of our social profiles, most notable Facebook.  And on the day of your birth, all your "friends," first degree or otherwise, come out of the woodwork to wish you well in your rotation around the sun!

How many of these people would send you a card, text, email or call you that day?  If you're anything like me, a majority of these folks you didn't even know till these outlets were mainstream.  But how many of us take an emotional inventory of those who did or did not wish you well in the upcoming year?  We all do it, and it may take a step in determining who stays or who goes in the cleansing process we then commence after our birthdays. 

This has happened to me recently.  I became friends with someone as met through a mutual friend in real life (and not virtually...though our "virtual" friendship came later on).  This was a person who spent a majority of her day on Facebook, yet would never answer her texts or calls at times.  It was very selective.  And though I had seen her a few days before my birthday last year (which was, I'll admit, simply a coincidence because she had moved away and normally she would not have been here), I did not get a birthday greeting on my wall.

Now, in the grand scheme of things, a birthday wish isn't the be-all end-all.   Sometimes there are circumstances outside of social media that may contribute.  On the flip side though when said "offender" has about a dozen updates during the day, they can find 20 seconds to send you a greeting.

That wasn't the only thing weighing in, but I took offense to that greatly.  Now, at the root of it, clearly my issues weren't only about the perceived birthday snub.  Yet, I feel like when someone deletes you with no reason or prior establishment, this is the ultimate diss, the biggest snub of them all.

I later found out through mutual friends that this person was going through a great deal and she was going through a very rough time.  I felt, then, that it was I who was being the petty one, the snubber, and felt very guilty about it.

Chances are, if social media did not exist, I may not have had that uncomfortable "reaching out" to do after I heard some terrible news about her family.

I've been on the receiving end, believe me.  I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine whom I lost touch with over the course of a year where I told her I refused to get involved in social media "wars" because I can be more effective arguing in person or providing a devil's advocate point of view outside of it.

As much good as social media has done in the past few years, it's also amplified a lot of harm and misunderstandings and infighting.  

A few years ago, a few of my girlfriends (or my guy friends' wives) started having babies.  As a rule of thumb, I started sending care packages of baby items -- onesies, wipes, diapers, butt paste -- fun and practical stuff for my friends' foray into parenthood.  Yet, ask me if I send them all birthday cards or individualized birthday greetings on Facebook, and probably my answer wouldn't always be 100% "yes." 

But I still send "thinking of you" gifts and think of real life as my litmus test for being a good person and my behavior on networks is an extension of who I am. Yet when we're more connected than ever, there's a layer of potentially overdoing it, under-doing things or even making grudges more evident.  Think about it: there is always that person whom you know you have to go the "extra mile" for, but there's always someone who will be okay with whatever you do.  This can happen in familial or friendship situations.

It happens in real life, but I think behaviors are amplified more with social media.

The Catch-22 of Self-Promotion

Catch-22: A logical paradox arising from a situation in which an individual needs something that can only be acquired with an action that will lead him to that very situation he is already in; therefore, the acquisition of this thing becomes logically impossible. Coined by Joseph Heller in book by same name.

Twenty years ago, if someone told you about this new contraption called the "world wide web" and that your business needed a website, chances are, you would have thought that person crazy and sent them packing. Today, we all know that if a business does NOT have a website, they are anything from bogus to out of touch to secretive...all recipes for disaster in creating a successful business model.

Add the term "social media" today, and you probably get the same looks.  I can't tell you how many people I discuss blogging and Twitter, among others, with business owners in this area, and they are shocked that they need to add yet another layer of marketing/communications to their business model.  There, in and of itself, lays many paradoxes in a successful business.

A business can create a Facebook "Fan" Page, which essentially gets followers, yet the number of followers one has doesn't necessarily mean that "quantity" is better than "quality."  If you create a fan page and have a huge hoopla behind it, then neglect it, chances are your clients or "fans" will lose interest and go someplace else for their info.  Same could be said for Twitter or other social media layers in promoting one's business or self. 

But then comes the Catch-22 of business.  I mean, at the end of day, all businesses are trying to promote ourselves and our business and what other products/services we are trying to sell.  But how do you try to sound like you're not trying to do all that?

Several blogs I know and follow are guilty of the shameless self-promotion.  I have a friend, as an example, whom I adore but his Twitter antics are legendary.  Generally, when he publishes a blog post, everyone and their brother/cousin/uncle gets a link to it.  It's legendary in that I find if I get notice that it's published, I tend to read it before he can "spam" with it.  Yet, it's something I think about -- we tend to do the same things for self-promotion just to get "page views."  But at the end of the day, is it really just a glorified pissing contest?  "I get more page views than you do."  Kind of silly, especially when we are not truly selling a product.

But then apply that to business.  I am on an email distribution for a social media "university" of sorts, and I decided to sign up for a webinar.  The course was scheduled for an hour and a half, and the first half hour I guess was the real "meat" of the deal.  However, they blew through the first half hour, then spent the next half hour promoting what THEY could do to help you.

Granted, I didn't pay for it, it was a free webinar.  So one could argue that you get what you pay for.  On the flip side, they just literally came off telling us that a tool like Twitter could be used for certain things, but not for "spamming" either links to the site, or sounding like a press release.  Which is exactly what they did after telling their listening audience NOT to!

No wonder so many people/business owners are reluctant to do a social media layer.  They wonder what's in it for them!

It's not that I didn't take anything away from it.  I mean, at the end of the day, we use social media for different purposes.  This could be for education, or following our favorite actors and actresses, getting updates from our favorite media outlets, and to converse with friends and family about common interests.  I often tell business people that you get what you put into Twitter, as an example.  If you find that Twitter isn't useful and that you're wasting time on it, chances are...you are!  But it's obviously the next layer of marketing that is essential in survival in business. 

Yet, building your own buzz is a Catch-22 in social media.  You have to follow several people, and make your mark by being accessible while answering and asking several questions in the field you are promoting yourselves in.  Learning and staying abreast of the newest technologies.  At the same time, you can't overtly "self-promote" like my friend can do.  Although the people he is respected in the community take it with a grain of salt, there are others who think that self-promoting is a turn-off. 

So which is it?  Can it be both ways?  If you're in social media for whatever reason, chances are you've hit the Catch-22 of self-promotion too.  It's a pain in the ass, but a necessary evil in today's technology.  Which is in and of itself, a Catch-22.

Oy.

It's Not About You (Sort of)

My blolleague Dee was throwing some raging bull over at the new Facebook designs.  She certainly was not the only one.  Some of the common refrains I have heard from those who were vehemently opposed to the new set up were they did not like the "rolling ticker" on the right hand side, basically allowing one to "stalk" their friend list and what they were doing (including liking, commenting and posting on their friends' walls, even if you were not on the friend list of that "other" friend), pictures in the main feed were larger than they were used to seeing, and just basic complaining about the drastic changes. 

I took a "wait-and-see" approach.  Humans are naturally resistant to change (especially for change they did not agree upon or made themselves consciously), so I tend to not jump in head first with the rest of the crowd typically. But for me, I don't mind the changes and think of it as a new way to view the people I've become friendly with over the years. 

I have not been using Google + basically because I find Facebook easier to use and more visually appealing.  This is more of a conscious I-don't-want-to-change decision, but also because I think Google is significantly more evil than Facebook is portrayed (especially with people information).  Google is a publicly traded company and has shareholders to answer to.  While Google has never charged its user base for use of basic items like Gmail and using their search engines, Facebook also has not and never plans to (despite what viral status updates you might read in your friend feed).

And don't get me started on MySpace (owned by the evil of the evil News Corp!), which I left probably before it was ever "cool" to jump from that ship.  I was always timed out on that piece of crap, and I found it incredibly tedious to use.  I knew the good it could do, but it was such a pain in the ass that I never wanted to log into the system.  Once I found Facebook, I took to it like a fish to water and never looked back.  I might be a little annoyed by some of their changes but it's a free service and it's enhanced my life for what I like to think to be the better (especially with the flow of information and people meeting I have done over the years as a direct result of it).

Since the new rollout, I haven't heard much from folks in the complaining aspects, but I don't know if that's a combination of complacency, people just not using the application as much or just getting used to things.  A few days ago I had a bunch of status updates of people requesting that I unsubscribe to their feeds.  I'm sorry...I love you people...but I have better things to do than go through each of my 400 friends and manually unclick themselves from my feed.  Not to mention, I really wouldn't know what was going on then!  My friend Matt Cerrone (who founded Metsblog and is a social media consultant) basically hit the nail on the head with this analysis on his Facebook wall:

Did Facebook fans actually forget this is a billion dollar business based on advertising and data collection? The reaction I see from non-tech people to what FB is doing is shocking... and the fact that some people think they can avoid the changes or game the system is down right hilarious...This is a savvy, aggressive company with serious goals in mind. They're an amazing organization, bordering on an institution, and to pretend otherwise is naive.

Just remember, when you post that you ate at Chipotle, or rooted for the Mets this weekend, or needed to go to Rite Aid to find batteries for your radio during the hurricane, Facebook is collecting those bits of information to have those corporations better target their audiences.  Meeting people and friending and networking is a fringe benefit we get from using the service.  

Here's my take on the ire: we get used to the changes that are made to the service over the years, and just accept them with maybe a little holding our nose and swallowing difficulty, but we do it.  We feel as though the changes are not about "us," the user of the system and essentially the consumer, but more for Facebook, a "billion dollar business" as Matt suggests above.  Well, you would be right.  Facebook doesn't give a crap about us, as people...they care about the information that we provide them that they are able to sell as advertising to MAKE MONEY and give themselves a product. 

But as the article link suggests above...we are the product, not the consumer.  And this is where our difference in thinking lies and potentially needs to change if we want to continue using the service.  If not, then try out Google + or get on the Diaspora waiting list.  But realize they use people information in the same vein as Facebook does, so don't be fooled that it somehow "gets better" or "is better." 

It's not about you, it's about them.  Them using information YOU give them, but don't be fooled it is about them. 

Things Dr. Roman Taught Me

Being an opinionated, intelligent and articulate woman, even in this day and age, is not something that's encouraged. I have a feeling that a lot of this is due to generational shifts where it was presumed that women had a place and a slot to belong to in society.

I suppose that some people didn’t get the memo that the Constitution was actually amended once upon a time to protect the rights of women. But I digress.

I went to an all-women’s college, and the underlying theme of feminism was prominent along with leadership roles of women. Around the time I started, there was a study that identified a weakness of girls in math and sciences, and that boys were typically pushed to go into those careers. I thought it was hogwash, but then again, I was in an all-women’s college. To me, there was no question of who was a leader. We were encouraged to speak up and debate and have it be healthy and energizing and supportive as well. As with human nature, it didn’t always go like that, but I did manage to enter the work force as a confident young woman who was not afraid to speak up or keep up with the boys (which I later did see first-hand in investment banking, but I’ll get to that later).

Dr. Roman was one of my English literature professors, and a common theme in many of the works she chose were women-focused, such as reading Charlotte Bronte, the Odyssey but focusing on Penelope’s role while Odysseus was out nailing the sirens while on the open seas, and having a better understanding of mythology in popular culture. Yet, I’ll never forget when a young woman in class made sort of a bitter comment about feminism, and said, “I don’t know what woman had the idea to open her big mouth. But I would have been perfectly happy staying at home and taking care of the house.”

To which Dr. Roman looked at all of us, shook her head solemnly and said, “Oh no.” The response got a laugh from the classroom. She told us that feminism wasn’t just about staying at home or working full-time or choosing a career over family or vice versa (though again, I will point out, I’ve seen that happen in the working world). No, she told us, feminism was that women could be whatever or whoever they wanted to be. So contrary to popular belief, if a woman wanted to be a stay-at-home mom, or wanted to have an outside career, she did not need to be penalized for it by other women. In fact, feminism made that choice possible.

I never forgot that.

Yet, I see the struggle first-hand with women against women, especially in social media settings. It’s made people more vocal with a larger soapbox from which to preach, but also has an underlying notion of negativity and even violence infiltrating these threads.

I think about how Dr. Roman defined feminism, and it’s something I hold to a high standard of how I conduct myself. Yes, it makes me angry when I see a perfectly able woman go on maternity leave, and then come back to find her job chopped up between three analysts, just so in a few months they can let her go. It makes me upset when a woman with an opinion who may be running for public office is accused of being “too male,” and yet when she displays emotion, “isn’t ‘fit’ to be President” or whatever office she may be running for. It’s a double-standard, and yet, most women do the same things themselves within their own population.

I’ve had my own problems with differing views of feminism, those contrary to my own. I guess when I see a woman working at H00ters or Hawaiian Tropic Zone, I see two things going on: one is that these women are adults and if they want to flaunt themselves to make a buck, more power to them. The other is that they are kind of exploiting men with bank accounts who spend a lot of money objectifying women. Yes, I could get upset about the objectification. But on the flip side, if these women were not drugged or exploited to do get jobs there, I see no problem with it. Plus, these places also hire men, so it’s not an issue to me.

Yet, I’ve been called out for not being “feminist enough” for simply disagreeing with viewpoints of what feminism could and should be. I’ve been harassed because I pick and choose my battles as far as women’s rights go. In an ideal world, of course I’d like to see women on an identical pay scale for men in equivalent roles and no glass ceilings. I’d also like to see women not be penalized by their own gender and the male aristocracy for taking time off to be with their families or wanting to balance their work-family. I don’t see anyone calling men out for taking time to be with their children when they are little.

It’s only become more prominent with social media tools such as Twitter. In fact, I was recently chastised by someone I considered a very good friend of mine outside of these forums, because she felt I was not taking her side enough in little Twitter wars. Yet, someone who is a proponent of free speech is penalizing me for simply not keeping up with whoever is her enemy this week, I felt this was a cop out for simply feeling under attack. I also have it on authority that she took this behavior with other mutual friends. Let me just state that this was not an isolated incident. It was cold and calculated.

It’s just Twitter, sure, but at the end of the day, if this person is cognizant of my social interactions in an open forum that’s free for anyone, chances are they are disapproving of my social interactions outside of them as well. And if I need to censor myself for fear of being attacked by this person, that kind of takes the fun out of these forums, right?

But at the root of it, I feel as though women are under attack by other women and if they are not immediately on their side, it’s seen as a liability. It’s only then I take solace in the words that Dr. Roman spoke about that day in class, when she enlightened by saying that women could be or do anything they wanted to be.

And isn’t that the very definition of feminism?

Be Careful What You Wish For

Having a huge background in customer service related jobs (I used to be one of those "courtesy desk" gals at a supermarket when I was in college, and was a client service rep at one of my first jobs out of college), I do believe in the old adage "The Customer Is Always Right" but within reason.

I hate to admit it but when I was working the courtesy desk, if I had a "repeat offender" (a multiple-time complaining customer who just wanted to whine about the quality of the air she breathed, and would leave chicken in her car overnight expecting a refund for HER mistake), I would be less apt to help them than say, someone who was genuine in what they were asking -- not that they expected it per se, but it was a legit gripe like getting twice billed for the same thing.

For me, though, when I wronged as a consumer, look out! I take to the airwaves for anything. I am firm believer in the written word -- that is, in the right hands of course. There was one year for instance where I got a lot of free stuff simply for airing my grievances in letter form to CEOs of companies. Now, I know that the CEO of the chain of Best Westerns isn't going to care much about little me...but if a letter shows up on his desk, I like to think that the executive office takes it seriously and escalates it to the proper people. I've gotten free weeks at hotels, free flights, free months on my phone bill, gift cards, etc, simply by complaining about what I feel to be legit gripes to people who can take action.

I guess what companies do believe in is that the squeaky wheel will certainly get the grease.

Here's the thing though: when I would write my letters, I would take the high road, not implying I would take my business elsewhere, but that I would like to continue to do business with them, as it would hurt me more to not conduct business there.

Today, though, there are multiple channels to voice one's complaints, and not to mention one...the millions.

A few weeks ago, the mail-order online video rental company, Netflix, had some very bad PR when they announced they would be raising prices for their service. To be honest, I have never used the Netflix service. I can understand though the impact of raising prices to what their customer base may deem as unreasonable. Especially since there are many different ways to get these items for free or streaming for a fraction of the cost.

Yet, their vocal customers took to social media tools like Twitter to express their discontent. The vocal mob, though, didn't do much to distract Netflix. In fact, they are not coming out contrite saying, "OK OK we'll lower our prices, just come back." The fact is, Netflix must think they have a loyal enough customer base to justify raising prices.

Then I started to think about times I've publicly flogged a place I've patronized, only to get a response from their marketing department or customer service reps. It's funny, because they not only care but they do want to ensure the happiness of their base.

I once flogged McDonald's for forgetting to put sausage in my husband's sausage biscuit. Yeah, that happened. I then got upset at a Dunkin Donuts I was at because they kept screwing up my simple coffee order, and their marketing folks wanted to make sure everything was all right. I was making fun of a ferry ride I was on, saying their boats had not been updated since 2001 yet I was paying like quadruple the price I did back then. And they asked me if there was something that happened and how they could change it for the future (unless they drop their prices and/or get newer boats, I don't see them taking my advice to heart).

Mostly, though my newest outlet to use my voice as a means of consumer change is on Yelp. I know it's been around for awhile, but I just came around on it recently. Yes, I was slamming a service that I really wanted to change, and they never reached out to me. Yet, I gave not-so-favorable reviews and have gotten gift cards and an offer of free drinks for my "experience" at another place (though truth be told, I didn't leave THAT bad of a review, but I guess they want to make sure they get repeat customers).

I guess my point is, with the two-way feedback that is social media, consumer complaints are not only heard instantaneously practically, but they are dealt with so long as they are reasonable complaints so that they can get a favorable review.

And here I was, thinking that true customer service has gone out the window. True, we may get that gum-snapping bored-looking kid behind the counter who would rather play video games than help us...but the highers-up may be hearing something...and that might promote change on the front-end.

Google+ Survival Guide

We have Google Earth, Google Reader, Gmail, Google News, Google Maps...What's next? Google Galaxy? It's looking that way. How about a social layer? Well, okay!

From the last few weeks, does this conversation sound familiar to you?

"Anyone have an invite to Google Plus?" (Editor's note: usually listed as Google +)

"Hey...can you give me an invite to Google +?" (Editor's note: usually when you find out a friend has a few)

Having an entrepreneurial spirit, and knowing several sole proprietors and small business owners in the New York City area, the question I often get, or maybe even a matter-of-fact statement is..."I don't get it." I used to get that about Twitter, but now the item I get questions on is Google Plus, or Google +.

I have to say, even I am overwhelmed with this new technology. But Google +, like many other social media, has its pitfalls yet has it's bonuses as well. Since it's been released and widely sought out, I have had time to look at it and play with it. Like many other tools, there is a learning curve, but there's also been a ton of literature out on it as well, so allow me to digest it for you.

**As a disclaimer, I took a step back from Facebook and even Twitter for a short time (but it's tougher for me to stay away from Twitter, for whatever reason) to try to understand it better and process it all.**

From a marketing standpoint, businesses have been using Twitter campaigns to get their company message out to the masses as well as interaction on Facebook pages. Google + is trying to take the guesswork and tediousness out of those elements. I mean, if you think about it, having to manage your Twitter account and Facebook page as not only a writer or casual user or even a business owner, it takes a lot of time. David All, the Chief Creative Officer at David All Group, says there are six things marketers need to know about Google +.

Two things out of this list that can hold for businesses and personal use are creating "circles" and the "hanging out" feature. Circles are similar to "groups" you can create in Facebook, but it's supposedly easier in Google +, as you can take more control over it. Another cool nifty aspect of Google + is the hang out feature, as you can actually now have video chats with up to 10 people at the same time. Since I am pretty Attention Deficit Disorder about this stuff, I doubt that would be helpful to me...but Facebook recently added a video chat layer with Skype. Apparently, this layer is synonymous with "jumping the shark." But of course, since I believe that blogging is a dying art form (as I'm blogging about it), video chats could be indeed the next wave of the future.

Mostly, a lot of what All brings up is common sense. I've said before that I took to Facebook like a fish to water since it was visually appealing and easy to use. Like Twitter, which had a larger learning curve for most people, Google + gives you what you want out of it.

All suggested that Google + may be too new to fully generate marketable content for businesses. After all, if you think about it, it took awhile for that to happen for Facebook. So for personal use, Craig Kannalley suggests starting small, by linking to friends and family first. This was easy since I am on most Gmail lists, so anyone who had my gmail account was able to reach out first. Similar to how Facebook started to work when you were able to reach out to people you didn't know but had common interests, Google + can provide the same cushion. The circles can be helpful in organizing your interests, and providing interesting content (which was another thing David All suggested, for engaging others in your circles). The common thread is to provide and filter interesting content to your masses.

The biggest piece of advice is to not treat Google + like Facebook. Christine Trapolino suggests that if you don't follow people you don't already know, you're going to get bored. How many times have I suggested that Facebook has jumped the shark by seeing the same filter of friends administering the same content or similar thoughts over and over again? I can get that from Twitter during a sporting event, as an example. And in a more digestible fashion.

While you love your friends and family, chances are, you might get a little bored with the trappings of it. Trapolino says if you engage with users you don't already know, you are getting a fresh perspective on passions or things you might not have even thought about.

Lastly, this Mashable column has it pretty much laid out in its aptly titled "Google Plus Guide" by Ben Parr. It's taken all the guesswork out of Google + and has given it to you in lay terms.

Most of all, Google + doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so I am not quick to discount it just yet. I mean, if I'm taking a Facebook vacation in order to understand it better, chances are it's going to be something I might grow to like better, kind of like when I liked Facebook better than MySpace, now Twitter in some ways better than Facebook.