Digital Nashville Education Organizer Responds

May 8, 2009

carrot_and_the_stickThe organizer of Digital Nashville’s “Education Sessions responded to my last entry that basically pointed out they had scheduled their event the same day as the centre{source} Mixer.  I felt like it was only fair that I repost that response in the main feed.

There are a number of issues I have with Digital Nashville and I only really discussed their disregard for scheduling (and/or rescheduling). Jacques (the organizer) said they planned their meetings out in late 2008 and that may very well be the case, but if the “Digital Nashville” community was intertwined with the actual digitally-minded Nashville community, I feel like they would have had no problem rescheduling. But that doesn’t mean they should have, only that it was a possibility.

The core reason why I am not a big fan of “Digital Nashville” mainly has to do with motivation. When I go to the Mixer or the Geek Social, I do so to meet others who could carry on a decent conversation about why (or why not) Google’s Chrome browser will (or will not) eventually become the most used based on android growth. If that sentence makes no sense at all, then not to worry, I’m sure someone would gladly bring you up to speed over a beer and slice of pizza. And you know what? You’ve  just been educated. Take that line of logic and apply it to several other conversations and subjects and you’ve really started to understand bits and pieces about technology. Combine it with self motivation to teach yourself how to do something (like, writing php or understanding how to alter Cascading Style Sheets) and you’ve really got a decent education.

Digital Nashville’s motivation is inherently different because they want to bring people together to make them more marketable by educating them about subjects that employers need and/or small business owners need to know. At the core, this motivation is about money, and not too far down the road from that, survival. There is nothing wrong with wanting to learn new skills to make more money. But what I’ve tended to see with this group is that it gets billed as the community. It is not the community, its a club or organization.

Organizations can dictate commentary, delete comments on their message boards and justify how they would like others to perceive them. They seek out other members and offer tangible, exclusive advantages. So I don’t doubt that there is real value in the educational series provided by Digital Nashville. At the same time, I think there’s far more value in getting to know the community of digitally minded individuals in Nashville.

If the distinction that Digital Nashville is more of a organization than a community were more apparent, then I’d probably not be writing this response. (That and seriously, your Facebook should be a group, not a personal account.)

Digital Nashville Organizer’s response:

Tom,
Very insightful piece here and as being the organizer of the Digital Nashville’s education series I really appreciate all feedback, especially given that we are such a new organization and even more new to providing, what we feel, are quality education sessions. I say that last part with confidence as the majority of attendees have said so.

Once more, we really appreciate your, the community’s, feedback on all we do. In fact, so much so that we are soon to announce a town hall style meeting in June for gathering and opening a more proactive dialog between the leadership team, all being volunteers from the community, and the community itself.

Yes, we are aiming to not have an overlap of events for this session, as we do all our session, and hope you come and bring all your great feedback with you.

Lastly, let me address your claim that the scheduling conflict was intentional on our part. As being the organizer of these events I can insure you that this is not true. We started planning these events in November and chose the last two Thursdays in the month as the target dates for our events. In fact, our next event will be presented by Nick Holland from CentreSource as our relationship is very strong.

I hope I have helped clear up the two concerns in your posting and you are able to make it out to our town hall meeting in June. Any other feedback, feel free to provide to me directly at education-at-digitalnashville.net.

- Jacques


Overlapping Digital Events

April 30, 2009

photoOverlapping social events in the tech scene is beginning to become an issue for Nashville’s geek community and I suppose I should be glad that there are an over abundance of things to do rather than complain that I now have choices.

But when one of those meetups remains ignorant enough to overlap events on purpose, well, I guess that speaks to the heart of what kind of meetup group it actually is. I’m talking about the faux community “Digital Nashville” (Here start-eth the Flame War).

Digital Nashville has taken it upon themselves to schedule their event at the exact same time as the Centre{source} Mixer, which has always been well communicated and began their regular monthly meetups in January. Therefore I can say with a bit of authority that the information about the c{s} Mixer gathering, which typically has a pretty good turn out, is not hard to find. I can also say that there is some spill over so that the same people attending the Mixer are also involved in the Digital Nashville meetup.

But they chose to remain ignorant and schedule their event on the same day despite having at least a month to preplan. I know this because I got a message from the “Digital-Nash Ville” Facebook account. Apparently they are also ignorant of starting a Facebook group managed by real people (that is, actual people without hyphens in their names). Do you really want to attend a DIGITAL event that’s been organized by folks who don’t know how to use Facebook properly?

I’m just saying, If I were to recommend a choice between the two, I’d go with the Mixer.

[/END_Flame War]


An Illogical Pile Of Buzzwords – Tennessee Newspapers ‘Partnership’

March 13, 2009

newspaper

I don’t want to spend much time talking about the recent “partnership” between the four largest newspapers in Tennessee who will now “share” content instead of pulling stories from the Associated Press’ newswire. What they are doing is not sharing, and I don’t care how you dress it up. I’ll give you four big reasons why this deal is really an illogical pile of buzzwords…

Content sharing IS NOT Link Sharing (and therefore, not really sharing at all)

OK, so the big four in Tennessee have decided to share content. Wonderful, but why is this necessary? For the print editions, this actually does make quite a bit of sense. You are swapping the stale national news and a few tidbits of local (that no one who owns either a Television or computer really bothers to read) with richer state oriented news from other areas of Tennessee. The AP costs lots of money and I’m assuming the “partnership” would lessen those fees significantly.

Content sharing for the Web publications makes absolutely no sense at all. In fact its completely contrary to how the Internet behaves. Now if you had people who understood how the web functioned in the first place then you might be able to maneuver around these hurdles and factor that into the partnership. Reproduced content on four different web sites means absolutely nothing to me what-so-ever. It’s exactly what was wrong with regurgitating the AP wire stories. Instead of “sharing” content that you will very obviously attribute to the other news organizations, why not give a quick introduction tailored to your audiences understanding and then link to the original content (the deal limits content sharing to some asinine guideline of two lines plus the headline). See, that’s what real web sites do. (The exception being large publications that dwarf smaller publications who may have broken good news. Definitely not the case here). Big media should already be link sharing good content and they shouldn’t need a partnership agreement to do so. It also shouldn’t be limited to just the big four.

Divide by four &  Subtract Three

If a story merited coverage that was a bit strenuous and off the beaten path, newspapers would buckle down and produce an original piece of journalism worth of their own publication’s slogan. Four big newspapers meant that there could be four completely original pieces of journalism that would fill in the cracks when examined together. This will now be divided by four, and as  newspapers cope with finances in “today’s economy,” overworked editors will opt to spread their coverage elsewhere, since one paper is already doing a report on a particular topic. Instead of four good articles, you’ll eventually end up with just one.

The “partnership” will also enact the subtract by three equation, in which there are eternally three less pairs of eyes looking at bad reporting so that they can determine that it’s indeed bad reporting. Sometimes it’s tough to catch the big errors. I’ve made plenty of them and I’m glad to have had others giving it a second, third and fourth look.

One Huge State News Media

By enacting their own Tennessee newswire service, all four of the big newspapers walk a very thin line between acting like one giant media company with four separate bureaus.  Of course, this isn’t actually the way they see the “partnership” and each paper still retains their editorial independence. They will try to accommodate each other and as a result all of them will become weaker.

A Financially Driven Decision

This is perhaps the most important reason why the partnership between these newspapers is not what it appears to be. They did not decide to share content in the name of good journalism or to improve the quality of information being reported. The partnership was forged entirely because of financial reasons. They eliminate the fees paid out to the Associated Press and replace it with what they would assume is a superior localized wire at a much cheaper cost. At the same time, they support each other rather than outside entities and the all benefit.

Maybe that will work, maybe it won’t (probably it won’t), but don’t walk around professing that the newspapers finally figured out how to share. No one is qualified to make that judgment at such an early stage in the media’s news era.


A Facebook, Twitter Collision: As Told By Fishes…

March 6, 2009

Original Image Credit: mpv-sam.com

Original Image Credit: mpv-sam.com

It happened again. Facebook decided to absolutely change everything very quickly and drastically to “better accommodate” the true intent of the site’s purpose. But if you caught the initial reaction from media bloggers, you heard something like Facebook is copying microblogging platform Twitter.

No, this isn’t grade school and these companies definitely aren’t taking tests.

Anyone who knows me will tell you I’m not the biggest fan of facebook, however, that doesn’t mean I’m ignorant to how much value it holds. A large chunk of total web traffic to this very blog comes from facebook and it’s by far the best database of personal contacts that I’ve ever used. So when so called “professionals” covering the tech industry start labeling facebook as a wanna-be, copying, poseur; I have to restrain my urge to flame the comment sections.

The real explanations for  facebook’s changes are much more complex and quite intelligent from a development perspective. Silicon Valley Reporter Sarah Lacy wrote a great observation about the coming collision course between the over-valued facebook and over-hyped Twitter — both relative heavyweights in world of  social media.

And while I typically keep all of the content on my personal blog relatively local and news oriented, I’m cheating with this post. For those who don’t know, Lacy is originally a Tennessean — Memphis to be exact.


Nashville Scene Calls Out Nashvillest Over Titans Comment

February 2, 2009

nashville-scene-logoNashville Scene reporter Caleb Hannan decided to call bullshit on local news and events blog Nashvillest by butchering the lede of an article about Tennessee Titans’ defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth’s contract negotiations.1

Hannan was miffed after reading “Albert Haynesworth is being a brat about his contract extension, because $32 million just isn’t enough” in a post written by Nashvillest Editor Christy Frink via his Google Reader feed, according to comments. He then proceeded to post a rant that was longer than Frink’s entire recap of the morning headlines. (Below…)

Via Nashville Scene

This morning, Nashvillests Christy and Morgan referred to Titans All-Everything defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth as a “brat” for not accepting the team’s initial contract offer. As a restricted free agent, the Titans have exclusive negotiating rights with Haynesworth until February 27th. Thus far they’ve made one offer that wasn’t close to what Haynesworth says he’s looking for; something in the range of the $32 million given last year to Vikings defensive end Jared Allen...

The point he makes is valid (or as valid as possible regarding American professional sports) but why mention Nashvillest at all? In any case, it still does not excuse the failure to identify what exactly Nashvillest is and furthermore “who the hell are Christy and Morgan” as one Scene commenter put it. The lede just sounds like a blatant Oh-snap-no-they-didn’t moment.

While this is sports commentary, the last time I checked Web articles still play by the same rules as do other forms of written journalism — meaning you don’t make assumptions that the readers know anything.

Frink’s often snarky commentary isn’t a shining example of journalistic copy writing either and often assumes too much about the subject, which can be just as dangerous. However, Nashvillest is always  consistent when linking to the source of news rather than the source of drama surrounding it. Case in point: the Scene article didn’t link to The Tennessean but they did give one to the “brat” comment.

Provided things stay civil, it might be a good idea to get the two camps together for lunch to talk shop. But if that’s too much, I’d settle for a single Scene editorial staffer who wanted to actively participate in the Twestival: Nashville event Feb. 12.

EDITORIAL NOTE: Are any Scene reporters on Twitter? Please follow (@TChed or e-mail me if you know of any.)


Twit? – The Tennessean discovers Twitter

August 5, 2008

The Tennessean published an article yesterday about the rise of twitter in all it’s infinite glory. And while it’s not difficult to make the case that Twitter is indeed a glorious use of social technology, the article itself was a regurgitation of a The USA Today report. Instead of writing an original story, they inserted a few quotes from local twitter users who loosely explained what the service was and why they loved it. This tells me nothing for the phenomenon of why I should care about Twitter or even how it applies to the local community other than telling me people like it.

Before you begin rolling your eyes in the back of your head, I think it’s worth mentioning up front that I don’t plan on wasting brain power complaining about how the rise of Twitter actually happened last year or that mainstream media is slow to realize when something is big until its on the decline. Also, I’m already bored with the idea of bashing The Tennessean as a news organization nor would I dare scald the reporter (who knows what kind of hectic schedule they’ve given their reporters).

I am going to talk about missed opportunities to create a really great local story about twitter in the greater Nashville area, because that is something worth talking about.

Dave Delaney is arguably the most technology savvy marketer in Nashville. He’s worked with e-mail marketing service emma, he’s on the forefront of barcamp Nashville, he schedules Geek meet ups. He published an interview with Frank from Comcast (aka @ComcastCares on twitter) the same day the story got picked up by the New York Times. You cannot deny that this guy knows social media.

But more than anything, Dave represents a missed opportunity for an amazing local twitter story.