I picked up a print edition of the New York Times today. It was a refreshing change from reading the Internet version. Its flimsy, cumbersome pages so tactile, so present in my hands. Needless to say, browsing a print edition is decidedly different from browsing a web page. With a hard copy, you are forced to see an article in visual context, which in turn directs your attention to articles you wouldn't otherwise notice, whereas you are only able to read a full article online in isolation of other stories. The experience is substantively different.
It got me thinking, though. Ever since graduating from college, I have spent a ton more time online than ever before. Why?
1) Community. At a small residential college like Swarthmore, you are much more a member of your immediate community. Now, deprived of that tight-knit and physically-bounded community, I use the Internet to leapfrog my more immediate physical surroundings. I don't know the names of any of my neighbors sadly enough.
2) Information consumption. In an academic setting, information tends to flow in the context of human-to-human interactions. In the classroom. In the dormitory lounge or hallway. Now, information streams to me overwhelmingly via digital signal. Online periodicals. Recorded lectures. Blogs.
3) Increasingly sedentary life. If you are working any kind of white-collar, entry-level job, then your circumstances almost certainly dictate that you spend more time sitting in one place than ever before. The Internet provides a convenient way to feign hard work.
I can't quite pinpoint what I want to say in this entry, but I think I am beginning to see the Internet and connectivity in a different way. Web 2.0?
---
I spend a lot of time on NYTimes.com. I used to be a big fan of their feature that allowed you to save a page under "My Saved Pages." It was like a scrapbook of my favorite news clippings, making it super easy to pull up old articles and also to see what other people had deemed worthy of saving. Recently, the website eliminated this feature. WHY? How do other people archive or flag articles that they want to store away for some reason or another? (Seriously, I want to hear answers.)
The other feature I really like on NYTimes.com is looking at the articles under their "Most E-mailed" or "Most Discussed" tabs. These tabs help differentiate the overwhelming amount of information in a self-sorting way. Essentially, they crowd-source the arbitration of quality, which is no easy task. Not really a novel thing at all, but when I think critically about the way I surf the Internet, I think that my methods are lacking. I don't think I use the Internet to its full potential. E-mail. Online Banking. NYTimes.com. Wikipedia. Amazon. Various blogs. Pretty much, that is the extent of my Internet use.
It seems like differentiating quality through a crowd-sourcing mechanism is exactly what Digg does. Cool idea that I am currently looking into. Seriously, I need to reconsider my surfing methods and bring my connectivity to a new level. Especially considering the amount of time I spend online. Yeah, I'm ready to elevate things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Two words: Google Reader. You can use the Note in Reader bookmarklet to tag any page you want to return to. And if you subscribe to the Times RSS feed directly, you can just star the item from within Reader. Plus it's all stored in their server cloud so you don't have to worry about where you're logged in from.
Re the Top Ten Emailed - it's not exactly an arbiter of quality, more like a record of shit that people are likely to email each other. Who does stuff like this? Old people, and moms. This is why anything about animals or relationships will shoot to the top within hours. It's a pretty good measure of reaction to op-eds though.
Post a Comment