Skip to main content

I don't get FriendFeed

I'm not one one to be shy with electronic communication. I've got this blog and the website. I use Facebook and Twitter. I'm a member of two online websites for authors. But I just can't get the hang of FriendFeed.

The estimable Maxine from Nature recommended it, and I've tried, I really have - but it just doesn't work for me. The idea is that it amalgamates all your feeds - Twitter, blogs, websites you like (I think) - all into one place. Seems reasonable. But then there are rooms for discussions on different topics, which can be sort of overlayed on your main feed. And people can comment and discuss any of these things - I just get lost.

Part of the problem I have with FriendFeed is that I can't be bothered to go there. All the blogs I read (you can see the list down the bottom of the page) are automatically pulled together for me by Google Reader. I don't have to go anywhere to see these. I use iGoogle (the version of Google you can add widgets to) as my home page, and on it is a view to the Reader - so every time I start my browser, I see the latest posts from any of these blogs. Similarly I use a Firefox widget called TwitterFox that means I never have to go into Twitter, I just see new tweets every time I go into the browser.

Admittedly I do go into the writers' sites and Facebook once or twice a day, but that's a simple, straightforward check on some conversations. FriendFeed just leaves me baffled. Maybe I've got the wrong kind of mind.

Comments

  1. I think the rooms and the discussions are the "killer aps". I guess both need a critical mass, though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree, Bob. I really only use Friend Feed to discuss crime fiction books with fellow addicts. I also use the science online rooms a little bit, but mainly, for me, it is an off-duty place where a few of us with common but unusual interests can share opinions on (often) the same books, linking to others' reviews of them, and so on. I think it is a "specialist hobbyists" paradise.

    I don't find Facebook or Twitter useful for me, but I know a lot of people do. I suppose it is just horses for courses - there are a lot of these social websites around which all do slightly different things - so it is easy to find the one that suits you best. I don't think FriendFeed is particularly useful for authors to discuss/promote their own books - too niche I think - or at least, in our "room", that does not happen, it is essentially a community of reviewers - there are some authors there, but they are there as readers rather than authors.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope