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.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Bob O'Hara23 March 2009 at 10:21

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

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maxine Clarke23 March 2009 at 18:12

    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 2010 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 exp
117 comments
Read more

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
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more