Check the post for their full comments but here’s a paraphrase:

There’s distaste for the new look. Partly because no one really cares what everyone thinks and to have it front-center is useless. At least Jenski cares about the elderly. Ben aims aesthetic, noting the lack of hierarchy. He likes the “What’s on your mind” call for a status update and wants more filters. (There’s more but he got a little wordy.)

After their failed acquisition bid Twitter, Facebook made a twit-esque homepage. Except they failed miserably. There’s a difference betwixt the two: FB is information sharing and Twt is conversation. FB’s attempt to combine them outright is terrible.

Theoretically it’s useful. It provides another conduit for tossing nauseatingly-specific ads at users. It makes easier the sharing of pointless. It even responds to the imaginary “Twitter threat.” Then the whole thing crumbles.

All of these ideas are lost on a smattering of “uhh” that sparks headaches and causes toddlers to realize shame (conceptually). All elements look the same (wall post, status update, photo upload, etc.). Everything is important, making everything unimportant.

This may be more in line with their clean coal-esque business model (whatever that is) but this is a terrible way to go about adhering to it. With all their venture-money, where’s the designer?

S/he would (or should) have asked, where’s the white space? Where do you let the eye rest? Where should it jump to? What’s important on this page? How will users use the page and site? Can we fix the stroke on our rounded boxes?

I’ve seen a gigantic upturn in the number of status updates in the last week. This isn’t necessarily good. The quality therein hasn’t increased; most are just reacting to having such a prominent text-input box.

From past changes and those (handsome, beautiful readers) that commented, the change will soon be tolerated. When will people start to ask more of FB? When will they say, “sure, this works, but I know I could do better?”

I hope soon. If this is any indication of what the most popular social network has on offer, our slow moving train has stopped indefinitely.

Think FB2.5 is the bees knees? Think I’m wrong calling FB an innovation-free, Microsoft-esque dinosaur company? Let me know.

CrunchBase

That’s right. I’m trying something different. I’m asking you for your thoughts instead of dousing you with mine. Take a quick second and leave your short answers below or @- me on Twitter.

What do you think of the new look of Facebook? Please provide your reasons for feeling as you do and be as brief or verbose as you see fit. (Who has that kind of time, though, right?)

Note: I’ll be relaying my feelings later this week. Also, for those replying via twt, I’ll copy your comments into this post for review later.

@katlikewrites: It’s bogus. As a first-generation FB user (summer 04). However, my mom did call me last night ranting about needing a FB tutorial.

Dear Most of You,

There you are. You’re the be-all, end-all for your destination. You’re where people turn to book their trips, learn about your locale and plan their travel. Except for one thing: you’re not.

Don’t get me wrong, your sites are pretty, filled to brimming with helpful. Some find a lot of value in that but more find value in TripAdvisor (and ilk) with hands-on visitor feedback. Many travelers are going to Travelocity, Priceline, etc. to book their trips.

You’re letting your expertise be siphoned off. There are thousands of sites more specifically pertinent and millions of travelers looking for more.

We’re in an age of conversation, not broadcast. If you’re not talking with us you’re talking at us. We’re ignoring you. Your audience will dwindle as more become internet-savvy.

How large is your staff? 20? 40? 200? Even a small destination’s site could have hundreds of visitors per month. Put them to use; who doesn’t like talking about their travel?

Use Twitter, Facebook, etc. to relay useful tips and articles about your destination to followers. Ask visitors where they like to shop, eat and be entertained. Allow for comments and discussions.

Soon, creating a blog, loading Flickr images and sending tweets to both won’t be enough.

There are political obstacles. Keep your booking engines and link exchanges. If you’re funded through membership, even partially, have your users to mention your name when out and about. (Deals? Incentives?)

Your voice, while important, is not what travelers want to hear. They want to hear the voices of others or to be able to share theirs. Facilitate that conversation, adding your wisdom where appropriate, and your credibility will rise.

Or, you could keep on keepin’ on. You’ll weather the downturn only to be overshadowed. With so many free or cheap options out there to increase your status as a premium source of information, it’s on you.

Good luck.
Draynd

Sidenote: How many of you knew tourism bureaus existed or that you could book travel through many of them? Yeah… exactly my point.

There will probably be ads among the articles. How will that affect the clean feel of it or the usefulness? What about user-generated homepages based on predetermined areas of interest? (A homepage with the top articles from Sports, World and Arts, for example.)

Many already have RSS readers or dynamic bookmarks to access the content they want while avoiding the ads and nonsense that typically comes with. Now The New York Times can manage (read: inject ads into) their own “feed.” The idea is already nearing ubiquitous so it’s boring but I still like it.

With improvements, and with varying versions for different applications, this could be big step away from a print-oriented business model (Front page, See [page], top content). Considering newspapers have had to resort to putting ads on the front page and above the fold, it’s about time.

To their credit, The New York Times has consistently been ahead of the curve with online projects. They opened up their online archives awhile back when they disabled pay accounts and they’ve put their fingers into quite a few social media pots.

One can only hope that their being early-adopters will help. They’ll need to attract enough readers to compensate for their current, too-perishable audience that’s discontinuing subscriptions because they’re grandchildren have started emailing them photos.

Update from previous post: Some have said, in so many words, “who cares?” to the TOS change within Facebook. Understandable. My point was they’ve made another of many mistakes. Their failure to notify users, their post-wreckage band-aide post, their arrogant grab of content and their complete defiance of the data portability flag they’ve wrapped themselves in is what’s outrageous. Not them doing it in the first place.

From a company so melodramatically moronic, it should have been expected. Zuckerberg and Co. have essentially told us to chill out, that they won’t use our content how we wouldn’t want, and we should trust them. When someone asks me to trust them (especially after proving themselves untrustworthy), I don’t.

I’m a binge/purge anti/pro-consumerist. I have two Facebook accounts. Both facts are perilously close to becoming problems. My lack of trust in others and knowing Facebook is a sham run by morons has me anxious.

I’ve slowed my financial flow. I’ve replaced much of my decayed savings in the last month or so and am attempting to be more frugal. (Somehow I’ve misplaced ≈$25 somewhere so I can’t claim I’m doing well.) Unfortunately, when it comes to personal data, I can’t do the same to protect my online persona.

Note for those with lives off the interweb:
There’s a set of folk who are flexing their keggels in wait for “data portability.” This basically means all your profile/personal data is open so it can be accessed from anywhere. (One profile, multiple sites. Fun, right?) Facebook Connect (with so much of this data) was the beacon of hope for the data-portables.

Without time to remove or edit current profiles, Facebook decided to change their Terms of Service so they have control of users’ data forever. (In my limited grasp of space-time continuums and Sci-Fi movies, that’s a long time.) Thus, they’ve proven they can’t be trusted. Again.

Facebook uses it’s ample user base within a corporate-control experiment in a desperate attempt to generate any revenue. Still, they’re a (or the) primary player and should be held to account. (Myspace, et al shouldn’t be trusted either.)

How Facebook could have better managed their manipulation (an incomplete list):

• Announce the change (people could reduce the amount of information on their profile)
• Provide the option to remove one’s data from pool (profile appears the same, data not sold)
• Change as an opt-in under the guise of providing better service
• Delete the data upon deletion of an account (their 150+ million users should provide sufficient data for sale).

These would have provided less data to start but would have let users grow comfortable with the idea.

One of the underlying goals of data portability is control, use of your data as you see fit. Facebook taking that control (essentially stealing your data indefinitely) is an affront to just that. For now, just like my dismal savings (and worse outlook), I can only omit (nights on the town = profile information).

Data portability could be a powerful tool for users and marketers alike (follow @alisamleo at Web is Social), but until we have control, it will remain a movement for cheerleaders on the fringe. Users’ common sense (read: fear) and corporate manipulation will continue to render it completely ineffective.

For those on Facebook or considering joining (who isn’t on it? I mean… really…), take note and watch what you’re putting into their systems. Your profile will outlive you.

Cross-posted at Sex Drugs and Intellectual Freedom.

Update: Some have said, in so many words, “who cares?” to the TOS change within Facebook. Understandable. My point was they’ve made another of many mistakes. Their failure to notify users, their post-wreckage band-aide post, their arrogant grab of content and their complete defiance of the data portability flag they’ve wrapped themselves in is what’s outrageous. Not them doing it in the first place.

From a company so melodramatically moronic, it should have been expected. Zuckerberg and Co. have essentially told us to chill out, that they won’t use our content how we wouldn’t want, and we should trust them. When someone asks me to trust them (especially after proving themselves untrustworthy), I don’t.

Basically, three representatives from early adopting companies talked about how they’re using social media to manage their company’s public image. The commentary is thoughtful and in-depth. If you’re at all interested in using SM to boost your company’s involvement, take a look (it’s over an hour, you’ll need some time; embedded below).

This, obviously, is not a discussion of how SM can boost sales or involvement. It’s not about how having a Twitter account will make you viral or how web 2.0 jolts your ROI. There’s no mention of a call-to-action. (Either is Facebook Connect. Let me pause for your disappointed sighs.)

Steve Bendt (Best Buy, Social Media Activist) brought up Spy (try it out; kind of fun), there was talk of Google Alerts and some examples of how they’ve used Twitter and the ilk to improve and monitor their image. (Lela Phommasouvanh and Tammy Lee Stanoch (of Delta, formerly Northwest) rounded out the three.)

I’m intrigued by some of the mentioned ideas and entertained by how far my office has to come. How do you explain to old-media-centric higher-ups that there’s a new way of doing things when you’ve only been around a few years? (Get fired and go somewhere more amiable to same ideas?)

The video:

Delicious

Most people eat questionable meats processed by questionable means in factories of questionable cleanliness by underpaid (or illegal) workers with questionable hygiene practices. That’s not an issue if you can ignore bacteria in your spinach or poisonous tomatoes and milk. (Or, if you’re like me, you overcook everything to the texture of damp charcoal.)

But what if you want something that won’t have a tenuous link to your pending bout with cancer? Why don’t we promote quality goods over low-cost carcinogens shipped thousands of miles? Or give incentive not to house your-future-chicken-breast in a too-small cage slathered with avian infection?

Food industries have built their irresponsible practices on the assumptions that consumers can’t buy better for cheaper and oversight is easily skirted. Both are true because most of us are poor and stupid (not you readers, though). We may not be changing (fuck me why aren’t we changing?) but there are existing tools that could change things.

• Farmers (dairy, produce, poultry, etc.) get together using online groups/forums
• Pool their resources
• Create a website with member logins, small monthly dues for local consumers
• Run funding drives ($10 donation, get 10% off next order) and forums to keep members informed, announce specials
• Monthly dues go to feed/slaughter/shipping/misc costs (reduces cost per pound)
• Per-pound profit for farmers would (likely) be more than branding themselves under Cargill, Tyson or [insert megafood company]

They’d provide quality not because of an underfunded, understaffed government office (which would still provide “grades”) but to avoid the backlash if someone’s irked. (Think of the digi-bomb dropped by just a few moms that strapped their children into kiddy-packs.) Such things would kill membership and, subsequently, the cooperative.

To-market cost would shrink while establishing consumer loyalty and involvement. Cavernous consumer meccas like Costco or Sam’s Club already use the idea. Folk wouldn’t necessarily get sushi in Oklahoma or out-of-season fruit in Illinois but maybe they shouldn’t. (Our culture of convenient consumption leaves a lot to the imagination.)

Butchers would be in demand again, small shipping companies could form and all the jobs would be localized. Area crops would be more diverse to meet demand and thus less suseptable to disease-sparked mass failure. Members would get discount, quality meats while putting more into their community.

For those scared shitless of Jan20, 09, this doesn’t rely on government handouts or profit distribution. Farmers won’t be paid not to grow crops or to grow specific crops to help regulate pricing. (Sounds sort of socialist doesn’t it?) Growth is limited by how cost-effective and high-quality the product is.

And no worries, this will never happen. Well, unless there’s total infrastructure collapse, but that’s for posts over at SD&IF.

You liked it didn’t you? It’s probably why anyone watched anything on VH1 since 2002 (save I Love [insert decade], which is awesome). The banter between Kristen, Jackie and Alisa is intoxicating in its emptiness. Plus, they’re social media sluts like myself.

Oh. And on that note… I’m now on Vimeo (videos to come, maybe). It works through Tumblr and it’s about time I had something outside of YouTube or the Book to load video into. (Talk about an impossible justification; I started sweating from the strain half through that sentence.)