<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 4 Reasons Why I&#8217;m not buzzing over Google&#8217;s latest Announcement.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.randomactsofdata.com/google_buzz_thoughts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.randomactsofdata.com/google_buzz_thoughts/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:35:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: YamaDan</title>
		<link>http://www.randomactsofdata.com/google_buzz_thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-923</link>
		<dc:creator>YamaDan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomactsofdata.com/?p=204#comment-923</guid>
		<description>Great post.&lt;br&gt;Google is turning into big brother.&lt;br&gt;It will take a lot for the masses of google users to find another SE&lt;br&gt;but it could happen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post.<br />Google is turning into big brother.<br />It will take a lot for the masses of google users to find another SE<br />but it could happen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marlamcc</title>
		<link>http://www.randomactsofdata.com/google_buzz_thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-919</link>
		<dc:creator>marlamcc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:38:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomactsofdata.com/?p=204#comment-919</guid>
		<description>Hi Anna, &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Great post, I read &lt;a href=&quot;http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/ptech/02/11/cashmore.google.buzz/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/ptech/02/11/ca...&lt;/a&gt; and than I read your post, total opposites.  You put Google Buzz in a more realistic perspective.  It crosses the line of personal data sharing and it doesn&#039;t give the user enough control. &lt;br&gt;I like the idea behind Google Buzz, but it needs to change. &lt;br&gt;If you could offer a few pointers to Google about how to make Buzz better, what would they be?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Also the idea of social content similar to Pandora is ingenious, you should invent that!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Anna, </p>
<p>Great post, I read <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/ptech/02/11/cashmore.google.buzz/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/ptech/02/11/ca&#8230;</a> and than I read your post, total opposites.  You put Google Buzz in a more realistic perspective.  It crosses the line of personal data sharing and it doesn&#39;t give the user enough control. <br />I like the idea behind Google Buzz, but it needs to change. <br />If you could offer a few pointers to Google about how to make Buzz better, what would they be?</p>
<p>Also the idea of social content similar to Pandora is ingenious, you should invent that!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thepete</title>
		<link>http://www.randomactsofdata.com/google_buzz_thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-918</link>
		<dc:creator>thepete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:12:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomactsofdata.com/?p=204#comment-918</guid>
		<description>I agree--to me it&#039;s about users having the ability to say yes or no.  I hope we have this choice now, but aside from &quot;abstinence,&quot; I see no way to be sure.  I complain about having to dig around for Facebook&#039;s privacy controls, but at least when I dig I eventually find.  That&#039;s not the case with Google Buzz :</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree&#8211;to me it&#39;s about users having the ability to say yes or no.  I hope we have this choice now, but aside from &#8220;abstinence,&#8221; I see no way to be sure.  I complain about having to dig around for Facebook&#39;s privacy controls, but at least when I dig I eventually find.  That&#39;s not the case with Google Buzz :</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: annaobrien</title>
		<link>http://www.randomactsofdata.com/google_buzz_thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-916</link>
		<dc:creator>annaobrien</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:09:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomactsofdata.com/?p=204#comment-916</guid>
		<description>I am not against a an algorithm based model. I am however in conflict with the data that is supporting that model. From what it appears based on how Google is promoting the tool, my engagement weighs to heavily on content displayed. I would like a bit more input into my individual model. Perhaps even a nested model based on user input ingrained in Google&#039;s main structure. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Plus, I like being exposed to new ideas and good content. I just dont want it to be at the expense of content I already enjoy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am not against a an algorithm based model. I am however in conflict with the data that is supporting that model. From what it appears based on how Google is promoting the tool, my engagement weighs to heavily on content displayed. I would like a bit more input into my individual model. Perhaps even a nested model based on user input ingrained in Google&#39;s main structure. </p>
<p>Plus, I like being exposed to new ideas and good content. I just dont want it to be at the expense of content I already enjoy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: annaobrien</title>
		<link>http://www.randomactsofdata.com/google_buzz_thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-915</link>
		<dc:creator>annaobrien</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:06:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomactsofdata.com/?p=204#comment-915</guid>
		<description>Re slippery slope. As a data person I really value users data. That said I am also an advocate of data privacy. People think the two have to conflict each other, but i disagree, I feel like if I don&#039;t encourage people to protect themselves and their data, that eventually someday people will snap and demand all their data be private.  When that happens it will take years for us to return a middle ground. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;However if we can set expectations now and educate people, we can avoid this rubber-band future. That way people can choose what data share and marketers can make informed decisions on product offerings that actually add value. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So yes we are on a slope. Yes Google has a powerhouse of all sort of scary personal data. And yes there is no easy solution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re slippery slope. As a data person I really value users data. That said I am also an advocate of data privacy. People think the two have to conflict each other, but i disagree, I feel like if I don&#39;t encourage people to protect themselves and their data, that eventually someday people will snap and demand all their data be private.  When that happens it will take years for us to return a middle ground. </p>
<p>However if we can set expectations now and educate people, we can avoid this rubber-band future. That way people can choose what data share and marketers can make informed decisions on product offerings that actually add value. </p>
<p>So yes we are on a slope. Yes Google has a powerhouse of all sort of scary personal data. And yes there is no easy solution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: annaobrien</title>
		<link>http://www.randomactsofdata.com/google_buzz_thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-914</link>
		<dc:creator>annaobrien</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:02:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomactsofdata.com/?p=204#comment-914</guid>
		<description>Definitely we something beyong human curators finding good content. But I am not google aims to provide you with good content, becaue let&#039;s be honest go dis relevant. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I would love have a learning algorithm that could initially give feedback on what I like and didn&#039;t like.. kind of like a Pandora for social content. But I don&#039;t want this to prevent me from seeing content I want to see regardless of how much I socially engage with it. Just a thought.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Definitely we something beyong human curators finding good content. But I am not google aims to provide you with good content, becaue let&#39;s be honest go dis relevant. </p>
<p>I would love have a learning algorithm that could initially give feedback on what I like and didn&#39;t like.. kind of like a Pandora for social content. But I don&#39;t want this to prevent me from seeing content I want to see regardless of how much I socially engage with it. Just a thought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ayel</title>
		<link>http://www.randomactsofdata.com/google_buzz_thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-913</link>
		<dc:creator>Ayel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:47:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomactsofdata.com/?p=204#comment-913</guid>
		<description>Agree on 3 and 4.  Wholeheartedly on 4.  On 1, I think the friend algorithm has B1s programmed into it that give us exposure to more people who are compatible to us than we would otherwise be able to find on our own.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Great post, Anna.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agree on 3 and 4.  Wholeheartedly on 4.  On 1, I think the friend algorithm has B1s programmed into it that give us exposure to more people who are compatible to us than we would otherwise be able to find on our own.</p>
<p>Great post, Anna.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thepete</title>
		<link>http://www.randomactsofdata.com/google_buzz_thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-911</link>
		<dc:creator>thepete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:11:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomactsofdata.com/?p=204#comment-911</guid>
		<description>You are absolutely right to be concerned--I feel the same way.  But I was wondering if you were aware of Google&#039;s new social content searches--I wrote a post about this yesterday: &lt;a href=&quot;http://life.thepete.com/post/380383366/anyone-else-unnerved-at-all-by-googles-social-circle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://life.thepete.com/post/380383366/anyone-e...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The gist is that Google will now index the content your online &quot;friends&quot; post to the web and then allow you to search that content.  Seems innocent enough, except for many of the points you mention above--how does Google know who my friends are?  But TheGoog thinks it&#039;s OK to reach into your feeds and the feeds of the folks you&#039;ve interacted with (friend or not) and allow that data to be searched.  And you make a very good point (that I didn&#039;t think about) what happens to that data after it&#039;s indexed?  Who gets to see it/use it/exploit it? And, by the way, it indexes your content without asking and I haven&#039;t found a way to opt out yet.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I have a bit more on this in my post, but I&#039;m glad I&#039;m not the only getting a little irked by all the Googleness in our lives now.  I&#039;m going to go ahead and use Buzz for a bit and see how it goes.  Though I&#039;m starting to think that we&#039;re already sliding down a slippery slope. :</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are absolutely right to be concerned&#8211;I feel the same way.  But I was wondering if you were aware of Google&#39;s new social content searches&#8211;I wrote a post about this yesterday: <a href="http://life.thepete.com/post/380383366/anyone-else-unnerved-at-all-by-googles-social-circle" rel="nofollow">http://life.thepete.com/post/380383366/anyone-e&#8230;</a></p>
<p>The gist is that Google will now index the content your online &#8220;friends&#8221; post to the web and then allow you to search that content.  Seems innocent enough, except for many of the points you mention above&#8211;how does Google know who my friends are?  But TheGoog thinks it&#39;s OK to reach into your feeds and the feeds of the folks you&#39;ve interacted with (friend or not) and allow that data to be searched.  And you make a very good point (that I didn&#39;t think about) what happens to that data after it&#39;s indexed?  Who gets to see it/use it/exploit it? And, by the way, it indexes your content without asking and I haven&#39;t found a way to opt out yet.</p>
<p>I have a bit more on this in my post, but I&#39;m glad I&#39;m not the only getting a little irked by all the Googleness in our lives now.  I&#39;m going to go ahead and use Buzz for a bit and see how it goes.  Though I&#39;m starting to think that we&#39;re already sliding down a slippery slope. :</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny Prager</title>
		<link>http://www.randomactsofdata.com/google_buzz_thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-910</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny Prager</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:42:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomactsofdata.com/?p=204#comment-910</guid>
		<description>I really like all of your points, and I absolutely agree that Buzz may not be the answer. However, as a data nerd, don&#039;t you think we need something beyond a human filter to shift through all of the social data out there. It&#039;s nearly a full time job to find and discover good content. Finding good content curators is another battle. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I think we need something to aggregate and filter our social data so the best and most relevant content rises to the top of the pile. How do we do that? I don&#039;t know, but Google seems to understand that both filtering, aggregating and measuring streams is where social content is headed. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Do you agree?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really like all of your points, and I absolutely agree that Buzz may not be the answer. However, as a data nerd, don&#39;t you think we need something beyond a human filter to shift through all of the social data out there. It&#39;s nearly a full time job to find and discover good content. Finding good content curators is another battle. </p>
<p>I think we need something to aggregate and filter our social data so the best and most relevant content rises to the top of the pile. How do we do that? I don&#39;t know, but Google seems to understand that both filtering, aggregating and measuring streams is where social content is headed. </p>
<p>Do you agree?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChrisVanBuren</title>
		<link>http://www.randomactsofdata.com/google_buzz_thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-909</link>
		<dc:creator>ChrisVanBuren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:41:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomactsofdata.com/?p=204#comment-909</guid>
		<description>You bring up some very good points.  I really enjoyed reading this post</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You bring up some very good points.  I really enjoyed reading this post</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

