Sometimes real life gets in the way of a virtual one. So, please excuse me for not blogging for awhile while I get everything in order. When I come back, I promise more consistency, more snark, and generally more data awesomeness.

Thanks!

1. <There’s been a whole lot of hub bub on the release of the New Google Buzz. While I think Buzz is generally cool, there are a few things that make me less likely to get on my desk chair at work and scream about how freaking incredible it is to all of my coworkers. One of those things is a  a very real fear of doubts to my sanity.  I digress.

Below are 4 basic reasons I am hesitant to buy into the Buzz

1)I don’t want Google making decisions on which relationships are relevant to me.
2) I already have way too much email and do not welcome the additional inflow from Buzz
3) I am weary about how businesses will use and eventually exploit the structure.
4.) Google will now have an aggregate view of my web use across search, email, and social. Right now users do not have a say in how this data is used.

Below I explore each of these concerns more deeply and hopefully shed more light on these concerns. If you don’t read any further you’ve already got my basic thoughts. But read on, trust me it’s worth it.

1.) I don’t want Google deciding who my friends are.

Yesterday I wrote a post about how we need to better define relationships via social media. I thought it would be a one time post, rant a bit, and all would be good. But then, Google Buzz came out and my post became more of a burning issue. In many ways Buzz took the power of social organization and further removed it from the end user. Google chose to leverage machine thinking & advanced algorithms to “decide” who you are closest to.  While I think algorithms are pretty much awesome and can do a lot of good to both simplify and organize are lives (hell I have a stats degree) I don’t believe they should ever be a replacement for decisions made my human mood or preference. Read Write Web said it best: “The people that you email and chat with the most may not be your closest friends or the people that you want to share and connect with.“

The reality is we as humans are fickle people. Yes we often have patterns to our overall behavior, but our opinions or perceptions are rarely routine.  This makes algorithmic thinking the WRONG approach to friend management. Take an example I mentioned in the comment yesterday: I have a best friend from college, Tracie. We don’t have a ton of time to talk as we live in separate states, with very different jobs, & very different lives. However, we passively engage in each other lives almost daily. I am more likely to read Tracie social output than anyone else’s , however I rarely comment. I save my thoughts & tidbits for when we get a chance to chat via phone or video chat. That’s simply the dynamics of the relationship we have. That said, according to Google’s model I it’s likely I would rarely see content from Tracie.

What I would be more likely to see is content from people I work with. I email them often, chat with them occasionally, and have used social media as means basic communication. Many of you who know me on foursquare may remember the great Foursquare Battle of 2009 between my boss and me for mayorship of our office building. It was brutal. But as much as I love my co-workers, the last thing I want is being encouraged to spend an additional 6 hours outside of work engaging with their content .

It boils down to this simple point: Google determining my friends for me is a just a little too 1984 for me.

2) I already have way too much email.

Let’s say we get beyond the issues with friend management that Google Buzz introduces. There are still some basic structural concepts to the tool that I am not so keen on. Take for instance that every time someone responds to a post it goes to your email. Great. More email.  I am sure I am not the only person here who has an inbox that is as flooded as Jacksonville, Florida during hurricane season. Wading through the mess of emails I get daily is hard, but somewhat manageable. Until, you add buzz. Now on top of all the regular emails I get, I will also get a mother dump of buzz emails. Which guess what-don’t seem to easily be sorted out. JOY! Now I have 3x as many emails! Just what I wanted for Christmas (Chanukah, Kwanza, Festivus)

Better yet, along with my ability to manage email also goes my favorite excuse. I’m sorry I must have missed that on [insert social site]. Now there are no excuses. Perhaps I am being entirely lazy, but really with all the stuff floating around the Internet I enjoy an excuse to miss some of it. I value my ability to have a reason to take a break and breathe. Now, I have no excuse because it’s in my email. Even if you didn’t stream into email via buzz for the myriad of reasons it may not, people are going to think it’s there. You’re responsible for seeing it. We all know that the whole “it must not have come through” excuse only works once, maybe twice.

Plus, you have a whole new flood of people discovering your email address. Now they too can send you emails about stuff you don’t care about! I know I sound like the worst person ever but really, there is a reason why some people do not have my email address. The main reason is I like to keep my email load manageable and adding every person I have a social relationship would make that pretty much impossible.

Simply put: I like to keep my email and my social community separate and enjoy the perks of doing so.

3) I am weary about how businesses will exploit Buzz.

Call me a skeptic. But I am not sure Google is always going to use recommended posts in the right way.  I want to believe that posts will rely on relevant user content that may be of interest to the end user, but I see this easily becoming another method to serve ads. So now, not only will I have ads at the top of my email ( based on the content of my emails- if you didn’t know already), I will also have ads flooding into my buzz stream.

If I accidentally respond to one of the ad buzzes- we are all prone to make mistakes especially when advertising is masked as genuine digital interaction- does that give marketers the ability to hit me with “buzz” driven email? How does that comply with opt out emails policies? How will we be able to block corporate buzz communications? Unlike twitter where I can just unfollow, it’s a little less clear how the role of companies & their ability to contact you through buzz will play out.

For example I might want to extend email privileges to Papa John’s, but I avoid following them on social sites. But since they have my email contact does that automatically give them buzz access? Additionally, let’s say I order pizza a lot. Hence I get a lot of confirmation emails & promotional offers, does that mean they can legitimately (according to buzz’s algorithms) move into my top friend posts? When you mix the world of social and email things get fishy.

My thoughts: Companies will always find a way to advertise and I am concerned Buzz’s methods might be more intrusive than other social sites.

4. That’s a hell of a lot of free data I’d be giving Google. What do I get in return?

Look lets face it Google already knows a lot about me. They know what I search. They know what I email and chat about. The only thing they don’t know is what content socially I share, what my identity is across sites, and who are my greatest influencers. Sure those sounds like some big holes to fill, but if I aggregate everything through Google Buzz, suddenly they now have that very information [in part]. I’ve written a lot about online identity and I think it’s a really important subject in regards to Buzz.

With Buzz moving to include data from other social sites in their stream, such as twitter, flicker, and surely other sites in the coming weeks, we have to firmly begin to examine the value of our data. Privacy is an interesting issue online, because I feel people haven’t been burned enough yet to really see how little control they have of their personal data. With Buzz, Google is officially beginning to manage one identity across sites. Instead of simply managing the connections into site (like oauth), Buzz pulls content & creates an aggregated user record. Ta Da! Your search, email, blog, social, & other data are now in one magically packaged personal file. Are you comfortable having all the data packaged up with no rights in how it is used? I can only speak for myself, but it makes me feel extremely uncomfortable.

We share a ton of information online, but as we approach consumer data aggregation we need to make sure we understand the power in that data. I would love advertisers to be able to provide me relevant offers. But, I don’t want those offers at the expense of intrusion into my personal life. I feel, as many people do right now, that there are too few guidelines on who owns users’ data. Personally I am not confident that Google is who I want to bank on for my identity management. Do I trust they guard their data well? Yes. Do I have confidence in their technology? Yes. Do I think they value my say in my online personal safety and identity control? No. Until I am given the right to limit what information I share with businesses, I am very wary to submit my information cross-sites to identity an aggregation system.

Bottom Line: I want to know I can trust the Company that manages my aggregated online data.

Recently I’ve been thinking a lot about online identity & facebook. I’ve seen a lot of people complain about facebook changes over the past few months. There’s issues with privacy. There’s the flaws in usability. Lastly, there’s the ever increasing flood of crap that facebook continues to force into the user experience. If facebook continues to overwhelm the user, and under deliver on the necessities such as usability and privacy- what will be their enduring value proposition?

As facebook becomes more and more common on a myriad of sites, I think facebook (along with google) is vying for what will be the next major advancement in social media- Identity. Currently on the web you need little more than a fake name and picture cut from a magazine to register an account as someone entirely different from yourself. While the loose structure of current online identity begets many of the things techies adore about the internet, it also creates serious cases of virtual identity theft.

In past years, defense of one’s personal identity had to be carried out on a case by case, site by site basis. This has created back breaking work for the user and made it nearly impossible to verify identity across sites. Then came open authentication and suddenly a login to facebook/twitter/google could be used to register on various other social sites. Thus the identity is verified across sites under a single username. This make protection and isolation of identity a single step rather then several.

My prediction is that facebook’s oauth capabilities are the beginning of their attempts to carve out a identity niche. Sure, I bet they have plans to stay a top ranked social site, but just in case they’re making sure they survive by initiating the process to create cross site identification. While facebook’s friend connect isn’t anything new, the developing concept of verified virtual identity is. With google also on the oauth train it will be interesting to see who develops a full virtual identity management system first.

As social media continues to cater to the niche, whoever presents a way to verify a virtual identity across site is set to score and score big.

I am not sure how I missed this interesting piece by Shelly Kramer, but I did. And if it hadn’t been for @lizasperling giving me a far too gratuitous shout out, I might have missed it entirely. Shame on me! I was just crawling into bed for some much needed shut eye when I, as always,  checked my twitter. This article, tweeted directly at me, set my mind so firmly into motion that I was forced to pull out from under my haven of warmth and put my currently turbie twist covered head to work.

I agree with nearly everything Shelly Kramer shared, but I think there was a little something missing. I suppose that something is the perspective of how men and women cognitively approach things different. As much as I would like to say men and women are equals in everything, it’s not quite the case. Fundamentally our brains are wired differently, thus making certain things more appealing/ intuitive based on our gender. I am not by any means saying that a women is not capable of doing everything a man can. Simply, that we might have to fight little against our cognitive tendencies to do some of those things.

What is the  Difference between the Male & Female Brain

A neurological study on brain mass found that in the male brain the cerebral cortex it is slightly more likely (60%) to be non-symmetrical. What might be the male advantage of a lopsided brain? Well a thick cortex can suggested increased functionality of the brains processing. Things that are function based, like staking claim to things & defending territory, may benefit from the increased thickness.  Women on the other hand have a more symmetrical cerebral cortex which suggests an uneven thickness in neither the right or left side of the brain. Since the a female brain is naturally more symmetrical, the thought processes which require multi-directional processing are more easily developed.

Another study in cited Psychology Today found that the male brain is characterized by systemizing tendencies and mechanistic thinking. “Systemizing” is  just a fancy way of saying they have natural tendencies to analyze, explore, and construct a system. They intuitively figures out how things work both literally and figuratively.  In contrast, the female brain is characterized by empathizing tendencies or mentalistic thinking. Empathy is the “the drive to identify another person’s emotions and thoughts”, and to respond to them appropriately. Mentalism, the other strong component to female thinking,  is the ability  to  understand people and what drives them.

So from this understanding of the brain, what can we deduce? Let’s make it simple: Women naturally do well with multitasking, cross-topic organization, community development, and communication. Men naturally do well with promotion (territory claim),  self preservation, concept exploration & system development .

How Does this Alter  the Way We Look At Women in Social Media?

Research has shown us what I think we already knew subconsciously was true, women naturally are more focused on conversation, men are naturally more focused on self survival (promotion). This doesn’t mean that all women are capable of is girl talk or task management. Nor does this mean men are only capable of tooting their own horn and exploring undeveloped concepts digitally.   I am simply saying that advance science shows that each gender has a natural tendencies to certain skill sets. Naturally men will promote themselves more, whether they intend to or not. Likewise, women are more likely to engage in a community, whether ore not they set out to do so. All this put into perspective, it make sense why the “biggest” names in social media are predominately men. It’s not they are any better or more talented than the lovely ladies of digital community, solely that they got prepackaged with a little more natural intuition on how to put themselves top of mind in the field.

In order for any of this to change and for more women to get credit for the more than excellent work they do, us ladies need to focus a little more on self-promotion & industry presence. I know it’s counter-intuitive, it’s uncomfortable, and frankly it seems a bit “used-car salesman like”. Hell, we’ve got thousands of years of  evolutionary developed cognitive processing fighting hard against us.  If we can go a little against our intuition and do a little more to promote our work , women-in life & in social media- will be better. Here’s just a few ideas of simple things we can do to promote women in social media.

1. Endorse Female Conference Speakers- Until the landscape at conferences becomes a little bit more balanced, it’s going to be harder for women to get the social media street cred they deserve. There is no reason more women shouldn’t be speaking at conferences & Shelly Kramer’s post had a list of women who are more then capable of delivering an excellent workshop or speech. Frankly, I’d enjoy some more balance in things; It would not only add some spice to the current conference rosters, but also produce new insights &  program management ideas. Plus, it’s getting old not seeing women on panels or giving speeches. While the world  ~50% female, conference speaker lists make it seems as if we are going extinct!

2. Boast just a little- If you’ve got accomplishments, share them. Chris Brogan doesn’t hesitate to mention he’s a NYT best selling author, neither should you. And if you know anything about Chris, he never comes off as a self promoting jerkwad. He’s balanced in his approach. He balances promoting his events & speaking engagements partnered with vocalizing his legitimacy , all while maintaining a more than active conversation with the public.  I think one of the women who may be doing this best in social media is Liz Strauss. Mingled in with her day to day conversation she still takes time to mention her events and do a little healthy self promotion that never comes off as excessive or in your face.

3. Schmooze, Chatter, & Network- If we’re naturally better suit to create dialogue based communities we should use our strength to help overcome our brain-based weakness. The sum is greater then the sum of all the parts, right? If we can create positive social media orgs for women, then as women break through the barrier, they can mentor and train the next generation to over come the same challenges. There’s a lot of insight and drive here, we just need a little more organization.

This networking function goes beyond  just connecting with other women in the industry. Network with the men who are currently leading the charge! I am sure you’d be surprised how many of them also think that women are unrepresented  in the scene ( especially at the events). If they know who the talented women are, that their intentions are honest, and that their work is superior, then  it is likely they were use a little of their social capital to help these women out.

In Short: Women are doing excellent work. I am confident we can & will lead advanced social thinking & dialogue, but to do so we need to start fighting our intuition and step into the portion of the spotlight we deserve.