The semantics web? I know I’ve been asking this question for over six year (I have proof below): What does one call this stuff we do?

I’ll agree with one thing. I’m not a consumer generating content. (But I’ll defer to a long-ago post from Doc Searls to explain why.)

Mary Hodder also doesn’t like the word “consumer” as in consumer-generated content. She prefers “user” as in user-generated content.

Robert Scoble hates being called a “user” and would rather be a participant, as in, I presume, “participatory media.”

Kevin Marks digs into the Latin and French origin of the word “amateur” and says it’s no slight to call it amateur (as in “lovingly created”) media.

Dave Winer also thinks amateur is a good word, and has been saying so for a long time.

How do I know I’ve been wondering what to call this for over six years? Well, on September 23, 1999, I registered the URL “conversationalmedia.com” — So, I’d be happy if we’d all just agree on that one.

Others terms: Citizens media (but to me, that sounds like CB radio - breaker, breaker). I pushed the term “folk media” once, but I think it was Jeff Jarvis who suggested that sounded like something performed by Peter, Paul & Mary.

Great news for a few of my “older” blog friends: A couple years ago, Jeff Jarvis referred to me (and also to himself) as examples of older bloggers. I’m happy to learn from CNN that Jeff and I are no longer in the demographic profile of “older bloggers.” (However, I hope to be one day.)

My name is rex and I’m addicted to: checking the rexblog frappr map to see who’s added their name (and photo). By the way, there appear to be some new Frappr features. If you register, you can edit a shout out or add a photo later. Also, they’ve added some code so someone with a frappr map can do the following cool “slide show” thing (although the slide show feature doesn’t seem to work in Safari - it does in Firefox.):

(IMAGE REMOVED: It was slowing down the page load.)

While I’m joking about the “addicted” thing — I’m more like in denial, I must say that this mash-up of names, map location and photos is a compelling feature that gives me a sense that this weblog has a, despite hating this next cliché, community. Especially since this is a weblog with relatively few commentors.

Randomly rexblogged: Recent magazine news links from deli.cio.us/rexblog and other random links:

MPA salutes Cathleen Black, William Buckley | Adage.com
Cathleen P. Black, president at Hearst Magazines, and William F. Buckley Jr., founder and editor-at-large of National Review, have been chosen to receive consumer

Shifting from print to online | Paul Conley’s weblog
“Our jobs are becoming less about print and more about multimedia.”

‘Cigar City Magazine’ focuses on Ybor City and Tampa | Tampa Bay Business Journal
Three entrepreneurs driven by their families’ heritage have created a magazine focused on the colorful history and culture of Ybor City and Tampa.

RSS feed for “randomly rexblogged” only:

tag: magazines

Nashville news day: I know there are some people who read this weblog who tire of my Nashville hyperlocal blogging. Then, there are others who wish I’d skip all that other stuff.

But it’s not everyday that a Nashvillian (geez, and someone I actually know) is nominated to be an FCC commissioner and a huge auto maker announces it is moving its North American headquarters here.

(By the way, I would have linked to the Nissan website, but it’s one of those Flash sites that hate my browser.)

What to do after you shoot the focus group: Deep-pocketed marketers may be shooting their focus groups (see previous post), but they’ve got to do something with that focus-group-budget burning holes in those deep pockets. So, IBM is offering a blog searching tool it calls a “Public Image Monitoring Solution” that reportedly costs $100,000.

Of course, they could set up some RSS feeds deliverying a range of blog-search hacks, but that would be neither cheap nor obvious.

And always remember: Big marketers don’t like cheap, obvious answers.

Not that I agree that capital punishment is the solution: Just because I’m pointing to this article in BusinessWeek called “Shoot The Focus Group,” don’t take that to mean that I actually advocate that you literally go out and shoot a focus group.

Actually, some of my best friends are focus groups.

Key quote:

“Some of the new solutions displacing focus groups don’t rely on consumers to sort through their feelings at all. Instead, companies get more useful feedback just from watching daily life.”

This reminds me of a conversation I had yesterday with a consultant-friend whose name will remain anonymous who consults giant marketers on how to do something that seems rather obvious to me. He admitted that he was sometimes hired to be a consultant of common sense.

Big marketers don’t like cheap, obvious answers.

(via: Steve Rubel)

The New Yorker’s copyright hack: I am a very proud owner of the DVD set, The Complete New Yorker. It is truly incredible to have almost 4,200 issues of the magazine compiled in one spot. However, it doesn’t take long for a user to ask the question the Wall Street Journal (free feature) answers today: Why does The Complete New Yorker feel so low-tech?

Answer: The explanation lies in a years-long battle over a clause in U.S. copyright law concerning the ownership of rights to magazine articles written by free-lancers.

Quote:

“When Congress revamped copyright law in 1976, it said magazine publishers retained the right to print collections and revisions of past issues. But when a magazine wants to republish a free-lance work in a new and different format, the free-lancer must be compensated accordingly, two more-recent court rulings have found. That means when republishing articles on DVD or other digital formats, magazines must pay free-lancers again, get their permission to republish free — or preserve the original print context. The New Yorker’s solution was to scan the original magazine pages onto DVDs.”

Lost is podcasting: ABC has started an official podcast for those of us who are obsessed with the TV series Lost.

Sidenote: I found last night’s episode rather lack-luster except for the “big thing” that happened at the end.

Warning: The comments on this post include some “spoiler” information about what happened on the most recent episode (what were you thinking, Laura?). So, if you haven’t seen the episode, don’t click on the “comments” link or you’ll be eaten by a giant polar bear.

(Thanks to Shannon, no not that Shannon, for the link.)