However this change, when implemented, may catch unprepared agency and corporate tweeters on the back foot and unable to post from accounts.

The issue stems from Twitter’s choice of security solution – mobile confirmation. When the new system is in place, logging in from a new location will require users to enter a password and a randomly generated code sent to their mobile device.

If this device is owned and registered by any one individual it will mean that this single person will have responsibility for authenticating access for all agency, internal or customer service account users that want to log on.

Inevitably it raises issue for corporate governance and will create confusion as there’s almost no way this person will know which user requested authentication.

Two possible solutions exist for this dilemma. If you can think of any more we’d love to hear them in the comments.

The first, register your Twitter account to a web accessible phone number such as Google Voice or Skype. This will allow multiple people to access the much needed verification messages as and when required.

The second, get yourself a content management system (CMS) such as Hootsuite or CoTweet so that you avoid logging into Twitter in the first place. Unless these services also introduce two-step authentication you should have no problem logging in as usual from any device.

Whether or not the above solutions are viable for your organization people need to start having these conversations now, while there’s still time to establish responsibilities and an authentication process.

Those that don’t… well, you won’t hear from them. Not on Twitter at least.

———————————————

This post first appeared on the Ketchum Blog

The recent rollout of Google+’s Communities looks a lot like Facebook’s own Groups. Have you noticed?

Inevitably it has led to people calling time on Facebook. Advocates of the new platform claim that we head to Google+ if we want our brands and communities to thrive.

The challenge with these comments is that they assume, wrongly in my view, that Facebook and Google are competing for the same territory and that their features, updates and users are after different flavours of the same thing.

It’s simply not the case.

Google+ Communities and Facebook Groups provide different things. Google wants to connect you to the things you are interested in, whereas Facebook helps connect you to the people you are interested in.

It’s not that either platforms can’t do both, but they prioritize things differently.

Facebook has always been a social place and a user’s place on their social graph is what underpins the platform. Google+, on the other hand, is a platform with its foundations firmly rooted in the interest graph.

It’s a place where your position is built on your relationship to things and your social connections, however personally important, are simply an additional layer added on top.

It’s this similarity to Forum communities which indicates where the new Google+ features are a real threat and is why I think we could easily see Google+ rise to become the default community platform in the years to come.

Communities are created through interaction and when it comes to humans, most of our interactions are initiated by shared or common interests.

Online and offline we see this all the time. All around us groups of strangers come together to create communities around shared interests. Whether linked by common geographies, technology, religion, science or culture.

If you search for your interests right now, you’ll find a community set up to cater for it and it’s these results, these existing forums, newsgroups and chatrooms on which Google+ Communities has set its sights.

The Google+ Community is aiming to disrupt the status quo where the top results for a quick search on your favourite subject will return a Forum or Blog alive with comments. It wants instead a world where these conversations are happening on, or are at least curated within, the Google+ platform.

Google’s new community pages come with a massive SEO advantage from the search giant and provide members with features way ahead of community management platforms such as vBulletin.

While it’s unlikely that there will be an exodus of members from established communities towards the Google+ community platform, I do think we’ll see a slow migration of the 1%, of content creators and thought leaders as “old school” administrators struggle to compete with the breath of features and content on offer on G+.

New communities when they spring up will more often than not spring up on Google instead of on forum software and slowly, over time it’ll be hard for any “owned” social property to survive without Google integration because of the diminished search traffic.

Facebook needn’t be worried by Google+ Communities. But Forums should.

The idea behind this was to take the entire text from famous books and create word clouds from them in the shape of the title (or key character). See if you can guess which books I wordled below (mouse over for the answers).

Not bad eh? I wonder what you’d get if you wordled this site…

This blog’s been sitting in drafts for 3 months and so it’s about time I posted it seeing as I seem to be making the same point at every SM event I attend these days and really, I’ve just got to stop. The point I’ve realised that I was trying to make all these months ago when I first drafted this blog is that the current crop of social media platforms do not adequately reflect the way we socialise offline oh and that information decay is an essential part of the social experience.

It’s an excellent article so give it a read and then, I’d love to hear your thoughts on my take on it all,  if it inspires any.

Alastair

Some teens are using Facebook in a very different way from me – are these habits familiar to you guys?

Start Reply:

The girls’ actions aren’t familiar to me but I think the article and observations make for some pretty compelling reading.

The discussion about “online profiles as digital bodies that are left behind to do work while the agent themselves is absent” has always been an interesting one and has always seemed to put the digital world at odds with the “real” one. I’ve always thought that the creation of an online presence is, in a way, akin to cloning. We create a new profile and just like that, an incomplete but functional clone of the user is created! We remain best friends with this digital clone (they tell us everything that goes on, help us stay social and do nice and naughty things on our behalf) but we certainly don’t think that we own them and we don’t really consider them to be a part of us or our real life. This position is reinforced and expressed in the way we even call things that we do offline things going on in the “Real” world or in “Real” life. If our digital clone was really a part of us then the things we do through it online should also be expressed as real but for the majority of us… they simply aren’t. These clones are quite literally our Avatars.

What I think is particularly interesting about the girls’ behaviours is that they clearly have no difficulty in acting the same way online as they do offline. If there’s too much drama in class/the mall/the park, you simply leave and come back later. Their presence online isn’t treated as a detached part of themselves, instead it moves with them. When the user goes AFK so does the presence. They are inseparably one and the same.

As to why this difference in behaviours might exist, I imagine that when you look at people (like you and I) who have had to learn and teach others how to use the web then it’s likely that we’ll be interacting with the tools in a very literal way. Login means login to a session and dump a cookie on my PC. Create account means create account on someone else’s machine which they will own. We see the web as a tool, as a series of tubes and consoles and as inherently artificial and it’s this perception that allows us to swiftly abandon any expectations we might have about the way human interactions in this artificial world should work. Cloning small parts of ourselves and letting them run amuck is suddenly accepted as a totally normal and almost fundamental part of this new world and nobody questions it!

When however you take the technical learning elements out of the equation and approach social networking online in the same manner as you would offline; when you treat your online presence as an actual extension of the self (and not as a clone) then it’s logical that the same rules that you already know about interacting with other people should still apply. You should be able to come and go as you please, you should be able to say something stupid and for it to exist only as a memory just moments later. It can logically be assumed by the new user that, as in the “real” world, your presence and statements should be temporal in nature and not immortal.

Well we’ve got a whole generation (or 2 now) of web users who don’t need to know or don’t even care about sessions, cookies and the literal meaning of the web based functions in front of them and so I must wonder whether it’s logical to assume then that these new users (and the ones yet to come) will be treating the web in a much more human way. That they’ll be applying the known rules from the “real” world to their online behaviours and interactions – instead of having to learn a whole new way of dealing with the people around them.

So what does this mean? Well I’m not really sure and this reply has taken up way too much of my time today already, but if someone doesn’t develop a log out button that allows you to decide how long you want to persist in an area once you’re gone then the web will be a poorer place for it…

via b3ta

“Internet Comics” brings you… Batman Vs. Longcat! Sadly not a real series but the 5 comic cover mockups over on College Humor are excellent.You really should click through and have a look.

Despite not normally the biggest fan of College humor (I don’t think Europeans are really their target audience anyway) I have to agree with many of the commenters that this is totally brilliant! If this idea was fleshed out into a real series available in the shops I’m sure it’d be a massive hit amongst fans and collectors alike.

Anyone fancy starting a petition?

Creepy, macabre and not entirely original this new piece by equally creepy and macabre artist Richard Stipl is on display in Prague until January as part of the Decadence Now! Visions of Excess art exhibition.

Urgh…

Dreamfarm tap device thing – Pretty cool idea.

Newspaper extinction timeline – PDF infographic.

Cowboys and aliens – Excellent trailer for next year’s blockbuster.

Unlogo - Project to remove branding from our lives.

The best blogs of 2010 – not that we’ve read many of them.

Enjoy!

Woah… don’t mess with Basement cat. Srsly.

Source Code itself is a mix between the Bourne films and Quantum Leap and sees our hero (played by Jake Gyllenhaal)  leaping into the body of a man who has only 8 minutes left to live and when I say leaping I mean leaping.

The leaper (Jake) is transported into the body of his doomed flesh donor from the future through the use of a strange computerised device. When he arrives he’s disorientated, has partial to total amnesia but usefully manages to retain all of his skills and language abilities from before the leap. There’s no Al and no Ziggy and throughout he only ever leaps into one person’s body but really now… I hope Scott Bakula at least gets an invite to the premier.

The time travel device (let’s call it the accelerator) taps into something called the Source Code and allows users to experience the last 8 minutes of anyone’s life before it vomits the user back out into the present. Our hero Jake therefore finds himself as a passenger on a train that’s destined to explode exactly 8 minutes after he realises what’s going on and he has just those 8 minutes to work out who causes the explosion and why.

Here’s the trailer so see for yourself.

As a huge fan of Quantum Leap, 12 monkeys, the Bourne films and that other film with Tom cruise and the precogs whose name escapes me… I think this is going to be great fun to watch. That is of course as long as the film lasts longer than the 8 minutes it takes Jake to explode.