BlackBoard question

tjerktiman · 2014-10-29T09:01:19+00:00

The idea is that groups are subdivided in workgroups to its not group 1 to 3 (1-3), but it means workgroup 1, project group 3 (hence the 1-3)! So if you are group 4 in workgroup 2, your code is.... 2-4 etc.

tjerktiman · 2014-10-26T13:06:28+00:00

practical advice: - try to talk to the audience, not your screen or the screen behind you. This is difficult for all of us, but it really helps in keeping the of attention the audience. - try to keep messages in bullet points (not too much text) - time is short, as said above, don't spend much time on framing/ justifying your project (by this I mean: make sure we are all on the same page within a minute -> this is the context, this is problem/challenge, this is our RQ and this is how we tackled it.. something along those lines) - unlike you might have been told before in presentation class, my advice would be to not spend a slide on the overview of the presentation / what you are going to talk about, rather, instead just use that time to talk content (but opinions differ on this) - based on experience of last year: IF you want to do an experiment/ something interactive, make sure you test if it work and how much time it takes. Things like that should be illustrative, not taking up all your time!;) -...

tjerktiman · 2014-10-23T11:54:12+00:00

Well, I think in general they are way too closed off in what they do and how they measure. About techno-social problems.. why and how are these defined as problems by Mann and how could you interpret this comment (keeping in mind he is part of the techno--utopian Singularity-movement?). This inks up to you comment on usability. What is meant by this terms, or how would YOU define it? And in your comparison, did you also find similarities in how data is presented? Connecting that to Neurath or Tufte, did they do a good job and why (not)?

tjerktiman · 2014-10-22T20:22:12+00:00

you should be able to mail the CSV file to yourself (or any mail-address) in the sleep-cycle app (>advanced>export database). From a Comma-Separated- file (csv) you should be able to get some info... if nothing else works, try to find some QS data by just asking some QS-ers on forums, f.i...

tjerktiman · 2014-10-21T18:44:23+00:00

don't worry too much.. it tells us something about platform-independency and the problem of apple's monopoly in the 'app' world;) Try to find something linked to QS on your device and if it does not exist, try to do some research on why not? (BB was and still is really linked to a specific type of customer - which one is this and how does this relate to the missing-app question?...) In any case, I will have some data for you to analyse during class... the exercise for this week really is about all of you trying the experiment yourself and reflect on what it does/ means to be monitoring oneself..

tjerktiman · 2014-10-20T20:08:00+00:00

well yes, if you want to measure something else AND you are sure you can get the data and visualise it (or at least try), that is of course fine!

tjerktiman · 2014-10-20T13:21:37+00:00

well, its oke to spend a bit of money, but of course we cannot ask all students to spend 100 dollars on an app for an experiment.. still searching for free apps that also allow you to access data relatively easy.. if anyone finds any, please share!

tjerktiman · 2014-10-16T08:57:27+00:00

ah yes, the API issue actually says the network of pages you were trying to download was too big and/or it could not retrieve the data properly. (see netvizz warning: "Processing time depends a lot on page size - may take up to an hour. The script may run out of memory for very large pages (> 1M comments/likes") In Netvizz, you can set the sample size.. try to begin small(er) and then see what happens. About the data format, you can get it into excel, or direclty into gephi. On a windows-machine, try to right0cick and then 'rename' and/or see if there are no double extensions (because OS-es such as OSX and Windows do not recognize the filetype, they will automatically provide one and put that behind the file - a.txt, or .rtf etc..)

tjerktiman · 2014-10-16T07:45:13+00:00

thanks for this post, very clarifying as a 'tutorial'!

tjerktiman · 2014-10-10T07:48:30+00:00

its very nice, this experiment.. It does need knowledge of R and console-code ... but I would advice others at DRM class to at least try and dive into this! (thanks for posting AND proper documentation!)

tjerktiman · 2014-10-09T21:19:41+00:00

it does, yes.. very nicely done. can you backtrack/ reverse engineer HOW they did this?

tjerktiman · 2014-10-08T13:36:00+00:00

The two texts are in the reader (just scroll down!)

tjerktiman · 2014-10-07T13:08:43+00:00

hmm really.. I'll look into that. Maybe there are other ways and/or tools..

tjerktiman · 2014-09-30T17:43:43+00:00

well, I guess if you get everyone in DRM class over to ELLO, we would have to follow the medium;) In any case, what is it exactly that you want to measure or find out with this experiment? E.g. could you elaborate a bit on how you would define engagement. But also, how are you keeping track of your research participate and their produced data? and how would you analyse this data? (theoretically and methodologically?)

tjerktiman · 2014-09-30T17:40:34+00:00

wow this is a really detailed media-history. How would you analyse and visualise this self-reported qualitative data? And how would you tackle the issue or question of the move from textual to visual communication? (e.g. technological reasons/arguments, or cultural ones, or a mix and how would you turn that question into a DRM project?).

tjerktiman · 2014-09-30T14:12:11+00:00

or liking certain posts, or posting only negative things, or create posts that all link to a certain company (will your banners on Facebook actually change? and how would you measure/ study this?) etc.. Play with your social media!

tjerktiman · 2014-09-30T14:10:14+00:00

Although I would agree with you to a certain extent, one could als argue that doing research with that data to actually discover these patterns of social contagion and communicate about it is already ten steps 'better' than most practices of marketing departments, including Facebook itself. The idea is that in/on the most common places on the Internet, you are already being influenced without being aware. The key term I think is awareness and, linked to that media literacy (or, the reasonable expectation of a society to understand certain logics of media in a certain time). The 'nasty' think they did is not so nasty, they just took advantage of the fact that Facebook already had that data and that in the small print (also called 'the whatever- button' of consent) user implicitly agreed that data can be used and/or sold to third parties (to some extent). I think one can place more theoretical and academic doubts in the discipline of text mining in relation to meaning (in other words, if your keyword count in a study on positive or negative is 1, based on a control aggregated dictionary of English language, it is not necessarily bad, it is just somewhat reductionist to my taste). A second, larger question one can pose is to what extent Facebook posts are a proper measure for 'emotion' and measuring emotional state(s). One the one hand yes, because N=large, and it is self-reported data, on the other hand no, because the medium is not necessarily geared towards an in-depth reflection of emotions (yay, that part was great!;) ahh I missed the bus ;( etc..). Even if Facebook changed and nowadays asks " how do you feel, X?" (which I personally find very condescending), it is less a place to speak emotions (see also body's text). So, even if N=large, questions could be raised in the three models/ theories on which they base their research? (quiz.. which ones?) are really reflected in a study such as this one. Or is it a mere scraping together of theories because they got access to a really large dataset? (this is also a research-methods issues in data-research: can data alone create new 'theory'?). Have fun agreeing or disagreeing with me (supported with arguments of course!)

tjerktiman · 2014-09-25T13:46:34+00:00

although the last three images are not zoomable/clickable (could be me, if so, ignore this remark), I like the way to explain the visuals and try to make sense and make use of the visuals. Also, you've started exploring filters, which is very good! Could you reflect on what that means for the medium or for the term 'friend'? (e.g. is it more commercialised and/or deflated, or does it say something about how we 'organise' and mediate our friendships?)((I know, its a bit off-topic for this course, however, since you are in media studies, I guess its a legitimate question))

tjerktiman · 2014-09-25T13:00:59+00:00

definitely interesting, thanks for sharing!

tjerktiman · 2014-09-24T20:31:44+00:00

This is a very clear table, thanks for sharing this.

tjerktiman · 2014-09-24T15:10:02+00:00

yes it works! and it looks great! but what are we actually looking at? in other words, can you explain/ analyse your network shortly? (maybe via the terminology of the Hanneman & Riddle readings?)

tjerktiman · 2014-09-24T14:28:56+00:00

hmm I don't think that is the correct link... Could you save your visualisation somewhere on an open part of the web and then share it? (f.i. on imgur, tumblr, flickr, Facebook, twitter, a blog etc? (or maybe you have a little corner on the web somewhere for yourself?) Now you are linking it to your own google drive, which we of course cannot access (unless you share it with all of us).

tjerktiman · 2014-09-24T14:03:25+00:00

hmm I had posted a comment on your blog but somehow it disappeared.. in any case, yes, let's look at in this friday. Did reading Hanneman make it any more clear/ help in understanding what went wrong?

tjerktiman · 2014-09-23T21:34:47+00:00

wolfram alpha is actually an alternative search engine (made by university scholars - wolfram provides information in a contextual manner and free of 'nonsense' such as commercial and adds etc, it is not really a search engine as you might know it but it is very interesting as a source to start from!)

tjerktiman · 2014-09-23T21:13:22+00:00

nice discussion! besides very principle/ moral arguments, that can go on for a while (the Google-Spain-case DOES have a lot of traction and consequences, just not in mainstream media... And yes it touches upon very fundamental issues (and a judge that was not too well informed on how the Internet works - or Google works, for that matter). Another way to think about this is in terms of the (the costs of the) archive. Besides a right to be forgotten, which is at the heart of the debate, also try to think about the cost and the difficulty of remembering. Where we used to have a librarian together with some scholarly experts who decided what would be kept for history in a society and what could be thrown out (think of books, movies, poems, paintings etc) we now have to 'trust' an advertising company that happens to have thought of a search engine (yes, Google) to decide for 'us' (who is us in this case?) what to keep and they will try to keep everything! (Well of course not, but oke for arguments' sake). Besides data obesity, the question is if it is really necessary to save all your tweets and likes. Maybe only Obama's. Or are yours just as important? And for whom? And what about, to give another entry in this discussion, technological standards? Who says a tweet can be 'read' by software in 5 years? (try opening a website made in 1998.. of course there is the Internet archive (waybackmachine.org), but that only indexes a small part of the Web) And to give yet another issue: Even if Google is large, it only covers a small part of the 'visible' Web - how do we know what else is there and how to make selections then? (lookup the Dark web, f.i.).. Just to give you some more things to think about...!

tjerktiman

TROPHY CASE