Slashdot Mirror
Knock, Knock: Information Pollution Is Here
CowboyRobot writes ""Information Pollution" is one of the newer buzz-phrases, appearing in various media to describe unwanted phone calls, faxes, emails, etc.
Jakob Nielsen, known for his critiques of user interfaces has an article about the problems of unwanted instant messaging interruptions. Nielsen is respectable not only because of the clarity of his arguments but because he also cites empirical evidence, rather than just complaining.
In the article he describes the current problem, then proposes a 'control panel' as a centralized interface to manage all the communications one would make via the computer."
Nielsen is respectable not only because of the clarity of his arguments but because he also cites empirical evidence, rather than just complaining.
I hate to sound like I'm just bashing the guy, but he's a huge hypocrite. I started reading his site back in the day, and after signing up, I got spam for years afterwards.
"Information Pollution" my ass. Up until he decides something's bad and coins some clever term, he'll do it with no compunction.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
With all the spam on the Internet these days I find it harder and harder to find information on what I want. I was searching for information on teens in general for a project that my company was working on and majority of the results were adult related. When searching for products such as Cell Phones I'll be shown thousands of results for Antenna Boosters, Free unlocking Kits and more. Is anyone else having the same problems?
'...then proposes a 'control panel' as a centralized interface to manage all the communications one would make via the computer."'
What are the options? Drop nuke on spammer's house? Send in the black helicopters? The problem isn't so much on the receiver's end as it on the sender's end. Instead of forcing users to jump through flaming hoop after flaming hoop why don't we develop systems that make it more difficult to send spam in the first place? Jakob Neilsen, of all people, should know better than to suggest such a wasteful UI to solve a much deeper problem with the system itself. If you want total anonymity on the internet than you have to deal with these problems. You can't say only certain peolpe get to be anonymous and the people I don't like can't. You want to be able to spoof headers? Be prepared for spammers to take advantage of this "feature". You want to have the ability to have open relays? Get ready for the flood of spam that will use them.
like a modern cellular phone? that's where it's heading anyways, an all-around communication device.
..doh, it is instant messaging) and you can use im services(irc,aim,whatever i guess) from most new phones(i know, the j2me irc sucks, virca that is.. but wirelessirc for series60 is pretty good, most phones also come with email clients as well). already I use more the online services made possible by cheap enough gprs than what I use my phone for actual talking(gprs is ways much cheaper than sms's in most cases and obviously you get the added benefit of contacting all your friends who are online at once when they're on the same channel).
. you know, sms is quite a bit like im(well,
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Initially, it made me less available and less responsive, and that bothered me. However, my work habits started to change in response to it. Because I now control my exposure to communications, I find that I can flip to the other box, scan for messages, and flip back to my work box without exiting the flow state.
This has had some other really positive side effects. For example, people are aware that I'm in my office, even if I'm not responding to IM. That means that if something's really important, they'll often just drop by, replacing the thirty back-and-forth email with a simple 5 minute conversation. Sure, I lose my flow state, but high priority problems bubble up to the top of the list and get resolved in the most effective way (ie; face to face) possible.
Nielsen is respectable not only because of the clarity of his arguments but because he also cites empirical evidence, rather than just complaining.
But he is just complaining!
From the article: "It is naive to believe that IM is the answer to the information overload that's ailing e-mail. Continue current trends a few years and most people will get so much IM that they will have to tune it out to get any work done."
This is the problem he's trying to address it would seem, and his solution is a nice pretty control panel that does everything for him. Now this is obviously a problem, as many many other people have pointed out, but what is Nielsen doing about it? Whining that someone else should write a program apparently. If he believes this control panel is the end-all-be-all solution he should write it and try to sell it, but I'm not buying it. Until some public key standard ala PGP is made idiot proof and seamless enough for the average suburban housewife to use, consumers and big media will keep complaining, imho.
"where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
Just take a look at your tv screen.
Those annoying network logos that sit on the tv screen constantly, except during commercials are the worst form of info pollution.
Do the nets really think that we won't know what channel we're watching if we don't see a constant reminder of it?
I suppose they see it as 'branding', increasing their profile in the Consumer's psyche, but it's really overkill.
It's one reason I got rid of cable tv last year and rarely watch broadcast tv.
I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to start putting studio logos on DVD's as well.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
IM is no different. It's just that IM is by design an interruptive form of communication. This just makes it all the more important that you don't leave it on all day long like many people do. If you leave your IM client on and complain that people keep interrupting you, I have no sympathy. There are some companies these days that seem to think using IM for work is a good idea. If somebody in the office wants to get in touch with you, they should walk over to your cube, or call you on your office phone. If it's not important enough for that, then an email is a better idea.
Check your email once every few hours, no more. If you must more often, for work, at least try to reeducate people - don't reply to emails immediately, train them to use more direct forms of communication when they need an immediate reply. Only turn on your IM client in the evenings when you don't expect to do productive work, and are just surfing the web. Learn to turn off your cell phone, and make sure the people you work with understand the rules for contacting you outside of work hours - leave a message, you'll get back to them. Be in control of your life and your time, you don't need some magic technotool, just a little self-restraint and discipline.
I think our biggest problem isn't the amount of SP*M (hehe it is a 4 letter word you know) we get, or the unrelenting advertising that we get bombarded with. I think 90% of our discontent arises from not being able to weed out the content that we do want.
I would give my left kidney if I could do a google search for an item and exclude all places that try to sell me the widget.
Google search: widget -sale
then I would gladly wade through the 5,000 sites that had INFORMATION on the widget.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
"Information Polution" isn't a new thing, we're just mainstreaming an old problem. I certainly don't want to put up with billboards, telemarketers, sidewalk evangelists or any of the advertising that comes up in my mailbox every day. I'm sure people used to complain at length about the illegitimacy of newspapers or magazines. (Okay, so they still do.)
Nowadays we don't have just a few dozen channels for information at any given time, but literally thousands, possibly more, arranged and biased exactly the way you want it. If Mr. Nielson can't handle the two he's most concerned about -- and he's more concerned about workflow than personal use -- there are existing options. Email not fast enough? Pick up the phone. IM causing worker inattention? Block it.
Small "Internet Control Panels" exist, in limited-information capacities. I have no idea how many "e-bay tracker" applications there are out there, but my guess of "a lot" would probably be an understatement. And the message-filtering abilities of many modern e-mail clients means you could easily sort everything into the locale you want. (I'm not talking spam-filtering, but scripts to filter mail from a general pool into folders.)
E-mail is hardly dead, or sick, or dying. It's abused, and like many things that are abused people will either abandon it or find a way to change it into usefulness. Both are proper social reactions. People use and adapt to the most useful channels of communication.
Mr. Nielson appears to be so far behind the issue that he probably thinks he's ahead.
This now concludes our broadcast day.
Chat, what else. Like IRC, only in most cases between just 2 people.
It's pretty convenient too. Email is not suited to some purposes. Like say, you want to help somebody troubleshoot something. Email is very inconvenient for this. Sure you can mail lots of messages, but those things go slowly. IM is fast, and convenient because you could simply paste URLs, error messages, etc, instead of going through the whole process of opening a new email window, selecting who to send it to...
In the office IM is nice because it doesn't interrupt. You can also easily set away/busy status to let people know that they should try later. A phone pretty much requires you to pick it up. Going somewhere requires getting up, which is again invonvenient if you need to talk about something related to something you have near you.
I don't think IM is for everyone or every situation.
It works for me at my location. I am one of a dozen consultants stationed throughout my institution. With IM, I can find out who is available (sort of a virtual in/out board and get quick answers to questions. If it clear another medium is better (phone or e-mail) we switch. I can usually get "have you seen this problem" question with a URL answer in less than a minute. I have found for our group, that phone calls almost always lead to other things work related and personal stuff since it is sometimes as much as a week between times when we see each other.
Also, I am part of an organization that over-estimates the value of meetings and IM has been a great way for me to keep my productivity up while in meetings that I have no reason to attend, but can not refuse. Since I take notes on my laptop, so it rarely noticed.
Last for me, it is a fantastic resource when we are in meetings with vendors (In part, I deal with large products and it is not uncommon to have 10 of our people and almost as many vendor reps in the room). It is possible to work collectively to keep on top of what the vendor is saying and figure out what questions need to be asked.
There are times I turn off everything, but with IM, I can put up a sign saying, "In, but only contact if urgent." This way I know if there is something I need to get to right away. The phone and voicemail don't do that.
For my friends in cubes, IM is less distracting for their co-workers than phone or cube chats. So for short questions, even IMing a cube or two away can be better for productivity.
Like I said, it works for me, YMMV
Isn't Jakob Nielson mixed up with Macromedia?
What he's describing sounds a lot like their vision for Central
Coincidence?
Find me a system to easily and quickly verify the "facts" with something I can trust.
I find this whole concept fascinating. So much of the information available today is either obviously false, or more interestingly, deliberatly false.
Still, I guess it's just the new mind control.
The idea of peer approved/trusted "truth" is fascinating because it's so seductive. Don't think or question, we'll tell you what's the truth.
I'm not even sure that truth exists.
Yes, but not normally when instant messaging is available. I the long ago, bad old days (before ICQ existed) I was emailing back and forth with a friend that had moved to Boston university. He never replied to a message I was expecting, and SIX MONTHs later it just showed up.
It had hung in one of the several email relays between us and just stayed there until the server was next rebooted. When he stopped emailing, I was vaguly pissed that he didn't send a quick 'gotta go' or some such. 6 months later I talked to him, and found that he'd felt the same way.
plus-good, double-plus-good
For example, searching on Paris Hilton after her little slip-up returned hundreds upon hundreds of affiliates all spamming the same site which, in the end, did not actually have the infamous video. Today, there are much fewer such links.
Similarly, searching on an obscure actor would return hundreds of sites all wanting to sell you posters, DVDs and videos of the movie they had their bit parts in, but little actual information.
That is a good example of information pollution, a term I heard first from Earthlink.
It is the result of affiliation, combined with legions of small-time marketers who all think their affiliate page should be number one in a category. Using the services of firms like Web Position Gold, many succeeded, pushing relevant results off the first ten pages.
Also, Amazon and Ebay have seized most of the keywords, which Google is slowly forcing off onto the paid listings.
I had actually quit Google and went over to MSN, as it had received much less attention by the page spammers and was able to return much more relevant results. But I prefer to browse using an early version of Netscape and for some reason doesn't load MSN well at all.
Google looks a lot cleaner, but spammers still seem to be trying their tricks. For instance, Google cleaned up that meta-refresh fault which would index the text full of keywords and ship you off to the spammed site once you went for it.
But spammers have come back with a javascript substitute that does the same thing.
...but still interesting.
If (and this is a really big if) it was well done, I might be interested in a program that sat between me and usenet, irc, IM, email (and whatever other mediums comes along), and filtered out the worst, brought the urgent stuff to my attention, and just stored the rest.
My initial negative reaction to his article was because for the technically savvy user, email (his major focus) is (or can be) like he wants. A bit of fiddling with procmail, install a bayesian filter, a bit of training, and email isn't really a problem.
That still leaves two fairly important problems which do need adressing - perhaps even by his "control panel". First, the tools need to get easier for the non-tech-savvy to use (although that's a much lesser problem than it was, given the integration of bayesian filtering in current versions of Mozilla). Second, the tools need to be expanded and integrated. My usenet client supports filtering using a static ruleset - but in its own "special" format. My email client uses bayesian filtering - but my IM client doesn't do any at all!
What would be nice is a single place where you write rules and/or feed stuff into bayesian filters for ALL your incoming communications. That'd be the tech-savvy version of Nielsen's "control panel", should be useful, and might not even be that hard to implement.
For a start, how hard would it be to write an IM to email gateway? That is, an IM client that accepts incoming IM messages, converts them into emails and feeds them into your MDA (procmail, say) where you could run it through whatever filters you wanted? Google turns up this project, but it looks to be nothing more than a rough outline of an initial design doc so far.
Still, if you took the concept and extended it, your MDA and MUA would become your CDA (communications delivery agent) and CUA (communications user agent) - methods for filtering, managing, and displaying all sorts of communications, not just email. If filters can keep pace with the spam, then that should solve the problen...
Serial Experiments Lain had a much more appropriate term for the pollution (dilution?) of information with [insert ad here] useless blather to amuse the minds of the masses: "Infornography"
A summary of the episode named after it can be found here.