This weekend I came across a website that offered links to university podcast, and always interested in knowing more, I started browsing. One of the most intresting things I found was a complete course at Berkely !

This podcastscalled Foundations of American Cyberculture given by Greg Niemeyer and Joe McKay to the firsts years students at Berkley goes in 30 lessons of 45 minutes trough all the main issues of culture and (new) media.
Here a short review of how it is to listen

Subjects
The complex interactions between new media and perceptions and performances of embodiment, agency, citizenship, collective action, individual identity, time and spatiality. (that is a quote actually)

Pros
-Greg has a clear and warm voice which is pleasant to listen to
-The subjects are filled with nice examples and anecdotes so never a dull moment
-Its all for free
-Because of some spontaneity of the class you actually get the feeling of being there.

Cons
-The audio listener isn’t taken that seriously all the time, comments from students aren’t hearable, nor are the movies that are played (movies on a podcast?)
-There is a lot of useless information about when homework has to be hand in, and what the assignments for next week are.
-Files aren’t named accurately 20 have numbers and no names, and 8 have names and no numbers and two files are doubled and two are missing.

Conclusion
Although some lectures could have some extra after-editing, my overall feeling is very positive, all the things I already knew, and more, are presented in a logical way filled with extra examples and anecdotes from the teacher’s own experience. If Berkley would put some extra attention into recording, and did some cutting I think I would actually be prepared to pay for this content.

When do I listen to this you ask? Well when I’m biking to the train station, and off course when I’m shopping for food.

Since the start of this weblog I never took the time to finish my attempt to give it a proper design. This month I got a little more time, so I finally present you version 0.99
Still some small bugs to fix, and a little bit of designing to do, but most is there. looks best when filled with a lot of text like this post

The new one:

The old one:

And the first design from November 2005

I hereby promise two posts about this design, one technically and one about ehh design.

All comments and found bugs are welcome off course!

Last night i start looking for sites that are clean but colorfull, that can be or are used for websoftware. And have something special at them.

Good Creative

Tijs Vrolix

Pronet Advertising

Basecamp HQ

Tick Spot

Odeo

Traineo

Yahoo Bookmarks

BrdCast

(A dutch post this time, when the concept is more stable i will write in english again)  Wellicht kan ik toch iets met freelancers, mijn eerste probleem daarmee was, dat freelancers elkaar onderling niet willen helpen, omdat een positieve beoordeling van een collega hun eigen kans op de markt naar beneden haalt. Maar geïnspireerd door http://programmermeetdesigner.com/ waar de doelgroep heel duidelijk is wil ik het toch proberen. Omdat designers programmeurs nodig hebben, en programmeurs designers, is er misschien wel iets te bedenken. Programmeurs en designers zitten elkaar tenslotte niet in de weg. Helaas kunnen ze wellicht elkanders werk ook minder goed beoordelen. Maar de bereidheid om toch aan elkaar reputatie te bouwen zal groter zijn omdat ze er wel allebei mee vooruit komen.

De mogelijkheden die ik dan voor me zie zijn:

• Designers zoeken programmeurs
• Programmeurs zoeken designers
• Buitenstaanders zoeken designers en of programmeurs
• Iedereen kan elkanders werk beoordelen en elkanders specialiteiten aangeven

 
Specialiteit (reputatie velden)
Leden kunnen dan enkele specialiteit opgeven, en deze kunnen door ander bevestigd worden. (Waarbij dan gekozen moet worden tussen de strategieën: wil ik de beste zijn op een gebied, of wil ik mee doen op velen gebieden)

Transactie afspreken (ebay-style)
Verder kunnen designers en programmeurs via Reputator dan hun project in “borg” zetten, en elkaar na het aflopen van het project beoordelen op presentaties (zoals: nette aanlevering, snelle levertijd, duidelijk overleg) Dat dit waarschijnlijk net als bij eBay altijd resultaten van 80 – 100% tevredenheid zal gaan opleveren hoeft op zich geen probleem te zijn.

Profielpagina
Op de profielpagina kan ook een portfolio worden aangelegd waarbij een licht onderscheid gemaakt zal worden door projecten die via Reputator tot stand zijn gekomen, en projecten die ze zelf in / aangevoerd hebben. Aan de publieke zijde van de portfolio kan vervolgens de kwaliteit en inhoud van deze projecten worden besproken.

Groepsvorming
Uiteindelijk kunnen programmeurs en designers die elkaar via Reputator hebben gevonden ook weer groepen vormen waardoor externe opdrachtgevers eenvoudig met hun opdracht bij een team van specialisten terecht kunnen.

Dankzei het reputatie systeem kan al bij het invoeren van een vacaturen direct een juiste match worden gegeven van potentiële kandidaten. Andersom kunnen mensen ook getipt worden als nieuwe vacatures de juiste mix van hun kennis bevatten.

Uiteindelijk zou dus de kwaliteit van de communitie die van iedere deelnemer moeten versterken en 1 en 1 samen 3 moeten vormen.

Widgets

En omdat widgets nu eenmaal zo handig zijn een Reputator Widget waarin je kunt zien wat de top 3 specialiteiten van de freelancer zijn, en wat zijn algehele score op de betrouwbaarheids index is.

Vragen:

Denk je dat dit gaat werken? Zullen mensen elkaar op vriendschappelijke wijze feedback willen geven als op de achtergrond meespeelt dat ze daarmee zichzelf uit de markt prijzen.

Welke reputatie gebieden verwacht je? Worden dat programma’s voor de designers en talen voor programmeurs. Of worden het abstractere voorbeelden, zoals creativiteit en ordelijkheid.

Als je een samenwerking aan gaat, op welk gebied kun/wil je dan beoordeeld worden op creativiteit en kwaliteit of liever op dingen als snelheid van leveren en duidelijkheid van communiceren.

Verder is alle feedback welkom en hoop ik morgen met de screens te kunnen beginnen.

in the media
Friday I got some positive comments on my project by Dutch web2.0 weblog BlueACe, although they have some questions if openness will create trust and truth in the end, they are looking forward to the release.

demo version
Last weekend i worked in completing all the screenshots i needed to give a complete vision of the project, you can visit the demo here, any comments are welcome again

screenshots updated
Based on the feedback i got, i changed some things in the screens on Flickr

front-page - removed the search for good reputation
personal profile - changed the color settings, and tried to make reputation areas more explicit
public profile - minor changes
directory - removed the search for good reputation, and added links to more pages

mailing list
On the front-page its possible to subscribe to my mailing list.

What is Reputator?

It’s an online social biography network. www.reputator.net
Who can use it?

Reputator was created to serve everyone, but especially those who depend on online created trust, like small traders and freelancers.

How does it work?

You can create a profile just like in any other site. With each personal profile, there comes also a public profile (similar in style to a wiki). The personal profile is the one you can edit, the public profile is open for the public to correct add and rewrite the information about you.

Why is there a public-profile about me?

By having a profile that can be edited by anyone, you are vulnerable for all kinds of comments, but by showing your weakness, you make clear that you have nothing to hide. That is, according to A. Baier, how trust is defined:

“One leaves the others an opportunity to harm one when one trusts, and also shows one’s confidence that they will not take it.” Baier, A. in Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Howe, D. C., Trust Online 2000 (pdf)

Where is the reputation coming in?

Glad you asked. Just like many sites these days, each profile can be tagged, with fields on which one person is trusted. Those “fields of trust” can be tagged multiple times by different individuals, each adding their own meaning about your biography and giving you a more complete reputation on the fields they’ve chosen to tag. This creates a growing and reliable reputation on certain fields.

Enough talk, show my pictures!

The front-page:

The front-page, with a huge search box for easy finding.
The search result page

After a search on the word “Design” you will get to the search result page / directory. Here you get all the results shown from high to low reputation.

The personal profile page (when you are not logged in)

The profile page, which can be build up in modules, has both a personal as a public side, and a reputation tag cloud. (two lines of people after degrees, to prevent you from, creating fake accounts for boosting your reputation)

Profile when you are logged in

As you can see on each subject there can be a discussion, and each discussion can be confirmed or declined by the owner of the profile (not removed however)
Questions for you

You could all help me by giving your overall impression about the design and the idea, and some answers on these questions would also be appreciated.

1. Do you think adding a function for negative reputation could be useful?

2. Should you be able to create public profiles about some-one who doesn’t have a personal profile

3. Would an add-friends connection be any help

4. Is this a good idea anyway (why / why not)

5. Since this is it, and I don’t have much time to make something new, will I survive my presentation with this, any hints and tricks are appreciated.

Well that’s it, press release can be downloaded here in English, en hier in Nederlands.

There has been a recent outbreak on possibilities to claim your own identity, but what is the best solution?

I tag myself
There is ClaimID to claim your ID and off course my portfolio
pros:No one knows myself better than myself (or does one), I have the most direct access to my own work, and i can remember if something was made by me (update claimID also enables to ensure that a claimed website is yours)
cons:How do I make you trust me, It would be more than logical to let all negative stuff away from my ID. There’s no talk back option for other users.

Update: Mashup pointed me on the Naymz website, a site where you ensure yourself in the top of search engines

I tag myself, but you can give some comments
you’ve got the 3 that are trying to take reputation out of ebay: IKarma , Rapleaf and Opinity.
pros:Opinity has the option to securely claim web accounts that are created by me. Other people can talk back on what the think of me.
cons:Still most comments will be positive, because people will fear me of burning down their reputation, It only works good in business situation where goods are moved.

You tag me, and I’m helpless
And there are some initiatives the measure your reputation based on google results like EgoSurf ,Preople which feels a bit like the good old wuffie and off course there is the most famous way to check someones ID search for it on google.
pros: There is a feeling of trust because the information it gathered without your direct input, its up to date.
cons: If there are some big lies about me, or some really old documents i need to call a SEO company to fix it up.

So what would you trust better, me talking about myself like ClaimID does, me talking about myself but let others comment it like the reputation systems do, or letting the machines talk about me as google does? The answer I think should be (as expected) somewhere in the middle. A profile that you can create where others can talk about you. And can leave a positive or a negative feedback of doing business, having a date or what whatever with you.

My ideal solution
-has the option to verify my webaccounts like opinity has
-hast the solution to check if my name and my address are real (as paypal and couchsurfing use)
-Will allow to give other users to give me a reputation like feedback (as the ebay system)
-does have an option to describe myself (perhaps as the consumating idea)
-gives a possibility to see directly the reputation of those who talk about my reputation.
-gives me some feedback from how i score on the Internet (like google and technorati)

I would love to have some comments on this

1 When you subscribe you get 100 credits

2 Next you can describe yourself in tags. Common tags will be available

Example: Utrecht / Student / Design / Trust / HKU / 24

3 Add a description to your tags

Utrecht – I live in the city of Utrecht
Student – I am a student
Design – Designing is what I do
Trust – I’m completely to be trusted
HKU – The school I go to
24 – The age I am

4 Adding points to what is most important to you (Creating word value)

Utrecht 20
Student 15
Design 25
Trust 20
HKU 20
24 10

5 Ask other people to redefine your tags, add some extra and change some values.

by adding or removing points from their own credits to yours(with a max of 5)
So after a friend visits you, your score can be:

Utrecht 20
Student 15
Design 25
Trust 20 - 1
HKU 20
24 10
Tall +1

And my reputation score will be 101 / -1 (1)
My positive reputation, my negative reputation and the times editing

So why al the trouble?

Well my hardest unanswered question yet, it why wouldn’t anyone create 10 accounts and write on other accounts how good they are. But I guess faking is possible on any account. So there should be a positive reason not to do it.