I have already posted how I am planning to attend Northern Voice, and since I take an evidence-based research approach to my work and studies, I am applying for one of their travel bursaries.

I am applying for this not just because I am traveling to Vancouver from New York (by way of Houston and Seattle where I transfer planes with a 12 hour total flight on the first day to get there), nor is it because I (as a working graduate student) am always short of funds. Rather, it is because I believe the contribution I can make to the conference through a research project I am proposing will begin to fill a gap in the literature that may be helpful for others to know more about. Lots of people write about why and how people blog, while fewer people do this in a formalized research manner to ultimately publish and present their findings in an academic, peer-reviewed milieu.

I am proposing, along with my colleague Robin, a qualitative research project to investigate something we can not readily locate in the literature–blogger motivation. We are planning to ask if people self-identify themselves as bloggers or individuals who actively participate in social media. If so, and they consent to participate, they will be asked how they remain motivated to maintain and actively post to their blog. As a closet researcher who believes in following accepted research practices, this project will be submitted for formal IRB (institutional review board) approval at my university, the participants at the conference will be anonymous, the responses will be coded, and findings will be shared with the Northern Voice community, with the larger research community, and with and anybody else who is interested in learning more about this topic.

We believe there has been some discussion about this, but we have not found any research (following formal processes and procedures) that helps us to understand the phenomena. The community that makes up the Northern Voice experience will be offered an opportunity to expand the knowledge of the blogging experience. I hope the bursary award committee agrees with the value in this project and offers to support and participate in it.

I saw this great article on the SnagIt blog that pointed to Dian's posting about how to protect web images using watermarks and the like. I have been a fan and user of SnagIt for many years now, even before being an instructional designer, and while I do not usually do this last step for my images, others may find this particularly useful.

How is this for empowering and protecting your hard work?

Seems Robert Scoble has a different interpretation of the Google power and do no evil message than I do. As I mentioned in my reply to his post, #42, perhaps doing no evil is open to interpretation, and what is clear to me is not that way to others.

I hope it is the other way around, at least when people judge my own work!

This image was on the cover of the Business section of today’s New York Times. As a daily Times reader, I get a lot of my information in paper form since I like to write on the paper, clip out sections, and most importantly read it while commuting to and from work.

I am surprised with this chart from today, since I do not understand what it is trying to say. How should I read this chart? Click to see it full-size, and let me know if it makes sense. For All the News That’s Fit to Print, this is a bit confusing, especially for the business section.

Now that I am thinking more about my Google post, I am thinking about Brin's regret. If that choice was "a net negative," why not change their own policy?

It seems Sergey Brin over at Google now regrets his company's involvement of censoring in China. The Guardian reports that the Google motto "Don't be evil" seems somewhat problematic regarding this situation. Brin is quoted as saying: "On a business level, that decision to censor… was a net negative."

So, censoring is negative for business, but it is still acceptable according to Google's Code of Conduct? This states (with the text in bold being my emphasis of their actual words):

Our informal corporate motto is "Don't be evil." We Googlers generally relate those words to the way we serve our users – as well we should. But being "a different kind of company" means more than the products we make and the business we're building; it means making sure that our core values inform our conduct in all aspects of our lives as Google employees.

The Google Code of Conduct is the code by which we put those values into practice. This document is meant for public consumption, but its most important audience is within our own walls. This code isn't merely a set of rules for specific circumstances but an intentionally expansive statement of principles meant to inform all our actions; we expect all our employees, temporary workers, consultants, contractors, officers and directors to study these principles and do their best to apply them to any and all circumstances which may arise.

The core message is simple: Being Googlers means striving toward the highest possible standard of ethical business conduct. This is a matter as much practical as ethical; we hire great people who work hard to build great products, but our most important asset by far is our reputation as a company that warrants our users' faith and trust. That trust is the foundation upon which our success and prosperity rests, and it must be re-earned every day, in every way, by every one of us.

So please do read this code, and then read it again, and remember that as our company evolves, The Google Code of Conduct will evolve as well. Our core principles won't change, but the specifics might, so a year from now, please read it a third time. And always bear in mind that each of us has a personal responsibility to do everything we can to incorporate these principles into our work, and our lives.

While business is business and revolves around increasing value for stockholders, I am still bothered by how they are interpreting this with their censorship. How is a statement of principles, even one which they rightly acknowledge evolves over time, aimed at one set of users (Chinese authorities) while the end-users (those who use the Google services themselves) are manipulated by finding changed results from the searches? 

Google claims, in Serving Our Users:

Google has always flourished by serving the interests of our users first and foremost. Our goal is to build products that organize the world's information and make it accessible to our users.

I suppose Google is selective in providing which information to which users. With Google dominating Web searches, at least in the US, I am increasingly concerned that Google will begin tampering with their censorship here as well for causes or sites or concerns or issues they want to promote. After all, their service is to use, so they do not technically owe end-users anything. They are free to organize "the world's information" in any way they choose. This has interesting implications for maintaining the power they now have, especially for those to whom they choose should benefit from it.

What is to stop them, as they now have a track record?

I was weighed today and lost 4 pounds after my first week on Weight Watchers. That is the most I have lost in a week in several years. Hey, I have to start someplace and am happy I am following through with this decision. At least with the new Weight Watchers program, I am not hungry as I was in previous weight-loss efforts! 

Here is Posey now. While 5 years old now, she is still my little baby!

Today is Posey’s birthday! She is five, so it is a nice time to look back when she was a baby, at only 3 months old here. I will upload a birthday picture tonight when she and her brother have a birthday cupcake.