I discovered the Fredericksburg, Va. based Folded Under (www.foldedunder.com) through Napster. Sort of. I actually downloaded some of their songs along with dozens of others in one fell swoop from mp3.washingtonpost.com, when I lived in Arlington, VA.

And it all started because of a little viral marketing by someone I "let" into my home who was able to "peek" at some of my stuff.

Media companies are always searching for ways to attract younger readers/users/etc. I downloaded this band's music from the Web site of my Big Local Paper. But I was CONNECTED to them thanks to the software of a college kid from Northeastern with a funny nickname. Something to think about when looking out for the Next Big Thing.

Get $50 for participating in a research study.

As a valued Progressive Direct customer, we're inviting you to participate in an innovative research study. The purpose of this study is to help us reduce the cost of car insurance. And you’ll earn $50 just for participating.

How it works:

Let us know you'll participate by visiting us online.

We’ll send you a TripSensor –- a matchbook-sized device that easily plugs in near your vehicle’s steering column. Just plug it in, drive as you normally do, and forget about it. In six months, we’ll ask you to unplug the TripSensor and send it back to us, and we'll send you $50. It's that easy.
The data you provide are for research purposes only, and will not, under any circumstances, have an effect on your current or future car insurance rate.

FriendOfChad: oh hell no
FriendOfChad: that cant be real
FriendOfChad: :-(
Chad: oh yes it is
FriendOfChad: omg
FriendOfChad: thats it i want to move to NH
FriendOfChad: and live off the grid and never be heard from ever again
Chad: that thing works in NH too, i'm sure
Chad: you're screwed!
FriendOfChad: damn
FriendOfChad: lol
FriendOfChad: yeah
FriendOfChad: hmmm...
FriendOfChad: maybe i can hook it up
FriendOfChad: to my bicycle
FriendOfChad: and screw with their data
Chad: or a city bus
FriendOfChad: HAHAHAH
FriendOfChad: ya
Chad: or an airplane
FriendOfChad: lol

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/assistance/HP051901241033.aspx

After I received a magazine assignment to write about the latest business technology trends, I figured "Who better to ask than the Morph audience?"

So, tell us about your favorite gadget, and why you love it, or what's on your "must have" list and why.

We Invest
To download the MP3 of the session, click here.
Audio begins during intro of Rick Ducey, Executive VP, BIA Financial
Other panelists are:
Brad Burnham, Partner, Union Square Ventures
Paul Ginocchio, Media Analyst, Deutsche Bank
Brad Feld, Managing Director, Mobius Venture Capital
Moderator: Susan Mernit, Senior VP, 5ive

Culture, Politics & Buzz
Participants: Dominik von Jan, Director, NextNextBigThing
John Gerzema, Chief Insights Officer, Young and Rubicam Brands
Moderator: Farai Chideya, Editor & Founder, Pop and Politics
To download the MP3 of the session, click here.

We Marketing
Participants:
Fernando Espuelas, Chairman & CEO, Voy
John Bell, Senior Vice President & Creative Director, Ogilvy PR
Rich Skrenta, CEO & Founder, Topix.net
Henry Copeland, Founder, BlogAds
Moderator: Steve Rubel, Blogger, Micro Persuasion
To download the MP3 of the session, click here.

Activism & Democracy
Participants:
Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times Columnist
Marcus Xiang, CEO, PDX.CN
Brian Reich, Director, Mindshare Interactive Campaigns
Seth Green, Executive Director, Americans for Informed Democracy
Moderator: Rebecca MacKinnon, Co-Founder, Global Voices
To download the MP3 of the session, click here.

In Us We Trust
Participants: Craig Newmark, Customer Service Rep & Founder, craigslist
Richard Edelman, President & CEO, Edelman PR
Watts Wacker, CEO, Futurist
Karen Stephenson, President, Netform
Moderator: Dale Peskin, Co-Director, The Media Center
To download the MP3 of the session, click here.

Tag: wemedia ]]> tag:www.capellman.com,2005:/morph//2.654 2005-10-05T14:40:40Z 2007-04-05T16:38:42Z

Congress Abandons WikiConstitution September 28, 2005 | Issue 41•39

WASHINGTON, DC—Congress scrapped the open-source, open-edit, online version of the Constitution Monday, only two months after it went live. "The idea seemed to dovetail perfectly with our tradition of democratic participation," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said. "But when so-called 'contributors' began loading it down with profanity, pornography, ASCII art, and mandatory-assault-rifle-ownership amendments, we thought it might be best to cancel the project." Congress intends to restore the Constitution to its pre-Wiki format as soon as an unadulterated copy of the document can be found.

More info on the event is here | Click here to register.

Now, whether you can attend or not, we'd like to hear from you! What questions or issues would you like discussed by a particular participant? By all of the participants? Please post your comments below, and we'll make sure they see it!

This story begins a long, long time ago. Well, actually, not that long ago, 1999 to be exact. But with the speed of Web development, it feels very much in the past.

David Neumann, president of Digital Entertainment Network (DEN), proudly gives a keynote address at the Streaming Media West Conference in San Jose. He speaks of his online network targeting Generation X and the great original programming his company is producing. His is the future and DEN is at the leading edge. He proudly talks of the sixty million dollars his company has raised.

It is an idea doomed to failure and it did. A year later in 2000, they went bust, along with many other start-ups trying to do similar online content projects.

Now five years later all that was envisioned for rich media sites is possible. High-speed Internet connections make watching video totally viable. There is pent-up audience desire for consuming and reacting to media that talks with its audience rather that at it, and there are proven sponsorship business models to support online-video content.

But the terrible taste that DEN left in the mouths of media organizations still lingers. It is well-founded skepticism. The challenge in mid-2005 is to move beyond that skepticism and begin using the medium to its full informative and creative potential.

Virtually every news organization now has a Web presence. Two major media companies, CNN and AOL, have recently gone to an open platform, their mission, along with every Web site, is to build audience. The larger the audience the more they can command from advertisers.

So what do we find when logging onto newspaper sites? What is found, unfortunately, is video and multimedia segregated to its own sidebar arena. And for the most part, the video has been repackaged from broadcast or syndicate sources.

We also find photo galleries. Because of the world-class work done by papers such as The Washington Post and New York Times, many of these photos are riveting. But for the most part these photos are placed away from the main body of content rather than integrated.

And most importantly, news sites are primarily rewriting content generated for print editions with very little, if any, content generated solely for the Web edition, content that takes into account interactivity from the get go.

During the Cross-Platform Media Teams event sponsored by The Media Center, we heard from major industry players; the Times, Post, USA Today, CBS, CNN and Discovery were among those giving presentations. All acknowledged the importance of the Internet to their future. They all professed a need and desire for integrating immersive interactive media, but there were few if any examples to show.

This poses the major conundrum. What outside social, economic and technological forces need to coalesce before news organizations begin to integrate words, pictures, video telecommunications into an integrated whole? Can changes to content generation and format presentation happen from within? Or do independent journalists and Web producers have to lead the way?

Neil Chase, deputy editor for news at New York Times Digital sets up this question as well as anyone. “People are confused within news organizations as to what to do next,” he told us.

Fair enough. There are major hurdles. How should reporters approach integrated multimedia when generating stories? What groundwork needs to be laid to get them to start thinking about interactivity? How should this multimedia content be packaged and presented? How should newsrooms work with multimedia freelance journalists?

These are all major questions, with major consequences. This is true because the entire nature of how news is gathered and presented is at issue.

During his Media Center presentation, Neil Chase gave an example of how an online piece can be approached. He threw out a story to the audience and had us break it down into its nouns and verbs: location, motivation, reaction, consequence, etc. This is exactly the correct approach. When asked how the Times actualized the end results of this exercise in its online edition, he confessed that it was only an exercise and that it had not been turned into multimedia content. This simply points out that the issues are being thought about, but they are not now being acted upon.

It can be speculated that the reasons for this are simple enough – economics and inertia. Creating interactive content does involve investment in personnel and tools. And the business models are still being proven. Will the additional expenses pay for themselves in added sponsorships? Can a subscription model generate revenue? Can ancillary services be added without harming journalist integrity?

There also must be a strong motivation, as it is decidedly more difficult to generate cross-platform content beyond that of a print story. This motivation must come from individual journalists with both interest and desire to use the best media tools to tell their stories. And the motivation must come from management to give those journalists the tools and resources needed to move forward.

There are answers. The technology is available. The social climate has created an audience desire for multiple approaches to news coverage. There is a talent pool of independent journalists, producers and writers capable of generating multimedia content.

As one of those independent producers who passionately believes in the potential of the Internet, it is one of my tasks to evangelize what the medium is capable of: It is a wondrous tool for opening windows to knowledge and understanding. It is a participatory media where viewers/users, “vuers” if you will, can feel empowered to seek out all sides of a complex issue. It can visually bring people to places they have never been. It can give them the opportunity to ask questions and get answers from the source. It can give them options for reacting to stories and adding to those stories with comment, observation and fact. And most importantly, it can treat audiences with respect by making available options for delving as deeply into stories as they care to go.

Reflections on a Dancing Pixel” is what this analysis is entitled. The monitor you are now viewing is made up of millions of these tiny points of light. They are always receptive to change, subject to the amount of electrical charge directed to them. They do not remain constant. It is a good lesson to learn. Each of us can be considered a pixel in this giant sea of humanity. Each of us can be receptive to an electrical charge of energy that causes change.

The concept of interactive digital online content is something that not every user of the Internet will get charged by. But for those who do, they most assuredly will be energized, and will respond with a resounding clarity.

NOTE: The following is an essay from independent filmmaker Maurice Jacobsen, who was a guest at The Media Center's Cross-Platform Media Teams event.

And while I think it's a neat experiment, I wonder what will happen to these machines when they're lugged to school every day by drowsy teenagers who studies show need more sleep than adults and younger children. And inevitably, someone's going to forget their computer. Borrowing an indentical textbook is a lot different than logging into a "loaner" machine.

Methinks that the people at Lavasoft (and who make AdAware) might want to give these school administrators a call. You know, just in case.

Download MP3 version (22:28, 20.5 MB)

Steven Rosenbaum, managing partner of Magnify Media told attendees of The Media Center's Cross-Platform media teams event "the people that are used to making content in an older model are the ones least likely to want to reinvent things on their watch, particularly if they have a mortgage or kids in college." He then demonstrated how easy some new content creation can be and shared lessons he's learned from 20 years in TV news, his work with MTV and how to capitalize on a peer review filter model for content.

Transcript of Steve Rosenbaum's presentation

For those of you in the room who have the resources of CNN, who got video content and have a video content construction mechanism that's already operating, [CNN's approach] is a brilliant solution. It's exactly where it should go. Madison Avenue and Google have proved that there's revenue there. Taking down the firewall in the K model makes perfect sense, and I'm already using it.

For those of you who come from print, who are my favorite people, I have to say. I've been in this business a very long time. I've been in television news for about 20 years and, I find that the people that are used to making content in an older model are the ones least likely to want to reinvent things on their watch, particularly if they have a mortgage or kids in college.

A couple of questions before I actually go through my slides. How many people here own a DV camera or a video camera at home? How many people here, other than their day job, wherever you work, consider themselves content makers? Is anyone blogging? Which, by the way, doesn't change what I'm going to say at all. In fact, it makes it only better. That's the clue about where I'm going to take you all.

And the good news for today is that I'm going to give you some actual statistics on an event that we're running publicly in user content that I haven't talked about other than to simply be doing it, and it's about six slides in.

Let me just give you some sense of how I view the marketplace. Television is this incredibly powerful thing, and if any of you live in the print content world and you're being told by your boss or you're telling people who work for you, "Look, we've got to find some way to get in. We've got to put more video on the Web site. We've got to find a way be in VOD [video on demand]," you've gone and run the numbers, and the numbers are frightening because making video content's expense, by any model, old or new. You need infrastructure, you need people, there's no revenue yet. Someone says, "Well, if we invest this today, how many years before we actually turn this thing around?" and the answer is, "Uh, I don't know."

When I talk mostly to magazine publishers, they've all gone through that internal process. They've thought about setting up a channel, they've run the numbers, they've run back into print. They've seen the light at the end of the tunnel, which could be a train, and they're scared.

I had 120 employees making television in New York 18 months ago, and I watched where that business was going to go and said, "There's no good end to this story." It's getting cheaper, it's getting harder to sell, the networks are putting more pressure on costs, the cost of production is going down, the cost of fees are going down, and everybody who I used to hire is becoming my competitor. I mean, I would hire three kids out of NYU, and a month later they would set up a company and I would find out that they sold the show to a network that used to be my client. That's a bad day. When everybody who's your employee is your competitor, you wake up and go, "All right, maybe something should change."

I'm not going to read these slides because I don't know what came before today but I assume none of this is a big surprise. It's noisy. Motion media is all over the place. The audience is fragmented. Costs are going down, and the financing is a mess. Is that too strong a statement?

This is the good news side. There are tools all over the place. The gentleman who spoke before me made a joke about not wanting to be on camera. But the truth is, we're in a room, we're in private, no one's signing releases, everybody has a media recording device on them of some sort or another, lots of people are recording this, and it's going to go somewhere. The old rules about asking permission – all that stuff is kind of getting messy now. These tools make that happen.

I went with my son and saw a concert the other night. Because we didn't have tickets, we sat outside on the lawn in Central Park, and I went home, and somebody e-mailed me about 20 minutes later a clip from inside the wall of the concert. That was pretty cool, unless you're the band, or the venue, or the t-shirt guy.

So what I'm here to talk to you today and get you excited about – the third of you who don't think I'm out of my mind – is that there's this bottom-up thing happening out there. Some of you who have the tools, who have laptop editing, who have cameras, are inexorably drawn to this bottom-up energy of content creating. Which means, there's something out there you want to make – you don't know it yet, by the way. The interesting thing is the reason you don't know it is no one's asked you. I mean, if I said to you today, other than wherever that camera officially came form, where would you publish something from today? The answer is, "I don't know, I'd put it on my blog maybe." There's not really yet a home for or a way to filter or a way to organize user content. There are a lot of people struggling with that, and I'll share with you our vision of how that works.

Two sentences about what I've done in my past life. I'm accused of being early. In 1992, before anyone in this room had an e-mail address or a broadband connection or a DV camera or a laptop computer or lots of things, I sold MTV a show called ‘Unfiltered' by telling that their audience was going to make programming cheaper than they could. I think the only thing they heard in that sentence was the word "cheaper." I convinced them to let me run three promos on a Sunday afternoon on MTV and say, if you have a story they could tell, call this 800 number, which went to a single phone line with an answering machine sitting in my brown barn in upstate New York. Wednesday after the Sunday I arrived at MTV with a binder. We had transcribed all weekend and all the night, the 5,000 people who had called with stories they wanted to tell.

Now, because we're all in the news business, I can say this, 80% of them were just crap. But 20% of them were fabulous, fabulous, like heart-stoppingly fabulous, and authentic and dramatic, and people who wanted to participate. What did we do? We asked. People say, "Oh, that was really innovative." You know, it's been 12 years or whatever, nobody's asked. Asking is not that complicated. The Wall Street Journal does a little bit, Tell us this if you're working on these stories." But asking your audience to participate is a really scary thing because it presumes that some number of your colleagues aren't going to have jobs. It presumes that this job of storytelling which we're all professionals in is going to become diffuse in some way, and that's really frightening.

So from 92-96 I produced ‘Unfiltered' at MTV, and then I went to Judy McGrath, who I love, and I said, "Judy, you should cancel my show." And she said, "No one's ever said that to me." And I said, "It's a waste of money. You should cancel it immediately. You should give me the same amount of money, and I should take user content and we should sprinkle it all across the network. We should have fashion from Seattle, we should have music from the streets of Cleveland." So I wrote this big, fat MTV proposal -- it was, you know, a couple of hundred pages -- and presented it. And they said, "No, we don't think so." They said, "Our research tells us that our audience wants us to be the authority of what's cool." And by the way, to her credit, she was absolutely right. It would have been way too early. She would have lost a ton of revenue. And she was right to say no. That's why I said, I'm a little early.

So I left, sold Barry Diller a very similar project and did something called ‘Free Speech America' which for a variety of reasons didn't launch, then created ‘Camera Planet' which was an online channel service. But my point is, I've been at this idea of empowering the audience for a very long time, and I'm nothing if not consistent. So I'm either way too early or I'm just wrong, and that's why you'll break up into thirds.

So let's get to how we're going to do it. User content today is non-commercial, it's nascent, and major media really only embraces it because it's cheap. Meanwhile, blogging, podcasting, and all of this stuff is happening. Everyone pretty much acknowledges it's not going away. But if you're a company whose brand is a content brand – CNN is a good example – how do you embrace user content and not damage this thing that you offer the audience, which is validation, accuracy, fact-checking? Kind of a messy problem, right? This is not simple stuff. Good news for me because we think we've solved it.

Let's get to what Magnify actually does. We mediate the space between creators and consumers. What I mean by that – and the actual example I'm going to give you which is far better than my rhetoric, is, we got a call two months ago from Rodale (sp?) Press, and they said, we want you to come and make a video for us about people that are winning bicycles as part of our bicycling magazine franchise." And I said, "No. Not interested." And they called back and said, "What do you mean? You make videos, and we like you and we know you from things." And I said, "I'm going to make a film about X number of people who won bicycles, and it's going to be so smarmy and self-important. It's going to use words like ‘extraordinarily life-changing' and all these things that I can't say authentically because I don't own a bike and have never ridden one except when I was a child. Why don't we let your audience do my job? That way I'll earn more money, which would make me happy, and you'll get better video, and we might actually stumble into something. The honest truth is, we pretty much knew what we were doing. We knew that they had some – if you know the Rodale publications, they're a good fit. They're very authentic and they have a passionate user base, and there was some prior discussion about user content that they fiddled with.

The way the process works – this is a hybrid of the process is in its evolved form, and then I'll tell you about the elements that were actually put in place at Rodale. Rodale said, before we agree to this, what's our return rate going to be? Which I thought was a funny question for an editorial. I mean, how many people in a newsroom ask what the return rate is? It's like this weird hybrid of a business question and a news question. And I said, "Well, when we were doing MTV, the return rate was about six percent, so I'll tell you six percent." They said fine.

So we sent out 200 e-mails, and we said to the people who had just won a bicycle in, I think it was San Antonio, "Great news. Not only have you won a bicycle, but you've won the opportunity to make a video about how your life is going to change with this bicycle." And we did something – and I've never told this story – I had originally written the e-mail to say, "And if we need to loan you a camera, we will." And my wife and partner in that company – now that we went from 120 employees to two – said to me, "Take that line out." That was 1992, thinking we don't have to loan cameras to anybody. I said, "Well, what if someone has a great story but they don't have a camera?" She said, "No. If they want to tell their story, they'll figure it out." I give her credit because she was entirely right and I was entirely wrong. We sent out the e-mail with no mention of the camera. Anyone want to guess how many responses we got within the first six hours of those 200 e-mails? Fifty-seven yes's. And the exciting thing was, the yes's were passionate yes's. They were: "Thank you for asking me. I would love to make a video. How cool. I don't have a camera but I'm borrowing one from my son-in-law. I don't have camera but the school district where I work has one and I'm going to borrow it form them. Or I have a neighbor who's going to help me out. Passionate yes's. How cool is that? So, not only were they excited to be invited to make content, but they were appreciative that this thing that they love – which was bicycling – was asking them to play along in a space that they obviously cared about.

This is Kristen. She, by the way, is a real person. That image was taken from her video she shot of herself. Actually, her boyfriend shot it. You'll see her in a minute. [The image on the screen] is cheesy but I couldn't resist. So here she is. We've got 57 yes's. We didn't send out the balance of the thousand e-mails, and we now have 190 people making videos.

We ran into a little bit of a problem. While cameras are now fully deployed and people don't have any problem borrowing one from a friend… We sent in our follow-up e-mail, because part of what came from MTV is we've learned to have a relationship with people. What they really want is a little encouragement, a pat on the back, good job, and some tools, that's it. We then sent out a follow-up e-mail and said, "Oh, by the way, do you have any editing gear?" The numbers were not as promising. No editing gear. So I said, well, you know we've done this before. We'll set up a bunch of Final Cuts and we'll start editing bike videos. My wife, who in case you're not figuring this out, is significantly smarter than I am, said, "Just because they don't have editing gear doesn't mean somebody else doesn't have editing gear."

So in three weeks we designed, prototyped, built and launched Edit Exchange. It's up, it's live, you can look at it today. Edit Exchange is a marketplace in which editors meet filmmakers, filmmakers meet editors, and we simply get out of the middle and say, "Great, take your bike video and send it to this guy, he's going to cut it in Cleveland." It's pretty darn cool. And in case you can't tell, I'm fairly excited about it. It is working magnificently. It is not even remotely surprising because if you're an editor, the problem with being an editor is that you don't have anything to cut. Editors want raw material, right? They want to play with stuff. They want to try things. They want to make something. And even if they're professional editors, the stuff they want to do passionately – you can't do passionate when you're making VNRs.[video news releases] If you're working at CNN in Atlanta are you're cutting news, you might want to come home on your Final Cut and do a music video. But you don't really want to do it as a business. But here's a place where you can meet people that have footage, they send the footage to you. Now, would we like to have this be all online? Yes, we would. But anyone who's tried to upload video knows it's a particularly ugly, messy process. I'm a great believer in FedEx. I think FedEx is a great, you know, sneaker net.

So Edit Exchange is now running. We have two of the seven videos that have already been submitted.

Q from unidentified person in audience: What is the editor likely to charge the producer or the maker of the film?

That's a great question. We don't know yet is the answer. It's a marketplace. It's a bidding process. So the way it works is, you put up your project and say, "My band wants to make a video and I'm willing to pay $200, that's my ceiling." There's a private message board component. The first editor e-mails you and says, "What did you shoot on? Can I hear a soundtrack of your band? Are you guys any good?" You send them some stuff, and it's all done in an enclosed space so you're not giving out your private e-mail. The editor says, "I'll do it for $50." Somebody else comes in and says, "I need this for my resume. I'll do it for free. I want to do it as a barter deal. I just want the work."

This is built on a lot of what's happening in the peer production community in Linux and Open Source, which is, people do things for different reasons. And part of what's scary about this is, if we all earn our living making content, and I'm sitting here telling you that people are going to edit your stuff for free, some number of us are going, "Mortgage, kids in college, how does that work?" And what I'm telling is, we can all stand at the door and bar this phenomenon, but trust me, if you use Linux or any open source bulletin board or any open source browser, open source actually really works. It's not a phenomenon that's going to pass us by. It will come to content. We can't stop it. Some number of you can embrace it and probably do really well, because remember that I said the trick to the process is, we invite people to play in our space. All of these people could have made videos on their own. We didn't give them anything. But we just said, there's this ad-hoc community we're creating around bicycling, and we're inviting you to come play in it, and by the way, it's hard to get in.

Which brings me to my next point. So here's the video. We don't have any sound but watch it for two seconds if for no other reason just to see the shooting. (Video plays) It cuts together, she's got establishing shots, she's got close-ups – how did she learn that? They're creative, they're fun, they're different.

By the way, P.S., some of them are really terrible, back to my MTV rule. So, what happens when you've got people submitting videos, and you've got 100 videos submitted, and 80% of them are really terrible? That's a problem. Well, you can say back to your most loyal consumers, the people who love you, the people who busted their butt and worked all weekend and got videotape and sent in their stuff to you, "Guess what, nice try but we're not going to use your video." Probably a bad way to treat your most valuable customers because they never talk to you again. I mean, have you ever looked at anybody's work and tried to be a friend and be critical of it? It doesn't end well.

Which is why we built a peer-based review process. That was the "a-ha" moment. Good. So the peer-based review component works like this. One of the things you can choose to be is a judge. And if you decide to be a judge, you can determine how many videos you want to watch each week, you can tell us something about your skill level and your interest level, and we have software that sends you a link up to three times a week, five times a week – you tell us, you can dial it up or down – you get to review the video. You get to judge it on criteria that our clients set. And the clients get to be in a position where they say, "You know what, we got 100 videos in this week. I'm setting the approval number to eight. I don't want to see anything that doesn't get an eight rating or better." Well, if they only get two videos that cross that eight threshold, they go, "I better turn it down to seven."

But what that means is that somebody's sitting at a desk – CNN is probably the last place that this works because breaking news doesn't work this way, which is another problem that we're struggling with. But in terms of feature editorial or anything that has a moment where it can go through a cycle of being reviewed, what peers do – and by the way, the peer review is all anonymous.

So, here's the one thing that we know about content, because we've all made something – the first draft is never good enough. I joke that we ought to have an autobot that just sends an e-mail back to everyone that submits the first video saying, "It's too long, make it shorter." It's always too long. We don't know.

Comment from unidentified person in audience: And by the way, I want to go home and watch my daughter ride and not film her.

SR: That would make you not a participant in this space.

Comment from same unidentified person in audience: I don't have time to do that.

SR: But my guess is that if I dug three levels deep into something you love – a vacation, a sailboat, a golf trip, a mountain-climbing expedition, something – that you already have … We all own these cameras, we don't know what to do with them.

Comment from same unidentified person in audience: Being on Everest.

SR: There you go. I would love to see you video of being on Everest. And if a community that you participated in said to you, "Hey, tell us about your next trip. We may want to see the video." We all want an assignment, right? We want to be told, you're deputized, go do that.

So the peer review filter is functioning. It works. It's incredibly powerful. It means that if you don't make the cut, we didn't make the decision as the editorial, it got made by your peers. You get to read the comments. If it's an eight-point rating – which you have to get to be put up on the site – and you hit a seven, you can read the comments from the other judges. Maybe you'll learn something. Maybe they'll tell you, "You know what, it's too long, Make it short."