How do you feel about the real world?

All things being equal, wouldn't you rather be somewhere less crowded?

I need to find an article that explains the psychology behind social networking sites. In the real world, I don't like crowds. I don't eat at restaurants when there's a 45-minute wait. I don't go to clubs where there's a line out the door (unless I'm with someone who gets me into the side door). If it means going without something because there's a long line, then I don't want whatever it is the line is for.

I don't know about you, but I'm guessing that if you're over 22, you don't like crowds either. But I don't think I have a phobia, I just don't need lots of people around.

But we all want to be online where everyone else is. And you want your online space to be as crowded as possible. And I'm not sure why that is. Why is Facebook so popular when it is so damn crowded?

Why does barren virtual space feel like a waste of time, but an empty, secluded beach or field or mountain top feel like paradise?

Is the reverse true? Do people who love crowds also hate Facebook?

Is it because social sites aren't perceived as being crowded? Since you only "see" the people you want to see? In fact, most of us want to see more people and for more people to see us. And these "people" we meet are mostly by choice.

I just find it interesting that in the real world I prefer small groups of friends, but online, I want to be part of the largest party possible.

If you love big parties or crowded dance floors or standing in Times Square on New Year's Eve, then how do you feel about sites like Facebook or Twitter? Do they suck for you? Do people who love to be with real people hate being with virtual people?

Maybe you hate Facebook, but couldn't explain why. Maybe I'm helping. Yes, for once this blog is helping someone with something! Hooray, me!

Social Networking: free vs. paid.

I keep getting emails from Classmates.com that tell me that someone checked my profile or left a message on my account or whatever.

But I can't access any of that stuff for two reasons:

1. I can't remember my log in info.
2. You need a paid subscription to access the useful stuff like who checked my profile, etc.

Classmates could have been Facebook if they'd had a different business model. The company profile says, "..the company serves more than 40 million registered accounts, including 3.5 million pay accounts as of March 31, 2008.." So with a simple change they can get their 40 million registered accounts to use the service more if they would remove the fees.

Or not. I don't know. I don't know if this information would discourage most of us from using the service:

"The company's success is driven by its expertise in growing and monetizing large audiences in a cost effective manner and enabling advertisers to reach online consumers effectively. Large membership bases and rich databases of member information provide Classmates Media with a significant competitive advantage.

Yeah. I don't like the sound of that "rich database of member information" thing. I was just wondering why some services are free and some are paid and how a company decides which is the best for it.

Facebook has over 300 million users worldwide, but still hasn't made any money. "Mr [Mark- founder] Zuckerberg had predicted earlier this year that the group would be cash flow positive 'sometime in 2010'." [source: The Independent. Nick Clark. Wed, 16 Sep 2009.]

So Classmates says it makes money off of its 3.5 million paid users, but Facebook can't figure out how to get his 300 million to cough up five bucks apiece. Don't ask me to figure it out. Maybe you library school students can do the research and write a paper on this. Oops, it looks like it's been done, here and here and here (yes, that last one is The Onion). Too late.

We are descended from dinosaurs.

Because we are birds.

How else do you explain the popularity of Facebook and Twitter? These are crowd sites, sites where everyone goes to be seen or heard. These are flocks. What's up with these flocking sites?

Why do people want everyone to know about what's happening with them right now? I guess, because it keeps them from thinking about the future.

Just look at Twitter:

"I'm watching Albanian Idol."
"Yea! Pzmk Nvyrmz. You kick ass!"
"Vote for Pzmk!"
"I voted for Pzmk."
"Why is Pzmk Nvyrmz a trending topic?"
"Why is Pzmk Nvyrmz a trending topic?"
"Will everyone please stop typing, 'Why is Pzmk Nvyrmz a trending topic?'"

It's interesting how the BBC News says that Google needs to watch out for Facebook now that they've purchased FriendFeed because FriendFeed uses real time updates for real time search.

But I don't know what that means.

I have a FriendFeed account, but I rarely use it. It feeds my Twitter and YouTube updates. And I belong to Librariology. I only check it when I get an email that says, "Pzmk just joined your FriendFeed."

So now Google, a search engine, is supposed to feel pressure from Facebook, an "I am" engine. I guess it makes sense that people really only want to shout at the world, "It's me. I'm here." Google may help people find stuff, but Facebook, I guess, helps them to find each other. Or themselves.

So is the future of the Internet a flocking future?

I don't know if it's relevant, but the future wasn't very good to the dinosaurs.

social networks that aren't very sociable.

I guess web sites aren't explicitly social networks, but when you enable comments on your site, you invite social interaction. So you can only blame yourself when undesirables show up at your door.

I went to a popular website and tried to comment on a post. To leave comments, you can log in with your Facebook, Twitter or OpenID, or just enter a name and email address. But when I tried to log in with my Twitter account, it accepted my username but when it came time to Submit, the button was disabled. OpenID displayed an error, and Facebook is just a massive privacy violation because it would allow the site and all its friends to crash on my couch and dirty all the towels and clog up the toilet with godknowswhat.

So I logged out and resubmitted with just my name and email address and then the form worked and responded with the usual, "comments are moderated and will appear upon approval" message.

It's been 24 hours yet my comment still hasn't been approved, although two clearly obvious spam posts appear in the comments at #14 &#16 for "profitableprofit" and "daylogames."

I emailed the editor of the site about the Twitter glitch and got a reply that they would look into it, but still haven't had my comment approved and posted to their article.

The article is about social ranking on the Internet and how the author feels the need for social networks to have some influence on the success of the future of search and that social rankings of some kind are essential. Or something, I don't know. I mean the author is a PhD student and I have just a lowly Master's (in Library Science, of all things. I mean, you need college for that?)

So what happens when someone is in control of your social status? Right now, I can go to Twitter or Facebook and every idiot is equal to every other idiot; no one blocks me from commenting to Brent Spiner, unless he, himself blocks me. But why would he block me? I RT his ass all over the place.

But moderated comments that block actual comments while allowing spam only prove that the gatekeeping system is flawed. Or worse, that some people will publicly praise an open Web while secretly working to close off as much as possible, to keep out the riff and/or the raff.

When I see these propositions where the Web is remade in some idealized image, in this case, a socially-ranked one, all it makes me think is that someone has a plan to keep the rest of us out.

I told myself I wouldn't cry because my makeup runs, but as you can see, I hate rejection. So here is my comment that the site still hasn't approved:

didn't this all get covered back with Google bought Dejanews and then Blogger? didn't everyone agree that social networks are completely unreliable and irrelevant to the rest of the world? and that's why Google separated "blogs" and "groups" from its central search ?

but now that more people are being social, we expect our search companies to recognize us and treat us with the respect we feel we deserve.

but advertisers pay Google's bills, and if Google streamlines all social network search into mainstream search and the advertisers complain, then where do you think this will go?

yes, the social networks create tons of content, and the creators believe it's worth something to others and want it crawled and ranked just like all the other crap out there.. but go back and find the original opinions when Blogger was first dumped into maninstream Google search and *everyone* that all their search results were crap.
I don't think the world cares about being social.

when you start demanding that your social status be recognized by everyone else, frankly, and forgive this completely objective observation, you become an asshole.

See? Totally harmless and not spam. Not sure why it wasn't approved. Maybe it was what I was wearing. Maybe I should let my bath robe slip open a little more when I hit Submit. Ooh, what's that? You like that?

Social networks vs. parties.

Yes, I'm old. I'm so old that the only reference my friends had when we went to parties was Animal House. So when I was in high school, we had toga parties with bathtubs filled with cans of beer and we got so drunk we threw the furniture in the pool.

And when I went to those parties, I didn't mingle with everyone and tell jokes and put a lampshade on my head. I found the 3 or 4 people I wanted to hang out with and headed straight for the beer.

So when I join a social network like MySpace or Facebook or Twitter or Friendfeed or Second Life, my party psychology works the same way as in high school. I just want to find a few people to hang out with. I don't really want to be the life of the party.

For example, if it takes following these 5 Rules to be successful at social networking , it ain't gonna happen for me:

5 Ways to Cultivate an Active Social Network

1. BE HELPFUL - offer your network advice or suggest people that [who] can help.
   
2. BE PRESENT - participate and contribute.
   
3. BE SOCIAL - engage with as many people as possible... not to be confused with just pushing out messages to a list.
   
4. SHARE THE LOVE - make it about them... talk about your network.
   
5. PAY IT FORWARD - build equity by contributing to your network before asking for anything in return... and never take out more than you put in.

I won't argue the merits or deficiencies in this guide because the graphic is so purty (below).


But I will say that I fail at #3 daily. (And #5 only happens in movies. 'Never taking more than you put in' probably goes against evolutionary theory, meaning you would stagnate or become extinct... okay, so I couldn't keep my mouth shut.)

I know the virtual world is not real. But people are real. And real people occupy the social networks. So forgive me if I tend to treat your virtual self as your real self and the virtual party like a real party and not mingle or #3, BE SOCIAL.

So when someone asks why I'm not as social as I should be when he sends a friend request on Facebook, or why I don't follow him back when he follows me on Twitter, the only thing I can say is that I'm not really there to be social: I came for the beer.

"But this is the Internet; there is no beer here," he replies.

My mistake.

So NOW is Enough?

It seems the line has been drawn and the tweeters are finally fed up, USA Today says.

["The popularity of Twitter has some relationships in a twist " by Maria Puente, USA TODAY]

Apparently the Assholes who tweet constantly have decided that there is a limit, and anyone who exceeds that becomes the Assholes' Asshole. The social networkers want the rest of us to stop letting our virtual lives overtake our real lives. One person they quote for the article has 386,000 Twitter followers, but we're the ones who are out of control.

Suddenly all the poking and tweeting is too much. When they do it, it's okay. But when everyone else does it, we suck.

Twitter is a good service for spreading a message. Most of the people who use it seem to be marketing or publicizing some message. So seriously, you have a message? I don't have a message. That's why I need to stop.

I can only follow up to 20 of anything: tweeters or bloggers. I visit the same 20 sites each day. Sometimes I forget and visit more. So to remind myself that 20 is the limit, I just take off my shoes and socks and count my fingers and toes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,.. 19? When the hell did I lose a toe?

So I guess I do have a message: "When we were out partying last night, did anyone see what happened to my toe?"

How will I know when I'm dead?

How will Facebook know when I'm dead? Or how will I manage that final tweet?

I just read an article about people who died and their families wanted their online friends to know. But how could they access all their accounts when the only person with the password ain't telling.

I don't know about you, but I'd like to know when I'm dead. I'd like an email or something. So to prepare for the inevitable, I'm glad that Blogger allows me to schedule posts for some future date. Like I can make a entry that will automatically post if I'm not around to stop it. Maybe schedule it for thirty days from today. This could be the message:

It's been 30 days since I last logged into this account. I don't think I would just forget about this account. I think there's a good chance that I'm dead. If I don't post anything soon to correct this, then I'd say I'm dead.

Wait, what if I'm in a coma? There's hope, huh? Maybe I'm just in a coma. And when I awake, I won't remember any of this. And then we could be friends again. Because I won't have any memory of all the awful things I wrote here. Do you think you could forgive me for all this terrible stuff I've been posting? I bet you could... because of the coma.

Well, so far I haven't created this "death note." (Hey, that's catchy. Someone should use that for the title of something.) Mostly because I might just forget to log in for a month and I wouldn't want for you to get the wrong idea when you read the post. Because some of you are old and you might hurt yourselves from all the joyous dancing.

But getting back to the original story ("Deaths of gamers leave their online lives in limbo" AP), "Jerald Spangenberg collapsed and died in the middle of a quest in an online game,..." so his daughter went on her own quest to let the members of his WoW guild know that he was dead in the "meat" world. When one member found out weeks later, he said he'd thought that Spangenberg's absence was due to "an argument among the gamers that night."

"I figured he probably just needed some time to cool off," the member said. No, no cooling off, unless you mean cooling off to room temperature. He died. Right after an online fight with you guys. Another video game related death.

But here is the important thing: how come Spangenberg didn't give any of these guys his real data? What is the true worth of online relationships? If I don't tell you in the online world who I really am in the thingy world, is it because I don't want you to know?

If this is true, then what about the daughter? Did she do the wrong thing by tracking down the other members of the guild (from which her own dad kept his real identity a secret)?

Regardless of how important we claim these online relationships are, are they ever as valuable as our real relationships? (If they are, then don't they become real relationships?)

Anyway, I guess the real test of whether the.effing.librarian is dead is whether he remains hilarious. And if you would find my death that funny, then I guess I wouldn't really be dead; I'd become immortal. "There can only be ONE!"

Can we be GoogleFriends?

A few months ago, Blogger added a feature where one can follow a blog. This is similar to subscribing, but with the added inconvenience of broadcasting your reading habits to the world.

And I immediately wondered why this was added. I didn't wonder too hard, but I thought about it. And now Google has given me an answer. Google is building a social network. Or not. Maybe they wait for networks to form on their own.

But Google has a "Friend Connect" page that says it can, "Bring viral social growth to your website." And I don't know what that means, but it sounds unhygienic. But it looks like more is coming: "Social gadgets will keep these visitors more deeply engaged with your site, and with each other."

Like many of you, I have several Gmail accounts, as of today, three. Like a cat, I have three different names. (See Logan's Run, or read T.S. Eliot, if you're not into groovy Seventies sci-fi.)

And I try to keep them separate. But with all this linking, how long until my three googledentities find each other and betray me? As they did in Facebook (yes, I had my accounts in Facebook find each other once because I put too much information in my profile -- yikes!).

When I go to parties, I like to stand in the kitchen. Well, first I like to go through my hosts' VHS tapes to find their private bedroom videos and watch them, but then I like to go to the kitchen. I don't mingle. But the Web wants us to mingle. It says, "Hi, Bob, this is Carol. I think you know Ted and Alice." And then it expects us to hop into bed together. Which is okay with me. Just don't expect me to tell you my ineffable effable Effanineffable secret name. (Yes, and what out how you poke me.)

The Twitter 100.

I don't get Twitter. Or maybe I do get it, but I refuse to play along.

I just read this article "The 5 most annoying Twitter usage trends," written by someone who is annoyed by people who don't get Twitter: Wendy Piersall, on Sat Sep 27, 2008.

She doesn't like people who use it to market their product or business. She doesn't like people who promote other social networking sites. She really doesn't like people who get "pissy" when she markets her business (you know, because she does it just the right amount). And people who don't respond to her tweets. And people who tweet more than she does.

And she says, "The other night I felt very behind on following the people who are following me, so I carved out some time with My Tweeple to get caught up. I probably added about 700+ new people to follow..."

700 Tweeple? And this is when I realized that I got it. And I would say now that the most annoying thing about Twitter is the people who do get it.

Twitter is a marketer's wet dream. It's corporate and self-promotion as social networking.
I always wondered why so many people tweet so much stuff. They want to be seen. They want to exist.

So now that I get it, I propose that we all update one hundred tweets in one day. I think that's a number that could get you noticed.

I think I can do it. Tweet: 100/1. Starting now.

I still haven't grasped the nuances of blogging.

I notice that most bloggers use their comments to have actual conversations with their guests; and I don't seem to be that sort of clever host.

In the real world, I'm not a bad host. I usually have some Cokes in the fridge and some Cheez-Its or crackers or something around to eat. And right now there's a half bottle of Glenmorangie, three-quarters of a large bottle of Cutty Sark and a full 1.75 liter bottle of Jim Beam in the kitchen. There are two really dusty bottles of Australian Shiraz on the shelf (yes, on their sides) getting older and dustier because I don't usually drink wine.

The bathroom is relatively clean and there's a clean towel if you need to wash. There's toilet paper and an unopened toothbrush if you need to stay the night.

But this blog thing eludes me. When I post something, I usually think that's the end. I don't go back to comment on comments left by you.

And I guess that's wrong. I continue to see these long conversations go on at other blogs between the host and guests I suspect that's what makes those other blogs so popular.

I'd like to be popular.

But I really don't want to work at it. What can I not have to do that will still bring me popularity? How can I become popular by doing absolutely nothing?

Oh, question: Has anyone ever held an "anonymous bloggers" party at any national library-related convention? Have you ever been to one? If you were at ALA and saw that someone was holding an anonymous blogger party in their hotel room, would you show up? Would you sign the guest book as anonymous and stay and have a drink? Even if it was a glass of extremely old Shiraz?

Just asking.

Is there anybody out there? (Is there anybody in there?)

Did you ever produce a bibliography for your library patrons that you copied 50 times and put out on the desk and then saw every copy disappear in an afternoon?

And you thought, "Wow, what a useful application of my time and skills. I just knew everyone would want a pathfinder on '20th Century Small Town Mayors who tried to Ban Library Books.'"

And then I arrive and tell you that people are taking your bibliography sheets because you left the reverse side blank and they just want scrap paper to write on. And then we argue. And you pull my hair plugs. And I jab your fresh liposuction bruise.

So to test my theory, you print your bibliography on both sides of the paper. And none get taken. Okay, maybe two.

But the point is, if you enforce the intended purpose of something, it greatly reduces its use.

Go back to the Bible for additional proof. When Moses returned from the mountain with the two tablets, he put them down for a minute because they were heavy. And after enjoying a refreshing Mountain Dew, when he turned back to retrieve them, he found Akham scratching something into the back of one of the tablets. Moses struck him about the head with the emptied Mountain Dew bottle until Akham ran far away to foreign land. Moses then saw that Akham had written across the back of one of the tablets, "Unless it's your mother-in-law."

Moses was angered and destroyed the tablets. He made a mental note to have God write his message on both sides next time. But he admitted later that he wished he knew for which Commandment the mother-in-law comment was meant because it could have been appled to so many. And then he made a joke about it which he repeated often at the dinner table until everyone knew it by heart.

So that's what I wonder about enabling comments on blogs. Have you been to some of these library blogs (I won't even mention really popular blogs where this is a major problem, but just simple library blogs) where there are dozens or even a hundred comments that have nothing to with the original post or even a broad interpretation of the original post?

Do you care?

I've gotten to where I can't even read the posts. I'd like to call it a drunken circle-jerk, but that seems harsh. I don't think these posters have been drinking.

I often wonder about the social part of the Internet. What kind of people did I expect to meet when I joined the blogging world?

And then you have to wonder about if and how to moderate content on your blog. LISNews had some discussion whether to allow anonymous posts and comments. Many bloggers use "captchas" to reduce auto-generated spam. But what about human-generated spam? And what about simple bullshit comments?

How easy or difficult should you make it for someone to post a comment? If you create so many hoops for contributors to jump through, do most people just stop trying? Except for the truly crazy people?

I see this as the online version of our brick and mortar social network, the library. We want everyone to feel welcome, the hockey moms, the old and disillusioned, the hip and vacant, the lost and forgotten, the regular folks.

What rules do we enforce in the library to keep some people from making it so awful that others don't return?

So when I visit these blogs where the inmates seem to be running the asylum, I look around my library, I think, "Is this any way to run a ballroom?" (read full, very offensive bit here)

Test preparation services get into social networking

In addition to creating high school aptitude, college prep, and entrance exams for video game platforms,

"two of the country's largest test-prep course providers are pairing with video game companies for the first time, to give students another way to practice for these oft-dreaded exams." [By Barbara Ortutay, Associated Press]

some of the major publishers in the educational study guide market are branching out into producing study guides in combination with social networking sites.

In the past, both Kaplan and Princeton Review have created study guides that "play" within the Sony PSP and Nintendo DS and Apple iPhone, study guides described by one publisher representative as being designed for "complete idiots."

Studying requires concentration, contemplation and understanding, while video games require rote memory of "power ups" and enemy locations. Educational testing is usually a one-shot proposition where the student can only choose one answer per question and does not allow unlimited "continues." Video games often have a "god mode" whereby the player can do no wrong.

So producing study guides that play like video games so they appeal to the average "gamer's" intellect is like giving a monkey a dozen eggs and expecting a souffle. Which is perfect if your definition of souffle is twelve eggs smashed against a wall.

Hence, the next logical level of testing preparation after video games is to combine study aids with social networking software. The addition of the 2.0 component advances study from a solitary endeavor to one that includes whole groups.

The latest testing materials are used entirely online and utilize "answer aggregation" whereby the student submits the study question to the social networking sites and members vote up or vote down the correct answer. Students no longer need to rely on their own knowledge of the subject matter. To date, bother Digg and Facebook have agreed to participate.

With the current emphasis on social networking on the Internet, and with the importance and utility of the Internet expanding every day, these publishers anticipate a future where no answer is simply black and white, right or wrong, but more likely an aggregate of the whims of the crowd at that particular moment.

College and university admissions officers are eager for this new form of testing where there can be no claims of biased testing or socio-economic advantage or disadvantage for students. All correct answers are decided by the group.

Representatives for both Kaplan and Princeton Review and several major universities where not surprised when the latest batch of sample online tests utilizing the social networking model recorded a majority of answers that included variations on the use of the word, "ass." Even when the answers were multiple choice. Somehow "ass" just kept showing up.

Now would I make this up?

I had no idea people took the Internet so seriously.

Here are some large chunks of an "emerging technologies librarian" blog about her (?) Twitter account getting dumped:

from Part 1:

Now, some folk are scared - many people are worried that they'll be next.
Really, folk, we are not bad people! We are people who love (or loved) Twitter - Twitter evangelists! I teach about Twitter, I present about it at conferences, I have slideshows in Slideshare about it, I blog about. How can I honestly try to persuade administrators to make use of Twitter for marketing and community outreach when stuff like this happens, the response time is poor, and even if they are working on fixing the problem, they don't TELL US WHAT IS GOING ON?

Worst of all, I'd been complaining for weeks that I wanted to back up my twitterstream and archive my data, but they were limiting access and blocking the archive. I need my archive. I need a way to get at it. And now it has been deleted. Without warning, without discussion, without consent.

and an Epilogue:

During the time my Twitter account was blocked, I found myself scrambling to learn and use a number of alternate tools that had been recommended widely on Twitter. I had already created accounts in many, but hadn't taken the time to figure them out and learn how to use them. I hadn't needed them, and was happy the way things were. Well, that changed, in a hurry. If I had already been actively using FriendFeed, Ping, Jaiku, Pownce, Identi.ca I might not have been so stressed.

I don't know what to say about people who have become addicted to their social networking software: "If you love it so much, why don't you marry it?" I have a Twitter account which I rarely use; if it stopped loving me, I don't think I'd notice much.

And this whole talk of archiving your communication; I don't think anyone should ever take for granted that the Internet will ever do anything to make your live easier. Different, yeah, but not easier. As you can see, by how much worry and effort someone will apply to something that stops working.

This is why I don't get involved with social networking; I'm still not convinced that I do anything that anyone needs to know about.

Welcome to the Inhuman Network.

I saw this Cisco commercial the other day:

Visual Networking
A phone that fixes a scooter. A billboard that adapts to an audience of one. A car that can see what's ahead. On the human network, video changes everything. (31 seconds)

(I tried to embed the video, but couldn't get it to work, so you can click the direct link for the annoying video here or visit the page with all the videos here and then watch it.)

And it offended me by the way it isolated every person from everyone else. Everyone is looking at a screen and not interacting with other people. Even the two people in the car are messing with the GPS and not looking at each other.

Didn't visual networking used to mean making eye contact with your audience?

(I know they have other, better videos, but this one bothers me.)

Call me when it's ready.

One of the Unshelved guys (really, do I need to know who they are? they make a funny cartoon and I read it. and I bought 2 shirts, what more do you want?) blogged about giving up on Facebook, and I agree. But I believe that we should give up on everything that announces "some assembly required."

I only use what's ready. I don't want to create any part of the Internet. And I don't want to increase your wealth by adding my personal info to your social networking site.

Call me any farm animal you want to the Internet's Little Red Hen. But I am going to eat that bread. It doesn't matter how much work you do, you need me to consume it. The Internet is not a finite resource like wheat or bread. It relies on users to be successful.

When your site's services are done to the point where all I need to do is type or click, then I will be there. But don't make me poke or lick or sniff or dance to earn linden dollars or build or anything. Make it so I do something once and I'm done. Maybe it's ten years of using search engines, but that's all I have the patience for. Type. Enter. Right click. Save as. That's as much as the Internet gets out of me.

I know this means it's possible that eventually one company will rule the entire Internet, but if I'm that important that all "not yet ready" players will fail without my help, then they deserve to fail.

Build it and I will use it. Don't invite me to the pool party then hand me a shovel and expect me to dig. But when it's ready, call me and I'll bring beer.

And guess what? If I were the dog or cat in that Little Red Hen story, I'm waiting till that hen eats all that bread, then I'm eating her.

Fun exactly one time, then something else.

So I just joined ncludr and got my profile. I'm immediately included in their collection of 12.3 billion friends, but when I click on "see all" they show me what might only be a few thousand. So naturally, I feel cheated.

The strangest thing is that all I had to do was enter a user name and answer a few questions and the site generated a user profile for me that is freakishly accurate. And since it's "random," it confirms that there must be at least one other person out there who is exactly like me. I mean, randomness is just counting one past boredom.

The universe only seems random because we give up observing. If we looked long enough, we would see the connections. But now we're sleepy.

My ncludr profile says:

Status:
walking the dog, even though I don't have a dog
Relationship Status:
Currently with my imaginary lover
Looking For:
fulfillment
Political Views:
green
About me:
I have a large gun collection
Things I've Done Recently:
Read a book backwards.
Interests:
Making animals out of discarded pop cans.
Favorite Quote:
"We are about to go into the dark and weird"

[Ok, their privacy page is funny. ncludr reminds me of a fake email site I used to have that you would fill out, but when you clicked "submit" the page gave an error and you would start over; I thought it was hilarious, but I bet you never saw it.]

Shut up and dance

Ok, so I'm checking out this page ... (Go ahead and look; I'll still be here when you get back. Really. Nobody cares about you like I do.)

And now I feel lonely. Don't tell me you don't. I can't even imagine being that networked. (I still have a rotary dial phone.)
Here is her network compared to mine:

Sometimes I think I want to be that connected. But then I don't. I want people to say, Hey! but I want to left alone. I want to make friends, but I want to sit in the corner and crunch on my crudités all by my lonesome. I want hip couples to name their kids after me: Ross, Rachel, Chandler and Effing; but I don't want Effing sitting with Logan, Cooper, Brooklyn and Hunter.

I sometimes feel like it's a race to catch up to the connected people. A race I can't possible win.

But the truth is that it's not a race. It's a dance. And we're all in it together. And as Winston Churchill once said to Eleanor Roosevelt, "I bet you look good on the dancefloor."