Flickr allows you to easily create a slideshow of a photo set and post it on your web page.
The advantage of loading your photos into Flickr then pulling them into your web page is that:
Leveraging Flickr Features. You benefit from the social media tools, search functions, and photo organization features of flickr - arguably the largest user-generated photo site online.
Easy Posting. You (and others) can easily embed the widget on nearly any web page on any site.
Quick Creation. After you load your photos into flickr.com, you can create an online photo display without having to do any heavy-duty coding or learn a new software.
Interactivity. The slideshow embeds interactive elements allowing the user to control the slideshow display.
Sharing. The slideshow can then be easily shared on someone else's site, giving your photos "legs" on the internet.
Eben Moglen, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School and Founding Director, Software Freedom Law Center delivered the keynote at the 2009 Nonprofit Technology Conference in San Francisco, CA in April 2009.
Here is the video and summary of the salient points from his presentation. The sound quality on the video is poor, but audible.
The primary difficulty of 20th century is that we discovered great ways of doing things in regimented forms. We treated knowledge as a thing that could be owned and
therefore needs to be purchased.
But the ownership of knowledge is a moral problem.
Most of the
children of the world are deprived of the ability to learn – they can’t afford
to.
We must stop starving the intellect that gets us out of the
messes we get ourselves into. We need to get beyond the idea that knowledge is something that
you own. Intellectual property should now be called free speech.
Knowledge must be shared in order to be valuable.
We live in a world where knowledge can be easily shared. In the digital world, we have escaped the constraints of scarcity but still bias against sharing.
Knowledge cannot and should not be owned. The notion that it can condemns certain segments of society to extinction. "Throwing away human brains" – this is the context in which
we are using technology in our own lives. Move to sharing, rather than owning – sharing rather than doing
business with those who claim to own.
We can do everything we need to do in a way which is calculated to address the basic question
of how we allow everyone to learn. The strongest tool we have for solving the problems caused my human intelligence is human intelligence.
We need to teach people that they don’t actually need software that
somebody owns to do what they need to do. There is an answer to get our work
done without having to support the idea that knowledge is something that you
need to own. Profit is not evil but people will do evil things in the name of profit. What happens to the technology of finance is not unrelated to the technology of knowledge.
People pay for what they love. Do it beautifully and you'll get paid.
The computer is a drag. It breaks, becomes obsolete, needs
to be fixed, has costs, clutters things up, creates entropy in the form of
heat. Move to thinnest possible client and thickest possible cloud. Enroll
oneself in the world’s greatest intelligence service (Internet? Google?)?
But there is the
other side – how far do we want to share all our knowledge?
The line between
the knowledge we share and the knowledge we want to keep to ourselves is a
crucial line but not a straight one. The knowledge that can best be shared is
knowledge that can help a mind to grow. The knowledge that shouldn’t be shared
is that information that lets you hold sway over the ability for control of you.
Maybe we ought to think about how to free the cloud …
The design of technology assumes certain things about social life. The principle of thinking about freedom in the architecture
of technology frees up a lot of things. When you can share knowledge by pressing a button, ownership of knowledge is a problem.
The purpose of technology is to make us peers. People share time, money, skill, passion and out of that we
make a better world. We know that the technologies of collaboration are the
technologies that in the end will do the best for us. Without collaboration, there is no success.
The architecture of technology in the last 20 years has been
focused on platforms rather than community. Platforms are sticky – every moment of collaboration is an opportunity for leverage of the platform.
You need to collaborate and the technologist needs the
platform to be sticky. But we benefit now from companies that realize the platform
is not their greatest benefit.
At the end of the day it is not difficult to tell the
differences between activities related to platform and environment and those about community and
collaboration and not throwing away brains.
We think that we can attain sustainability without discussing who owns knowledge, and I wonder if we're right. If you pursue individual benefit at the expense of another’s
sustainability you will have problems with self-sustainability.
Our wealth consists in what we share, not what we possess
exclusively.
You can’t stop people from thinking, you can only stop them
from sharing and learning.
We possess tools of such extraordinary power we take them
for granted. But how we use them now will impact those who get them in the future.
We’re the people who care about sharing. We have rarely any benefit from not
showing people how it’s done. We want as much as possible to model how we can all think together.
We ought move from how to present our content to
how to help people communicate more effectively, more equally without
intermediaries.
We are not just the non-profit sector. We are in the business of maximizing humanity. We’re the place where you measure technology by whether it
makes a human life better. We should live our principles – the world would be a
better place. We say we do this because it makes our lives better – because one
person can make a difference. Most of us say I wouldn’t do it any other way.
We’re right.
So let’s just do it. Let’s just make knowledge a thing we
share rather than something somebody else owns. Let’s pick up the tools we’ve
already got -- live it out and let them see it -- put glass walls around the
kitchen so people can learn to cook. We’re the research facility for how to do
it our way. We’ve been trying to do this for years trying to become what
we were meant to become.
The responses across the board were fairly consistent. The most valuable qualities for a successful web analyst cited time and time again were:
Inherent sense of curiousity. A good analyst always asks questions, wanting to know more.
Business acumen. A good analyst is able to provide context for the data and analysis; therefore, they know the business and the current business climate. They are able to connect the dots because they understand the business purpose and can identify and focus on the business problems and disciplines apart from analytics. They have both a great sense of the data and the business.
Honest, unbiased and credible. A good analyst is not be biased by politics, bonuses, and compensation
packages. They are not afraid to provide a real analysis based on the data, no matter how unpalatable that analysis may be.
Creative. They can effectively communicate the results of analysis and can use data to tell a story. They have a mastery over visualization and can take a complex story and boil it
down to story that is simple to the untrained eye, but
complex enough to provide answers.
Marketing savvy. A good analyst can sell the analysis at the right level, is passionate and cares. They market the analysis internally through email, presentations, posting the analysis, providing visualizations and training others on understanding Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
Avinash Kaushik - author, blogger, and analytics evangelist - explained that knowledge
of tools is not a criteria – in fact it is the opposite. We can’t teach analysts how to think, but can teach them what buttons to push.
What matters more is that an analyst have a flexible
mental model, curiousity, and a good breadth of and diverse experience in life. He went on to say that we tend
to look for analysts in the wrong places. We often look for data nerds but we need analysts who can accept the imperfection of web data (because there is a lot of it!) and still see the lessons we can learn from that data.
Avinash believes analysts don’t need to be technically savvy. After all, he explains, his is not looking for a technical implementor. What he prizes even more is the analyst's mental model and analysis.
I used my flip camera to record the eMetrics conversation between Avinash Kaushik and Microsoft's Ian Thomas at the eMetrics Marketing Optimization Summit where they discuss rules for analytics revolutionaries. The sound quality is poor, but audible. Enjoy!
Blue State Digital lives in the world of online fundraising, advocacy, social networking, and constituency development programs for nonprofit organizations.
Mark Skidmore describes the metrics behind the movement and the calculations behind the execution of barackobama.com during a lunchtime keynote at the eMetrics Marketing Optimization Conference in San Jose, CA (May 2009).
Here is the video, captured from the keynote. Unfortunately, it ends abruptly as my flip camera ran out of power! Sound quality poor, but audible.
But I captured the conclusion (key takeaways) of his presentation in my notes, below the video ...
Remove the challenge of technology and pave the way for clear and concise messaging
Every online investment should lead to a measurable outcome that furthers core goals
Drive action through engagement
Create a holistic approach to online strategy
Get really good at the fundamentals before experimenting the with new “flashy” 3rd party apps (open rate for email 30%+; Make sure you are doing email campaigns right)
IF you do experiment with social media - make it actual, make it interesting, make it engaging
Larry Freed, President and CEO of Foresee Results (@larryfreed on twitter) delivered the following Top 10 Takeaways about Web Analytics at the end of his address at the 2009 eMetrics Marketing Optimization Summit in San Jose:
You cannot manage what you cannot measure
What you measure will determine what you do
Measure what matters most – your customers (know your metrics and measure the right things)
Knowledge is power, the consumer is in charge
Turn data into information … information into intelligence
Satisfaction (when measured correctly) drives conversion, loyalty, retention and word of mouth
It takes only 2 things to survive and thrive: Satisfy your customers – be fiscally responsible
Measurement is hard – don’t fall for gimmicks
Integration of the web metrics magnifies the value
You are in the fight of your life – now is the time to rise above the competition – satisfy your customers to win
He delivered an inspirational keynote on what social media means for the non-profit sector at the April 2009 Nonprofit Technology Conference in San Francisco.
Here are the videos I took from my seat in the front row, using a Flip HD camera - the sound quality is poor, but audible.
5-word synopsis of his book - “Group Action Just Got Easier."
EXAMPLE: Dr. Who Page on Wikipedia. Data shows most active person contributed almost 1000 times. Most
others contributed 1 time. Inside
every large collaborative effort is a small collaborative effort. Small group
of people in there doing the hard work of taking the much larger inputs and
turning it into something useful. Trying to find the most knowledgeable person
on a particular issue – Wikipedia’s power is in its ability to convene a large
enough group so that the most knowledgeable people/person on a particular issue show up.
We are living in the middle of the biggest expansion of
informational exchange:
1. Rise of printing press, movable type, ink
2. Teletype, telephone
3. Moving image - movies
4. Television, radio
5. Internet- subsuming all other media
EXAMPLE: John Fitch Steam Boat conceptual drawings. Fitch initally built on what he knew but discovered that new technology required creating something new. We are experiencing a changing institutional environment – we need a new set of principles – need to change. We are in the long process of iterating
what this means for our organizations.
John Fitch initial steamboat concept, with canoe-type paddles wasn't the right model for the task.
Fitch's final steamboat as much different - but led to a revolution in transportation.
EXAMPLE: Flash mobs. Started out with random pillow fighting - crazy people. But evolved into using media not just
for information, but for coordination. See Andy Carvin's May 2006 post "Belarus, Flash Mobs and the Ice Cream Revolution". These participants brought their cameras. They wanted these
pictures. They wanted to take photos to upload to servers as soon as possible –
nothing says dictatorship like arresting people eating ice cream. It only took 3
years for flash mob to go from mocking participants to become real world social
tool. Figuring out how to use these tools is a big part of what we have before
us now. These tools are not socially interesting until they become technologically boring.
EXAMPLE: Obama campaign organization – the most effective example of a model that said we’re going to set out to adopt an organization from the outside. Obama model of change wasn’t just a political slogan – radically different. First platform candidate. When you understood what Obama was up to, you turned around and relayed that to someone else. Will.i.am "Yes We Can" video was created outside the campaign. The Obama campaign leveraged the convening power of the internet. Horror show - Sing for Change - having children repeat words that adults put in mouth. Republican backlash. Took down from internet. Yeah, right (this "FULL" version is actually remixed version by anti-Obama folks). Famous video response: PyongYang remix. Made a horrendous mistake – but nobody blamed the Obama campaign. 20th century rules using 21st century media. Rules need to change. The fact is they can talk to each other without you and your input.
Most important message – the loss of control you fear is already in the past. Go after the value this environment makes possible. (Whoohoo! NTEN Applause)
First Linux, Wikipedia messages were humble messages (this is something I'm working on, I'd like your input). A commitment to fail informatively. Two key lessons for institutions:
Failure. Impact of failure. Orgs spend a lot of time trying to lower likelihood of failure. We’ve now spent more energy trying to figure out if something is a good idea rather than trying it out and seeing. Internet Lowers cost of failure but only way to take advantage of that is to fail like crazy and make sure people can tell the diffearence between what’s working and what’s not. Find person in institution who will transform org – come up with 10 medium ideas and 20 small ideas. Don’t do just 1 big thing.
Scale. Start with a system that is small and good and make it bigger. Rather than start with a system that is one bad idea and make it better. And do just a handful, not 100 things. Nobody gets to a working paddle steamboat in one big step.
Added May 11, 2009: Check out Shelley Hamilton's great notes from the keynote -
