For my service learning I assisted in maintaining a dog and cat rescues database. The database is called Trackabeast, or TAB for short. While I had helped in updating it prior to the class, the readings in the class gave me new perspectives on TAB, and how we use it as a rescue. I feel that in order to make this short paper actually make sense, you have to learn a little bit about Track a Beast, the database that we use.
One of the most important characteristics of Web 2.0 is participation; and going back to an earlier reading by Yochai Benkler, I felt the database work was a good example of commons based peer production. Benkler defines commons based peer production as when “the creative energy of large numbers of people is coordinated (usually with the aid of the internet) into large, meaningful projects mostly without traditional hierarchical organization (and often, but not always, without or with decentralized financial compensation)[i].”
The way TAB works is that ideally, you enter a dog’s information the moment they arrive in our care. Their description, photo, medical information and where they are located (in foster care or at our facility.). The next step is when they get adopted, to enter the adopter’s information such as name address and email etc, and then change the location of the dog to that person, so that we can see they adopted the dog. Each dog is assigned a tag number, which they are required to wear on their collar, such as 4790. This is so if the dog ever gets lost, and the shelter cannot get a hold of the adopter, they can call us and give us this number, and we can look up the adopter’s information and if necessary come and pick up the dog for them until they are able to get him or her.
Rather than having one contact person dictate who does what, we set up one email list that went to everyone that worked on the database. We make sure to communicate what we each do, for example when someone sends an update on a dog and I update the database, I reply to the list “DONE” so that we do not duplicate efforts. It was quite similar to the Clickworkers project, only instead of marking a few craters, we had people spend a few minutes entering a dogs’ information into TAB.
While this might not be considered to be a written set of rules, it is close to some of what Stephen Meadows spoke about. The rule sets used for the database are indeed “iterative and often unconscious, but without them we would not get anything done. It is similar, as Meadows states, to getting from Point A to Point B, where Point A is when the dog arrives, and Point B is when the dog is adopted.
Overall I feel that the most successful aspect of this experience for me was working on the database as a collective, together with others and doing all the coordinating via online. When the database was started over a year ago, one of the problems we ran into was that we only had two people who we trusted the files with. The files we used were paper files, and when a dog got adopted we would enter the dog’s information at the file. The problem with this was that after adoption events the files would get shuffled around and if one person wasn’t able to do it and they had the files, no one could get the information.
In our class we learned the advantages and disadvantages of everything becoming web based, and while a disadvantage would be that every once in a while, the web based Track a Beast server is down, the pros much outweigh the cons.
One of the pros is that it is not a commonly used program as far as we know – to give you an idea of how small it is, when the server is down, it gives you a 540 number to call, not an 800 number. Again, our usage of TAB is easily compared to Meadows and his Four Steps of Interaction; observation, exploration, modification, and reciprocal change. When entering animals into the database, there are of course times where we wish something about the database was different. One example is that for adding in shots and medical treatment, an observation that many of us made, was that there was no place to add a heartworm test. However after some exploration on my part, I found that I could actually add “Heartworm” Test to the drop down menu, and then type in whether it was negative or positive. In this case, it was us that made a change, however there have been other times when we have requested a change, and they have made it instead of us. Making these changes is another reason I found this experience to be quite successful.
Another aspect of my service learning was to try to use social marketing websites and tools to benefit the group. Prior to this semester, LDCRF had Facebook group, however it was not extremely active. One of the things I did at the start of the semester was start a Face book page, so that people could become “fans” of the rescue. Using tags, I began an ad campaign on Facebook that advertised our page to people whose interests met certain “tags.” This was extremely effective – a summary of the ad is below:
The ad targeted people that lived in the United States, who in their interests in their profile listed one of more of the following tags: Animal Rights, Cats, Dogs, Horses, Veganism, Vegetarianism or Walking My Dog.
When clicking on the ad, it would take people to the Facebook page I created for the group. What was great about the ad is that is showed you the resulting number of people who actually saw the ad, and how many of them clicked on the ad.
The page also gives the admin person specific insights, such as what percentage of females vs males look at the page, which in this case is 87% females, and 13% males. In breaks it down by age groups as well as telling you where you have the most people: Washington 77; Alexandria 40; Arlington 35; Reston 18; Culpeper 12; Aol 9; Sterling 7; Atlanta 6; Fairfax 6. (Interestingly enough, Aol is considered a city.)
The creation of the facebook page as well as the creation of the YouTube channel I feel were some of the most successful points of my service learning, as I put my understanding of the different virtual representations one could make. While one of the readings I struggled with was the Ryan reading on Cyperspace, Virtuality and the Text. However after becoming more involved and creating these profiles and pages on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Flickr for the rescue, I feel these are examples of online virtual representations of the rescue, which helped me understand the concepts of virtual as fake and virtual as potential. This also contributed to my feeling that my service learning was successful, as I did not think I was ever going to be able to understand that reading at all!
Not only did the database work and social marketing work I did benefit my own learning, but I felt it contributed to the Rescue group as well, as it helped get the brand and name of the rescue more in the public eye and also increase their donor database so more funds would be available.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Portfolio Reflection
Response to the question:
1. To what extent has your understanding of Web 2.0 platforms and tools broadened your horizons in your life outside the classroom? What additional connections can you identify between your academic work in this learning community and your wider role as an active citizen, family member, employee, volunteer, voter, etc.
Before this class started, if someone asked me if I was internet savvy, I would confidently say yes. If they asked me what Web 2.0 was, I would’ve just as confidently said that while I hadn’t heard of it, it was probably a new internet server, similar to Firefox or Internet Explorer. Clearly, I had some learning to do! I learned that understanding web 2.0, as well as being aware of the increasingly important role that it plays in both everyday life and work in general, is different than just knowing your way around the web overall.
One of the things I learned that I found most interesting was that many people including myself use components of Web 2.0 without realizing it. After all the readings, I came to the conclusion that the biggest part or platform of Web 2.0 is really participation. All the data sharing networks, ranging from databases to YouTube videos, require participation to function and more importantly succeed. The internet itself, while it was around for a little bit before truly taking off, would not have existed and changed as it has if it weren’t for the participation of everyone in the world. Because of this, online services and programs are constantly evolving to meet not only user needs, but also just to keep up with the changes in technology. It’s not enough anymore to be able to upload a photo to your computer and print it – you have to be able to edit it, change it and turn it into a puzzle online that you can share with your family and friends.
As a volunteer for an animal rescue group, learning about Web 2.0 certainly broadened my horizons to say the least. Twitter being a great example, as I had an account but didn’t actively use it before the class began. In reading one of my classmates blog postings about “8 Useful Tips to Become Successful with Twitter,” I reconsidered trying Twitter. While I still don’t understand exactly what is so great about only entering status updates, I am aware that is all the rage, and so created an account for Lost Dog & Cat Rescue Foundation, the group I volunteer with. I often still struggle with creating what I consider interesting “tweets,” however it is certainly working somehow as we have over 200 followers.
In April, I attended a conference for animal rescue and animal shelter workers, called the Animal Care Expo, in Las Vegas, Nevada. One of the workshops I signed up for was focused on Web 2.0 and Social Marketing. It was an excellent workshop, and I would not have gotten as much out of it had I not been taking this class at the same time (Understanding the title for one thing!). YouTube was an important topic both in the workshop and in class – by listening to my peers I learned more about YouTube, and through the workshop I learned that as a nonprofit you could actually get a nonprofit account and therefore have your page “branded” and displayed more professionally than your average YouTube user’s page. In addition I also was able to create and better utilize Flickr, another online service I had been hesitating to use as it seemed like an added hassle. All this knowledge resulted in creating both a Flickr account and a very fun and informative nonprofit YouTube account for the rescue, which can be seen here.
Overall I feel that learning and understanding the platforms of web 2.0 have enabled me to utilize the social marketing tools currently available to me, as well as given me skills that are clearly more and more wanted and needed by employers today.
1. To what extent has your understanding of Web 2.0 platforms and tools broadened your horizons in your life outside the classroom? What additional connections can you identify between your academic work in this learning community and your wider role as an active citizen, family member, employee, volunteer, voter, etc.
Before this class started, if someone asked me if I was internet savvy, I would confidently say yes. If they asked me what Web 2.0 was, I would’ve just as confidently said that while I hadn’t heard of it, it was probably a new internet server, similar to Firefox or Internet Explorer. Clearly, I had some learning to do! I learned that understanding web 2.0, as well as being aware of the increasingly important role that it plays in both everyday life and work in general, is different than just knowing your way around the web overall.
One of the things I learned that I found most interesting was that many people including myself use components of Web 2.0 without realizing it. After all the readings, I came to the conclusion that the biggest part or platform of Web 2.0 is really participation. All the data sharing networks, ranging from databases to YouTube videos, require participation to function and more importantly succeed. The internet itself, while it was around for a little bit before truly taking off, would not have existed and changed as it has if it weren’t for the participation of everyone in the world. Because of this, online services and programs are constantly evolving to meet not only user needs, but also just to keep up with the changes in technology. It’s not enough anymore to be able to upload a photo to your computer and print it – you have to be able to edit it, change it and turn it into a puzzle online that you can share with your family and friends.
As a volunteer for an animal rescue group, learning about Web 2.0 certainly broadened my horizons to say the least. Twitter being a great example, as I had an account but didn’t actively use it before the class began. In reading one of my classmates blog postings about “8 Useful Tips to Become Successful with Twitter,” I reconsidered trying Twitter. While I still don’t understand exactly what is so great about only entering status updates, I am aware that is all the rage, and so created an account for Lost Dog & Cat Rescue Foundation, the group I volunteer with. I often still struggle with creating what I consider interesting “tweets,” however it is certainly working somehow as we have over 200 followers.
In April, I attended a conference for animal rescue and animal shelter workers, called the Animal Care Expo, in Las Vegas, Nevada. One of the workshops I signed up for was focused on Web 2.0 and Social Marketing. It was an excellent workshop, and I would not have gotten as much out of it had I not been taking this class at the same time (Understanding the title for one thing!). YouTube was an important topic both in the workshop and in class – by listening to my peers I learned more about YouTube, and through the workshop I learned that as a nonprofit you could actually get a nonprofit account and therefore have your page “branded” and displayed more professionally than your average YouTube user’s page. In addition I also was able to create and better utilize Flickr, another online service I had been hesitating to use as it seemed like an added hassle. All this knowledge resulted in creating both a Flickr account and a very fun and informative nonprofit YouTube account for the rescue, which can be seen here.
Overall I feel that learning and understanding the platforms of web 2.0 have enabled me to utilize the social marketing tools currently available to me, as well as given me skills that are clearly more and more wanted and needed by employers today.
Google Sculpting
A nation of so-called animal lovers
Living in a throw away society
Leading two big, beautiful German shepherd dogs toward the back room
Because for far too many people, the value of life is nil
One dog in the chamber….
One dog in the back room…
One dog on the euthanasia table….
Shelters do their dirty work
Disposable animals, We live in a throw away society.
Pets are throwaway commodities.
Euthanasia is reality
Commonplace among the shelters and rescues
There are eight dogs
One standing on top of a mound of dead dogs, wagging his tail, unphased
Too often a dog is deemed unsuitable and pulled to be euthanized
The Right Decision? Mercy Killing or Murder?
Euthanasia, a merciful death?
One dog in the chamber….
One dog in the back room…
One dog on the euthanasia table….
Shelters do their dirty work
Chick Solos and More
One of the things we have discussed this semester is how the internet and web 2.0 in particular is based a lot on participation. The first two of the art pieces that I clicked on that sounded interesting and enticing to me, such as Qubo Gas’s Watercouleur Park and Martin Wattenberg’s IdeaLine where examples of how different people’s participation has led to one product. However for me they were both too cluttered for me – When I clicked on Liliana Porter’s Rehearsal piece, I liked it – and settled on that.
The first thing that stood out to me in this piece was the “Chick Solo” aspect of it. While my first instinct for Porter’s very simple assembly of chicken figurines was that it was just that – a few chicken figures put together because she happened to have them around. But looking at symbolism and applying Porter’s piece to Web 2.0 made me think that in a sense these chicks represented Web 2.0 – together they produced this musical piece but once you clicked on them separately they each sang their own tune; Web 2.0 is created from the participation or ‘solos’ from many people to create a finished product.
The introduction mentioned Porter’s focus on “questioning the boundary between reality and its representation,” but that “Porter sensed that after a certain degree of social evolution of technology, the idea that there is something real and something virtual, the surprise and magic of producing connections between these planes, would cease to be meaningful." This brought back a connection to one of the earlier readings we had this semester, discussing virtual reality, and then different realities there are. Porter’s idea that eventually it won’t be an issue, and that people will not be so excited over connecting the two, is certainly an interesting one, as everyday there seems to be a new announcement of how something has been made easier by now being available online instead of offline.
Another way that I found Porter’s piece interesting was that it used old art to create new art. In the text introduction to the piece it says the song is from an old opera and that the chicken figurines themselves are ones that Porter collected over the years, so also older than the actual art piece on the webpage. By using a simple digital medium like this, where there are not a million things going on at once, and while being interactive it is not overly so having you click on 500 objects etc, it is a good way to open up more art to people. I had never heard of the opera Rigoletto, and yet by reading the introduction and hearing the music, I learned about the opera. Overall I felt that Porter’s piece was a good example of how sometimes the simpler ways, and less flashy ways, are a better approach than trying to put out all the stops and overwhelm the audience.
The first thing that stood out to me in this piece was the “Chick Solo” aspect of it. While my first instinct for Porter’s very simple assembly of chicken figurines was that it was just that – a few chicken figures put together because she happened to have them around. But looking at symbolism and applying Porter’s piece to Web 2.0 made me think that in a sense these chicks represented Web 2.0 – together they produced this musical piece but once you clicked on them separately they each sang their own tune; Web 2.0 is created from the participation or ‘solos’ from many people to create a finished product.
The introduction mentioned Porter’s focus on “questioning the boundary between reality and its representation,” but that “Porter sensed that after a certain degree of social evolution of technology, the idea that there is something real and something virtual, the surprise and magic of producing connections between these planes, would cease to be meaningful." This brought back a connection to one of the earlier readings we had this semester, discussing virtual reality, and then different realities there are. Porter’s idea that eventually it won’t be an issue, and that people will not be so excited over connecting the two, is certainly an interesting one, as everyday there seems to be a new announcement of how something has been made easier by now being available online instead of offline.
Another way that I found Porter’s piece interesting was that it used old art to create new art. In the text introduction to the piece it says the song is from an old opera and that the chicken figurines themselves are ones that Porter collected over the years, so also older than the actual art piece on the webpage. By using a simple digital medium like this, where there are not a million things going on at once, and while being interactive it is not overly so having you click on 500 objects etc, it is a good way to open up more art to people. I had never heard of the opera Rigoletto, and yet by reading the introduction and hearing the music, I learned about the opera. Overall I felt that Porter’s piece was a good example of how sometimes the simpler ways, and less flashy ways, are a better approach than trying to put out all the stops and overwhelm the audience.
Reading Response: Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites
In Boyd’s piece, she focuses on discussing certain questions that have arisen in response to the rise of the use of social network sites by teenagers in the United States as well as other countries. Some of the questions raised appear to be easily answered at first, such as “why do teenagers flock to these sites” (as many teens might answer, because “it’s cool.”) but when looked at in more depth, they raise some of the other questions, such as what exactly are they expressing on them, and are like face-to-face friendships; are they different or complementary? One of the ones I found most intriguing was what they learn from their participation, as the question of what is gained by using the internet is asked by many. A question Boyd left out which is just as important though, is what do they contribute by using these websites.
In reflecting on past readings, one thing these social networking sites enable is Warschauer’s idea of social capital, and the contribution of it. All three types of social capital are demonstrated when teenagers use websites like Facebook, MySpace, Friendster etc. The bonding of social capital occurs among groups of friends when they connect online, such as the two girls mentioned by Boyd who made fake profiles for their parents to see and had other profiles that they kept active. The bridging of social capital I felt was exemplified by the girl quoted at the start, saying how she posts things on her Xanga that she doesn’t feel she is able to share in class, because “I think if kids in school read what I have to say and how I say it, they'll want to be my friend.” This provides the opportunity for members of other social groups to reach out to her, and therefore bridge social capital. The norm related social capital is also shown in Boyd’s piece, when she describes how often when starting a profile online, teenagers will look to other profiles of their friends to see what they said, and what is acceptable to post.
In asking what exactly is it that they are expressing on these websites and if these are different or complementary to face-to-face friendships, I would have a month ago said that they are very different at least in regards to those who have not met online. That being said, after learning about virtual as fake and virtual as potential, it brings me to reconsider that question.
Boyd’s concept of networked publics was also an interesting one, as she describes a networked public as being mediated, the network mediating the interactions between members of the public. This made me think of websites like Wikipedia, or even Google chat, and if Boyd would consider them to be a networked public, as the argument could be made that there are not enough rules and boundaries for chatting that could make it considered to be mediated. Many of the parents of teenagers who are using these social networking sites would most likely also not consider them to be mediated by the network, and in need of more regulations.
Overall, while Boyd’s piece was intended to answer questions, for me it ended up raising more questions about the usage of the social networking websites and how it benefits those who use them, and perhaps also how it might provide a disservice to those who use them.
In reflecting on past readings, one thing these social networking sites enable is Warschauer’s idea of social capital, and the contribution of it. All three types of social capital are demonstrated when teenagers use websites like Facebook, MySpace, Friendster etc. The bonding of social capital occurs among groups of friends when they connect online, such as the two girls mentioned by Boyd who made fake profiles for their parents to see and had other profiles that they kept active. The bridging of social capital I felt was exemplified by the girl quoted at the start, saying how she posts things on her Xanga that she doesn’t feel she is able to share in class, because “I think if kids in school read what I have to say and how I say it, they'll want to be my friend.” This provides the opportunity for members of other social groups to reach out to her, and therefore bridge social capital. The norm related social capital is also shown in Boyd’s piece, when she describes how often when starting a profile online, teenagers will look to other profiles of their friends to see what they said, and what is acceptable to post.
In asking what exactly is it that they are expressing on these websites and if these are different or complementary to face-to-face friendships, I would have a month ago said that they are very different at least in regards to those who have not met online. That being said, after learning about virtual as fake and virtual as potential, it brings me to reconsider that question.
Boyd’s concept of networked publics was also an interesting one, as she describes a networked public as being mediated, the network mediating the interactions between members of the public. This made me think of websites like Wikipedia, or even Google chat, and if Boyd would consider them to be a networked public, as the argument could be made that there are not enough rules and boundaries for chatting that could make it considered to be mediated. Many of the parents of teenagers who are using these social networking sites would most likely also not consider them to be mediated by the network, and in need of more regulations.
Overall, while Boyd’s piece was intended to answer questions, for me it ended up raising more questions about the usage of the social networking websites and how it benefits those who use them, and perhaps also how it might provide a disservice to those who use them.
Reading Response: O’Reilly’s What is Web 2.0
According to O’Reilly, Web 2.0 has many key characteristics, such as being very user interactive, with users sharing the data, hypertexting and increasing the popularity as well as the speed of the service. The service also being a key characteristic, instead of packaged software, such as Netscape which quickly was overshadowed. Another key characteristic O’Reilly mentions as uses Amazon as an example of, is having ‘hard to recreate’ data sources, where he then compared Amazon to Barnes and Noble – same products but through using the actual users and tagging, or folksonomy, the product sold on Amazon has more users either backing it up or not. Interestingly enough, though these are some of what O’Reilly states are “Core” competencies of Web 2.0, he also states right after listing them that “excellence in one area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven.”
Throughout the entire article, O’Reilly makes Web 2.0 sound like it is far better than Web 1.0, as it is a step forward, and yet in some of his comparisons, it is questionable. Marketing wise Web 2.0 appears much for targeted and therefore successful. That said, one of the “Web 1.0 v. Web 2.0” comparisons O’Reilly makes is Brittanica Online v. Wikipedia. While perhaps Wikipedia is more Web 2.0 as it allows users to make entries, update them etc, “with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow," he quotes. With some non controversial ‘topics’ or entries that may be the case, but as someone who was an intern and had to check and edit the definitions of “Veal” & “Foie Gras” on Wikipedia on a daily basis, it really depends on who had a faster server and more time (or employees) to devote to the issue. (In my case, Hudson Valley Foie Gras won out.)
Some other quotations he had jumped out at me, the first one being that “Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage.” This made me think of in the past, when DVD’s first started taking over, where you could barely find VHS versions of anything, and even now, where analog televisions will no longer work and everything has been switched to digital. Even now, everyone has seen commercials for Blue Ray discs, and it has frequently sparked discussion that often begins with “why would we use that when we have DVD’s” and yet it’s the same argument used for tapes v. CD’s, and PC v. laptop, and now it makes me look at the current standoffs or shake ups, between DVD’s v. Blue Ray, or even Windows Vista v. Mac. While one of the characteristics of Web 2.0 was that users didn’t have to upgrade constantly and buy new software (as with Netscape) it seems that in the big picture, we are having to upgrade in order to stay with what is now Web 2.0, and in the future I’m sure 3.0 and all those that follow
Throughout the entire article, O’Reilly makes Web 2.0 sound like it is far better than Web 1.0, as it is a step forward, and yet in some of his comparisons, it is questionable. Marketing wise Web 2.0 appears much for targeted and therefore successful. That said, one of the “Web 1.0 v. Web 2.0” comparisons O’Reilly makes is Brittanica Online v. Wikipedia. While perhaps Wikipedia is more Web 2.0 as it allows users to make entries, update them etc, “with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow," he quotes. With some non controversial ‘topics’ or entries that may be the case, but as someone who was an intern and had to check and edit the definitions of “Veal” & “Foie Gras” on Wikipedia on a daily basis, it really depends on who had a faster server and more time (or employees) to devote to the issue. (In my case, Hudson Valley Foie Gras won out.)
Some other quotations he had jumped out at me, the first one being that “Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage.” This made me think of in the past, when DVD’s first started taking over, where you could barely find VHS versions of anything, and even now, where analog televisions will no longer work and everything has been switched to digital. Even now, everyone has seen commercials for Blue Ray discs, and it has frequently sparked discussion that often begins with “why would we use that when we have DVD’s” and yet it’s the same argument used for tapes v. CD’s, and PC v. laptop, and now it makes me look at the current standoffs or shake ups, between DVD’s v. Blue Ray, or even Windows Vista v. Mac. While one of the characteristics of Web 2.0 was that users didn’t have to upgrade constantly and buy new software (as with Netscape) it seems that in the big picture, we are having to upgrade in order to stay with what is now Web 2.0, and in the future I’m sure 3.0 and all those that follow
Peer Teaching Reflection
Alison and I were at first both stumped over what topic to use for our peer teaching. Finally we asked each other, what are we good at? Alison mentioned she had recently helped a friend of her dad’s set up a profile on one of the dating sites, called gofish.com. I had also had some experience with the online dating world, having tried it out myself, so we decided, why not teach others how to successful use online dating sites! Both of us had been to main dating sites such as eHarmony and match, however once we started to research, we found out there were plenty more than we realized. There was no way to compare them all, so we decided to focus on certain ones.
Since we could not afford to pay for memberships to each site, we were fortunate in that many sites allowed you to have a free trial, and several were actually free. At first we just browsed the sites to see how they worked, but then we narrowed our focus. We asked ourselves what we would want to know about online dating if we didn’t have a clue what it was about – which is how we came up with the idea of the WWW theme – Who (can you meet and how), What (can you find), and where (do you go to meet them).
We took notes on what our findings were, and then prepared the power point to guide people through. We wanted the handout to be something useful, to contain something people would want to hold onto and could use in the future should they decide to go and try online dating. While searching reviews of dating sites we came across the site that had tips for taking better photos of yourself for online profiles. Now this may seem like a silly idea, however when putting dogs and cats up for adoption, the photo you put up I know is extremely important, and there are definitely do’s and don’ts for that as well as how to write their biographies. Because of this, I thought that perhaps many people are not aware of how much of a difference a good photo or biography can mean, so we decided to give people a copy of those tips. In addition, we felt that a list of the sites we had checked out would be helpful, along with safety tips, as many people seem to underestimate the problems that can result from an unhealthy match made online. We decided then to try to find something funny for the last part of our handout, and settled on a “lingo” cheat sheet, as some of the ads we found were hard to decipher!
In reflecting on the assignment as well as reading the responses, I feel overall we did a good presentation as people seemed genuinely interested in what we had to say. I wish we had rehearsed the actual presenting more, while we had an outline we had made for presenting, we both felt that it was important to have the presentation be more conversational than strictly formatted. I felt that this may have hurt our presentation somewhat, because Alison and I both have different speaking styles, and unfortunately neither one of us has psychic capabilities, so are not able to know what the other person is about to say or tell the other person what to say. That being said, I felt that though there may have been some stumbling during the presentation, that it was overall successful, and the responses we received seemed to reflect that as well.
Since we could not afford to pay for memberships to each site, we were fortunate in that many sites allowed you to have a free trial, and several were actually free. At first we just browsed the sites to see how they worked, but then we narrowed our focus. We asked ourselves what we would want to know about online dating if we didn’t have a clue what it was about – which is how we came up with the idea of the WWW theme – Who (can you meet and how), What (can you find), and where (do you go to meet them).
We took notes on what our findings were, and then prepared the power point to guide people through. We wanted the handout to be something useful, to contain something people would want to hold onto and could use in the future should they decide to go and try online dating. While searching reviews of dating sites we came across the site that had tips for taking better photos of yourself for online profiles. Now this may seem like a silly idea, however when putting dogs and cats up for adoption, the photo you put up I know is extremely important, and there are definitely do’s and don’ts for that as well as how to write their biographies. Because of this, I thought that perhaps many people are not aware of how much of a difference a good photo or biography can mean, so we decided to give people a copy of those tips. In addition, we felt that a list of the sites we had checked out would be helpful, along with safety tips, as many people seem to underestimate the problems that can result from an unhealthy match made online. We decided then to try to find something funny for the last part of our handout, and settled on a “lingo” cheat sheet, as some of the ads we found were hard to decipher!
In reflecting on the assignment as well as reading the responses, I feel overall we did a good presentation as people seemed genuinely interested in what we had to say. I wish we had rehearsed the actual presenting more, while we had an outline we had made for presenting, we both felt that it was important to have the presentation be more conversational than strictly formatted. I felt that this may have hurt our presentation somewhat, because Alison and I both have different speaking styles, and unfortunately neither one of us has psychic capabilities, so are not able to know what the other person is about to say or tell the other person what to say. That being said, I felt that though there may have been some stumbling during the presentation, that it was overall successful, and the responses we received seemed to reflect that as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
