<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" 	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Do we mean &#8220;social&#8221; or do we mean &#8220;conversational&#8221;?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/blog/572/do-we-mean-social-or-do-we-mean-conversational/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/blog/572/do-we-mean-social-or-do-we-mean-conversational/</link>
	<description>Social media, consultancy, training and advice from a flâneur of the internets. Blogger, writer, broadcaster and runner of Birmingham: It&#039;s Not Shit.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:08:55 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Link: Do we mean “social” or do we mean “conversational”? - jon bounds &#8212; Getgood Guide</title>
		<link>http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/blog/572/do-we-mean-social-or-do-we-mean-conversational/comment-page-1/#comment-1053</link>
		<dc:creator>Link: Do we mean “social” or do we mean “conversational”? - jon bounds &#8212; Getgood Guide</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:02:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/?p=572#comment-1053</guid>
		<description>[...] Do we mean “social” or do we mean “conversational”? - jon bounds - It seems social media types are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the definition &#8217;social media&#8217;. Pete Ashton has also been in search of alternative term. I like Jon&#8217;s idea of &#8216;conversational&#8217; media. I picture in my head a circle of bloggy globes, all in some kind of inter-planetary, mutually-dependant sync with each other. Have no fear - no nauseating, sound-bite term is going to come from this musing, it&#8217;s just the image in my head: solar system media. Oh God.  Get the feeling I&#8217;m going to have to stand in the naughty corner for this one.   Share and Enjoy: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Do we mean “social” or do we mean “conversational”? &#8211; jon bounds &#8211; It seems social media types are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the definition &#8217;social media&#8217;. Pete Ashton has also been in search of alternative term. I like Jon&#8217;s idea of &#8216;conversational&#8217; media. I picture in my head a circle of bloggy globes, all in some kind of inter-planetary, mutually-dependant sync with each other. Have no fear &#8211; no nauseating, sound-bite term is going to come from this musing, it&#8217;s just the image in my head: solar system media. Oh God.  Get the feeling I&#8217;m going to have to stand in the naughty corner for this one.   Share and Enjoy: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Bounds</title>
		<link>http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/blog/572/do-we-mean-social-or-do-we-mean-conversational/comment-page-1/#comment-1011</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Bounds</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:18:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/?p=572#comment-1011</guid>
		<description>@Fiona, I see where you&#039;re coming from, but I feel your definition of conversation is unnecessarily limited — you can converse with any number of people, over vast spaces of time and (er) space — although it practise people converse with a limited number of people over a limited timescale even online.

To me &quot;interactivity, collectivism, exchange, communication, participation&quot; and &quot;dialogue, discussion, response, exchange&quot; would be a couple of good collections of synonyms — implying that &quot;conversational&quot; isn&#039;t as far away from being a good term as you think.

Totally open to someone (please!) finding a better one tho&#039;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Fiona, I see where you&#8217;re coming from, but I feel your definition of conversation is unnecessarily limited — you can converse with any number of people, over vast spaces of time and (er) space — although it practise people converse with a limited number of people over a limited timescale even online.</p>
<p>To me &#8220;interactivity, collectivism, exchange, communication, participation&#8221; and &#8220;dialogue, discussion, response, exchange&#8221; would be a couple of good collections of synonyms — implying that &#8220;conversational&#8221; isn&#8217;t as far away from being a good term as you think.</p>
<p>Totally open to someone (please!) finding a better one tho&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FionaHandscomb</title>
		<link>http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/blog/572/do-we-mean-social-or-do-we-mean-conversational/comment-page-1/#comment-1009</link>
		<dc:creator>FionaHandscomb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:50:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/?p=572#comment-1009</guid>
		<description>Hi Jon. Delayed response; but my problems with the word &#039;conversation&#039; are the following:

1. It suggests a degree of turn-taking and exchange - this doesn&#039;t necessarily happen with social media
2. Real time: I can leave an e.g. twitter discussion for days and then return to it - can&#039;t really do that in a conversation
3. You can&#039;t really have a conversation with more than a handful of people. Thousands of people participating in something is great, but it&#039;s not a conversation
4. I would say that there are varying degrees of conversation (ie dialogue, discussion, response, exchange) between different social media platforms e.g. having a discussion on Twitter is more conversational than e.g uploading photos in a flickr group. You may simply upload 10 photos and then vanish - there&#039;s no discussion or intercourse there. 

Perhaps something is as conversational as the participants make it; but I wouldn&#039;t whitewash all with this word. 

I know what you&#039;re saying about the term &#039;social media&#039; and there&#039;s something to be said about finding a new term that suggests interactivity, collectivism, exchange, communication, participation - just not sure that &#039;conversational&#039; is the right one ....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jon. Delayed response; but my problems with the word &#8216;conversation&#8217; are the following:</p>
<p>1. It suggests a degree of turn-taking and exchange &#8211; this doesn&#8217;t necessarily happen with social media<br />
2. Real time: I can leave an e.g. twitter discussion for days and then return to it &#8211; can&#8217;t really do that in a conversation<br />
3. You can&#8217;t really have a conversation with more than a handful of people. Thousands of people participating in something is great, but it&#8217;s not a conversation<br />
4. I would say that there are varying degrees of conversation (ie dialogue, discussion, response, exchange) between different social media platforms e.g. having a discussion on Twitter is more conversational than e.g uploading photos in a flickr group. You may simply upload 10 photos and then vanish &#8211; there&#8217;s no discussion or intercourse there. </p>
<p>Perhaps something is as conversational as the participants make it; but I wouldn&#8217;t whitewash all with this word. </p>
<p>I know what you&#8217;re saying about the term &#8217;social media&#8217; and there&#8217;s something to be said about finding a new term that suggests interactivity, collectivism, exchange, communication, participation &#8211; just not sure that &#8216;conversational&#8217; is the right one &#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Bounds</title>
		<link>http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/blog/572/do-we-mean-social-or-do-we-mean-conversational/comment-page-1/#comment-1008</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Bounds</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:55:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/?p=572#comment-1008</guid>
		<description>@Jo, we just start using it — there was a tangle between &quot;social network&quot; and &quot;social graph&quot; for a while last year. As we start to study these things more, we&#039;ll need proper accepted definitions, which might mean breaking things down more.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Jo, we just start using it — there was a tangle between &#8220;social network&#8221; and &#8220;social graph&#8221; for a while last year. As we start to study these things more, we&#8217;ll need proper accepted definitions, which might mean breaking things down more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jo Ind</title>
		<link>http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/blog/572/do-we-mean-social-or-do-we-mean-conversational/comment-page-1/#comment-1007</link>
		<dc:creator>Jo Ind</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:43:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/?p=572#comment-1007</guid>
		<description>Great idea - though I&#039;m not sure how you go about changing a term that&#039;s in common use.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great idea &#8211; though I&#8217;m not sure how you go about changing a term that&#8217;s in common use.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Harte</title>
		<link>http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/blog/572/do-we-mean-social-or-do-we-mean-conversational/comment-page-1/#comment-976</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Harte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:24:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/?p=572#comment-976</guid>
		<description>oh no - and just when the council finally got round to organising an internal &#039;social media&#039; group. there&#039;ll be chaos now I tell ya. I daren&#039;t tell them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>oh no &#8211; and just when the council finally got round to organising an internal &#8217;social media&#8217; group. there&#8217;ll be chaos now I tell ya. I daren&#8217;t tell them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: james Rock</title>
		<link>http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/blog/572/do-we-mean-social-or-do-we-mean-conversational/comment-page-1/#comment-975</link>
		<dc:creator>james Rock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:41:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/?p=572#comment-975</guid>
		<description>Great idea... Social Media is an insiders jargon that is difficult to comprehend. Jargon is simple for insiders to use, but is often meaningless to outsiders. When I try to explain what Social Media is I often have to switch to simpler term&#039;s such as &quot;word-of-mouth&quot; and &quot;online conversation&quot; so that they can understand what I mean.

@james_rock</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great idea&#8230; Social Media is an insiders jargon that is difficult to comprehend. Jargon is simple for insiders to use, but is often meaningless to outsiders. When I try to explain what Social Media is I often have to switch to simpler term&#8217;s such as &#8220;word-of-mouth&#8221; and &#8220;online conversation&#8221; so that they can understand what I mean.</p>
<p>@james_rock</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jonhickman (jonhickman)</title>
		<link>http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/blog/572/do-we-mean-social-or-do-we-mean-conversational/comment-page-1/#comment-974</link>
		<dc:creator>jonhickman (jonhickman)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 23:59:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jonbounds.co.uk/?p=572#comment-974</guid>
		<description>&lt;a rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; href=&quot;http://twitter.com/bounder&quot;&gt;@bounder&lt;/a&gt; at least &quot;social&quot; is better than &quot;web 2.0&quot; - remind me to come back and comment on that post later, yeah? http://tinyurl.com/ce5x3k</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://twitter.com/bounder">@bounder</a> at least &#8220;social&#8221; is better than &#8220;web 2.0&#8243; &#8211; remind me to come back and comment on that post later, yeah? <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ce5x3k" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/ce5&#215;3k</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
