themeat.org

Dear Mr. Time Magazine Editor,

The site I work on was listed as one of your 5 Worst Websites -- 5 worst of the year? Month? Hour? Doesn't matter -- it's a backhanded slap from a distinguished magazine like Time.

First, let's clear up something. There is no adware or spyware on our site. Putting the name of our site next to those words is insulting and deceptive. You're journalists; you know the power of words as well as I do. Take those back.

But let's get serious for a second. Here's the opening sentence from your tirade against my site:

It has become trendy to tack poems, photos, icons, logos and other digital flotsam and jetsam onto email messages.

This sentence tells me everything I need to know about the person who wrote this article. You're a late-30's, early 40's person who reluctantly has adopted these new web technologies. Email is still amazing to you. All the kids who are on instant messing or using "the blogs" are wasting their time on the computer when they should be reading books, going outside, or subscribing to Time Magazine.

Signatures "[have] become trendy"? It was trendy to add a signature to your email a decade ago, when email was in infancy and everyone wondered, "how do you make that little line appear at the bottom of all your emails?" Now it's expected that everyone does it.

Regarding your specific complaint that people are putting Meez in their emails, it's a rare thing. The only people I know who put a Meez on the bottom of their emails are me and my coworkers, only in our professional correspondence, and only because we're damn proud about the site we're creating.

Let me be clear about this; the people using our website don't use email. Seriously. They put their Meez in their blogs, in their IM windows, on their profiles, but not in their emails because they don't use email. Let me repeat that in terms you can understand -- our core demographic doesn't use email. Yours does.

Another way of understanding your panning our site is "pandering" to the email lovers such as yourself who feel that Meez and "other sites of its ilk" have sullied your fertile ground of emails. You can have email; we don't want it back.

Our Meezers love our website, come back regularly, and always are inspiring us with great feedback, ideas, and encouragement. We love the people using our site, and we do as much as we can to make their time on our site kick ass. I doubt Time Magazine or time.com get glowing messages like these from your audience, or that you do as much as we do to make your users love your site. In your case, you should aim lower and first try to make your site tolerable. (You still have a long way to go until you get there.)

So why did you pick on our site?

Your comments said it all. You hate images in your emails, and you saw one of our Meez in your emails once. And then you decided to single out us among the many sites like ours to quell your email signature anger. I expect that kind of hack journalism from Bill O'Reilly, not from Time Magazine.

You also put us in the same camp as other signature and smiley providers; we share more in common with avatar sites like WeeWorld and Gaia Online than those other sites you mentioned. Then again, I don't expect you to know what Gaia or WeeWorld are or what an avatar is. I'll write a description of them and email it to you (with my Meez in the signature).

When I'm thinking about the new features on our site, I think about the people who will use it on our site -- mostly teens -- who love our site, tell their friends about it, and spend lots of time on it. But our site is not for everyone. It's probably not for you. When you to cite my site as one of the worst ones ever, to complain that we're clogging up your inbox, and to insult our "cutesy creatures" loved by our users, you reveal that you don't understand the appeal of our website. You just don't get it. That bears repeating.

You don't get it.

And that's why I don't give a fuck what you say about my website. And you should be honored that I spent this time to call you on your bullshit. I don't waste my time on elitist idiots like you except to point out their idiocy and make them look like the idiots that they really are. So take your list and shove it until time.com becomes the top website on the web.

If you really want to see how much people are annoyed about email signatures, let's put yours (with no Meez) and mine (with my Meez) side by side and ask folks which ones they like better. I'll wager they'll like mine better. If I lose, I'll subscribe to your toilet paper roll of a magazine for a year. I'll even read the whole thing every week. And if you lose, you have to put a Meez of yourself in your email signature for a year. Sounds good?

Last, and most important by far, your insult of my website isn't an insult to me. It's an insult to the millions of people who have come to Meez.com, registered with us, and proudly displayed their Meez on their websites for everyone to see. Is it really the Meez that bother your or the people putting Meezes in their emails? Just like dissing MySpace for the spammers who have made it an ugly place, you're dis of my site is really a complaint about the behavior of people expressing themselves through the Meez in their email signatures. You can insult email signatures all you want, but I won't let you insult my users.

Those are my users. Stay the fuck away from my users.

I hate what happened to Kathy Sierra as much as anyone. However, I'm not in a rush to solve an unsolvable problem -- online anti-social behavior. So I'm throwing my website in front of the runaway Internet locomotive that is the Blogger's Code of Conduct, supported by Internet stars Tim O'Reilly and Jimmy Wales.

If I don't call this out as bullshit, who will?

It's nothing personal. In fact, I'd be the first one to buy them a round of drinks if I ever get the chance. But the issue is serious enough that I can't ignore it. These rules are poorly thought out and ineffective against the problem that they're hoping to resolve. And the spotlight given to this by the BBC and the New York Times will only accelerate the terrible resolution we're headed towards.

History is our guide here. After reading Tim's article, I immediately thought of the Patriot Act written in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the internment of Japanese people during World War II. I don't mean that this code of conduct is on the same level as those other events, or that it carries the same weight as a law.

What I mean is that humans have a tendency to overreact, and in retrospect acts like these are unnecessary. Need some modern examples? Look at the reactions to Gmail or RFID. It's human nature to overreact in the midst of fear and uncertainty, just like setting the shower to the right temperature -- too hot, too cold, too hot, too cold.

Can we work on these rules a year from now, after our tempers have cooled off? After we've really put some thought into this and created some good solutions to the problem? That would make me feel a little better about this.

When did we leave behind discussion and cut straight into codification? Some Internet elites making this decision over a beer followed someone putting it on a wiki for everyone to edit is no substitute for a serious talk about what's the right course of action from here. I'm just trying to be a little more thoughtful about this problem before this potential blunder.

I could go through and pick apart their list of points one by one, but I don't want this to be a nitpicking fight over intent or terminology; I'm certain these people had the best intent behind their actions. Instead I'd rather have a nice, intelligent chat about the goals of what you're doing and how it will fix the underlying problem, whatever that is. That's why I want to invoke rule 4 against you:

4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.

You've unfairly attacked me and the millions of other Internet citizens who don't live in your ideal world, who will be affected by this. Please take action before jumping to conclusions and putting these terrible rules into place, because I certainly will take action if you don't.

Overreacting is the first step towards getting scalded by the shower.

PC World announced their list of the Top 50 Best Tech Products of All Time yesterday. I have to say I was shocked at their number 1 pick -- Netscape Navigator. Really, I was shocked at the whole list. Why wasn't the iPod number one on the list? That single item has transformed entertainment as we know it. Hell, if Netscape was so important, why wasn't the original IBM personal computer at the top of the list?

I know why. It must be because we as consumers (and the editorial staff at PC World) have lowered our expectations to ridiculous depths. That phrase -- "Lower your expectations" -- was my mantra at the first job I took out of college. It summarized everything I was aiming for in the output of my work -- little effort, acceptable results. I should have put it on my office door, right next to my "Bang Head HERE" sign and the occasional notice from the American Cookie Council.

Really - have our expectations of computer technology gotten so bad that Napster is the fourth best tech product we as humans have ever created? Napster SUCKED. Sure, you could download all the music you wanted. But don't you remember how crappy it was? It only showed 100 search results, the search results were never what you wanted, and if you did find something it took forever to download. "Best" technology my ass.

What about magnetic resonance imaging -- MRI in the vernacular. It has countless applications including viewing blood flow issues, brain activity, bones and ligaments, and more -- all non-invasive and it's pretty safe. Now you tell me which technology is better -- Napster, a miserable piece of software used largely by poor college students to commit copyright infringement, or MRI, which has helped doctors diagnose health conditions and save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. PC World editors -- I hope the next time you get an MRI, the computer they use gets infected with a virus that was downloaded when someone used Napster.

On the subject of consumer technologies, based on this list we still have a long way to go. We can develop kick-ass technologies, but we don't. Apple has done a pretty decent job of it. But let me be clear about this -- Apple is not the end-all, be-all of great technology. We've been conditioned in the Windows/Office paradigm for so long that we've forgotten what good technology experiences should be like. Apple is a breath of fresh air, but certainly not the best that technology can be.

For you people out there in charge of making the technologies that we humans use throughout our lives, raise your expectations about how great those technologies can be. "It's good enough" is the last thought that should be on your mind. What if the person who buys your product knew you gave up on making it better -- gave up on giving them a better experience when using your product? You should march down to the nearest store that sells your product and personally apologize to each person that buys it. "I'm sorry. I gave up. It could have been better. It wasn't good enough."

And really -- who is it good enough for? Is it good enough for you? For your coworkers? For some ideal of a user that you imagine in your mind? For your parents? For a real person using it? Is there anybody who it's good enough for? Or is that an excuse to cover up for something else -- not enough developers, too many bugs, not willing to put in the work, pressure from the executives, satisfaction with what's already there, disagreement about the features...

I've got plenty of time to talk about all of those issues. But for now, your goal is to start ratcheting up your level of expectations. The next time you get frustrated when using a piece of software ask yourself, "how would I make this better?" and go see if that better thing is out there. Then go to the Apple Store, play with an iPod and PowerBook, and talk to their salespeople. If you don't leave with a new computer and music player, you either have a tight budget or haven't raised your expectations nearly enough.

In response to Kathy's note...

I've been a fan of Kathy Sierra ever since I saw her speak at South by Southwest Interactive in 2006. For a long time, I had been struggling with my identity as a professional; a masters degree from UC Berkeley goes a long way towards advancing a career, but it wasn't until I heard Kathy speak and read her blog that I found my own voice to describe what I had learned, to describe my feelings about digital design.

In a way, she changed my life.

That's why I'm saddened and distraught to no end about what happened to her. I've seen terrible things happen to good people, and in that moment all you can do is react and empathize. So Kathy -- if you end up in or near San Francisco again, let me know and I'll happily lend my imposing visage to scare off the Internet scum when you're out and about. It's the least I can offer.

Also, I have to commend her on her willingness to write publicly about the ordeal. Others would be afraid to even speak of this, but she came forward with poise and clarity to describe the events and her feelings. I can't imagine how hard that must have been, and I hope that it's the first step towards living a normal life again.

I'm usually more verbose than this, but anything else I could say about how the Internet breeds malcontents or how humans interpret text communications has been said before (probably by Kathy, and certainly much better than I could state it). Kathy's writings have meant a lot to me, but whether or not she returns to speaking and writing isn't nearly as important as her health and safety.

Corey had the line of the day at SXSW:

"User-generated content. Can we come up with a better name for that sometime over the next week?"

I couldn't agree more. It's a phrase whose time has come to an end, just like "user-centered design." I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was called "Dave-centered design" but first I'd have to get over my self-consciousness as researchers follow me 24-7, observing my showering habits to help them create a better bathroom clock/radio

The problem isn't either of those phrases; the problem is the word "user". Yes, I busted out the quotes -- the word tongs as my former prof Geoffrey Nunberg calls them -- because I'm keeping that word as far away from me as possible. I don't want anything to do with that word ever again.

It is the most de-humanizing word that you can use to describe activities that are done by humans -- humans viewing and interacting with your own website. These people are devoting their time and attention to your site. Calling them "users" takes away the fact that there is a person sitting in front of her computer, reading my text, reading five other web pages, updating her MySpace profile, carrying on ten instant messenger conversations, listening to music, and watching the TV all at the same time.

I'm a human being, and the last thing that I want to be thought of is a person spending all of his time on MySpace. I want you to know that there's more to me than blogging and commenting and watching YouTube videos. You hide my complexity as a person when you call me a "user" and contextualize my activities solely in terms of your website. Disregarding that complexity is the first step in the downward spiral of bad user research, feature development and prioritization, bad user experiences, and ultimately the kind of thing that I want to keep you away from as you read my future digressions.

So what should we call "users" instead?

Great question. I'm glad you asked.

Metonymy

Metonymy is a figure of speech where you substitute the name of one thing for something else. For example, you could refer to the British royalty as "the crown". If you have a video site, instead of using the word "users" you could just as well call them "play button pushers" or "eyeballs" or "lazy". Well, maybe not lazy. Maybe not eyeballs either. Obviously my imagination is broken tonight. But don't let that prevent you from getting creative with your names; metonymy is a great place to start.

Call them what they call themselves

This is my favorite strategy. If you have a site for people who produce video clips distributed on the Internet, you probably shouldn't call them vidiots (and you certainly shouldn't call them "stupid"). They most likely call themselves vloggers. Calling them by the name they call themselves shows that you respect and understand them. And in case you hold that label in low regard, it's best to hold back your laughter until after you have some privacy (vloggers *hee hee*).

Give them a name, individually

Persona development is one of the best techniques for getting everyone to understand who makes up your target audience. A persona is an imaginary person who idealizes the typical person using your product. The number of personas you need depends on your audience, but a two or three is usually enough to focus your discussions. Instead of asking whether or not your "users" would like some new idea, instead ask if Bob, Laura, and John -- your personas -- would like it. I'll write more about personas in a future post.

Brand them

Yeah, "branding" sounds like an evil marketing word, but damned if I wasn't a proud member of the Nintendo Fun Club back in the day. A brand is fine as long as they adopt it too. Green Bay Packers fans happily accept the moniker "cheeseheads", but you would never call them "Green Bay Packers users" (and the eerie connotation that phrase has). Branding the people on your site gives them an automatic identity -- something to share with the other people on the site and a way to know whether you're "in" with the group already or "out" and need some enlightenment.

Call them what you call them

What do you call your friends? Your former schoolmates? The people on your co-ed soccer team? Call them something real like "humans" or "people" or "friends" or "buddies" or "teammates" or "those people we talked to at the conference" or "that chick I woke up next to after that night we got really shitfaced". Something like that. But if you're homophobic, you should watch what you say around fans of Gay.com. Just a friendly warning.

Last words on the word

Give them a name that you would be willing to say to their face, that they wouldn't be upset or embarrassed about if you said it with them standing right next to you. They'll appreciate the attention and identity you give them, and you'll have a friendlier word to use when you talk about them

And remember - these terms are shibboleths; if you don't use them or use them incorrectly, the people you're referring to will know you're an outsider. Incorrectly calling a blogger a "web logger" is a bad idea. Also, there are some times you can't use the word that these groups call themselves. The "n*****" word comes to mind as an example, so always be careful that you're not inadvertently hurting their feelings by the name you choose.

Finally, you need to do the legwork to figure out the best term to use when talking about the people on your site. You'll be amazed at what you discover. For example in my final project at Berkeley, Megan and I studied Berkeley freshmen and their technology habits and histories. Even though the students we interviewed were 17 or 18 years old, they sometimes referred to their friends and schoolmates as "kids". Megan and I could use that word when asking our questions to them too (despite the fact that we weren't much older than they were).

Good luck finding your own term to replace the word "user". Hopefully the last days of the phrase "user-generated content" are finally at hand...