This illustrates the medium and the message.
This embed code (sans the minus signs) allows you to integrate slideshare presentations into your blog entries: – [ slideshare id=694817&doc=osi-model-1225038567632819-9 –]-
2010 Draft Syllabus
January 11, 2010Will discuss in class on Friday to solidify the approach to class.
| Day | Date | 10-12:00 Class – CS 292-1 Web 2.0 Technology – 129 Featheringhill Hall |
| Wed | 1/13/2010 | Intro to Course |
| Fri | 1/15/2010 | Web 1.0, 1969 – 2010 Housekeeping and Setup (WordPress, Live Mesh, Google Wave) |
| Mon | 1/18/2010 | Web 2.0, Chronology of Computing, BBN / Internet, Vanderbilt Network Profile |
| Wed | 1/20/2010 | Networking Overview, Vanderbilt Network, I1/I2 |
| Fri | 1/22/2010 | IP Telephony, Server Based Telecomm & Collaboration, Skype / OCS Demonstration |
| Mon | 1/25/2010 | Data Center And Server Management Overview |
| Wed | 1/27/2010 | Data Center Tour (Hill Center — Peabody Campus) |
| Fri | 1/29/2010 | Server Virtualization and Virtual Box Demo / Assignment |
| Mon | 2/1/2010 | Iran 2.0 |
| Wed | 2/3/2010 | Intersection of Industry, Technology, and Society |
| Fri | 2/5/2010 | Quiz 1 / Finish When Wizards Stay up Late |
| Mon | 2/8/2010 | RSS, Blog, Podcasts, Readers, Future of Television |
| Wed | 2/10/2010 | Podcast Studio / Tools / Tutorial — Audigy |
| Fri | 2/12/2010 | Podcast Studio / Tools / Tutorial — Audigy — Storyboarding your content |
| Mon | 2/15/2010 | Extensibility, Mashups, and Yahoo Pipes! |
| Wed | 2/17/2010 | Digital Distribution and Intellectual Property |
| Fri | 2/19/2010 | Contracts and Licensing |
| Mon | 2/22/2010 | Identity Management: State of the Art |
| Wed | 2/24/2010 | Identity Management @ Vanderbilt |
| Fri | 2/26/2010 | MID-TERM EXAMS: Quiz 2 / Podcasts Due |
| Mon | 3/1/2010 | Software Development |
| Wed | 3/3/2010 | The Basic Technical Stack: Web 2.0 Technical Components |
| Fri | 3/5/2010 | The Basic Technical Stack: Web 2.0 Technical Components |
| Mon | 3/8/2010 | SPRING BREAK |
| 3/10/2010 | Mid-Term Deficiency Grades Report Due | |
| Wed | 3/10/2010 | SPRING BREAK |
| Fri | 3/12/2010 | SPRING BREAK |
| Mon | 3/15/2010 | Bio-Medical Informatics, Evidence Based , and Personalized Medicine — Amalga and Google Health |
| Wed | 3/17/2010 | Bio-Medical Informatics and Personalized Medicine — BioVU, Star, Wiz, Architecture |
| Fri | 3/19/2010 | Quiz 3 |
| Mon | 3/22/2010 | Mobility Overview |
| Wed | 3/24/2010 | Mobility: iPhone and Applications |
| Fri | 3/26/2010 | Introduction to Computer and Network Forensics |
| Mon | 3/29/2010 | Cloud Computing Overview and Issues |
| Wed | 3/31/2010 | Microsoft Azure |
| Fri | 4/2/2010 | Microsoft Azure: Azure Application Lab Time |
| Mon | 4/5/2010 | Microsoft Azure: Azure Application Lab Time |
| Wed | 4/7/2010 | Computer Forensics Demonstration and Lab |
| Fri | 4/9/2010 | Computer Forensics Demonstration and Lab |
| Mon | 4/12/2010 | Quiz 4 |
| Wed | 4/14/2010 | TOPIC SWING SPACE: Things will shuffle. This is a place holder. |
| Fri | 4/16/2010 | TOPIC SWING SPACE: Things will shuffle. This is a place holder. |
| Mon | 4/19/2010 | TOPIC SWING SPACE: Things will shuffle. This is a place holder. |
| Wed | 4/21/2010 | Project Presentations |
| Fri | 4/23/2010 | Project Presentations |
| Mon | 4/26/2010 | LAST DAY OF CLASS (Mashups or Projects Due) |
| Wed | 4/28/2010 | READING DAY |
| THUR | 4/29/2010 | FINAL EXAM 9:00am – 12:00pm |
A Final Note
April 18, 2008To the faithful visitors of our blog,
If there is one thing that you should take away from the plethora of information that has been provided to you, it is that reputation is everything. If you are a return user, it means that you thought that the community of this site that has provided you with information on the various subjects that we have covered is a credible, knowledgeable source. You have come to this conclusion without shaking any of our hands, talking to us personally, seeing a picture of us, or even any knowing if we have any type of qualifications. The reason we can be taken seriously is that all of us have worked hard to write clear and effective entries for this site. By presenting ourselves as knowledgeable beings and through taking special care to make sure everything we publish is polished, we are perceived as wise users.
This is a lesson that should not be forgotten. Everything that you post on any site can effect your online reputation for better or worse. People may become more attracted to you and be willing to listen to anything you have to say or may ignore your from there on out, regardless of the quality of the content you add to the community. It is for that reason, that in this Web 2.0 world where interaction and user input is key, that you never let your reputation come under fire. This can only be accomplished by being critical of any material you choose to add to the web. Otherwise, the reputation of 1000 days could be tarnished by a single post.
-Brian D.
To readers: learn more about web2.0
April 18, 2008Now it is the end of this semester, and we have finished our study of web2.0. I just check the blog states of my posts, and happy to know that the total view of my post is about 150 (not a big number but good for me).
There is one thing I would like to let my readers know: to become familiar with web2.0, you should not only watch and think about what happens, but also try these ideas. From our blogs, you may know there are a lot of interesting applications of web2.0, e.g. Youtube, facebook, Amazon, Yahoo! pipes, popcast. But without trying these applications by yourself, you will not be able to know why these applications are attractive and why web2.0 is so popular. Without making your own video and upload it to Youtube, you will never know what a good video is like; without building a Yahoo! pipe by yourself, you will never get a chance to know the idea behind a good pipe and how to satisfy users’ need; without buying stuffs from Amazon, you will never know the importance of users’ comments and rating. Web2.0 is a totally new stuff, and no one can exactly know what will happen to our next generation network. So the best way to learn web2.0 is trying it.
-Pan
Tags: CS 292, Youtube, Amazon, user Ratings, Web 2.0, Yahoo! pipes, facebook
user rating & editorial review
April 15, 2008Thanks to web 2.0. Now I will go to IMDB to check reviews about movies before I go to theater. It is sure that I do not want to spend $7.00 and one night on a boring stupid movie. It’s democracy. It is voice from people. Producers have not ways to fool people again by bribing the professional reviewers. People do not lie.
Now you can find rating systems and social evaluation systems in a lot places. To name a few, digg.com has one function, rating. Ebay.com keeps customers’ rating and comments of each seller, which is a very important part of the seller’s credit. YouTube.com encourages people to put their comments under videos. Even in our class, we do peer evaluation to grade our assignments. And Wikipedia welcome everybody to editor its entries, as long as your input is accepted by other audiences.
Here I would like to introduce another voting system, which is the whole web wide web. You may thing it is just a web linked together by URL and DNS system, which has nothing to do with rating and voting. But wait, you must notice that we have search engines. Here is the simplest way to check whether one person is on the public focus. Google his name. The more related results you get, the more popular this person is. You can use the method to check other things, such as vvii, halo… But be careful, a lot people are watching google index, which lists how many queries of a specified word google got .
Back to our topic, the comparison of user rating and editorial ereview. Because of web 2.0, we have user rating. Thereby we can hear new voice besides comments of those professional reviewers. But this does not mean we do not need editorial review any longer. First, sometimes, those reviewers have more experiences. And most of time, their comments are reasonable. Otherwise magazines will not pay a reviewer who has no credit for his reviews. Second, those reviews are well organized and well polished. It is a kind of joy to read those review. You do not need spend time to plunge into tens of thousands of comments posted on web to dig out what you really want to know.
- Bin Chang
Rating system: sharing comments with others
April 14, 2008Nowadays, a lot of web2.0 services have rating system for their contents. In Youtube, you can rate from 1 star to 5 stars indicating how good is the video; In Amazon, you can also rate the product from 1 star to 5 stars and let others know what you feel about the product; In Askville, users are able to choose the best answer and can have further discussion in discussion board. Almost all web2.0 websites have rating systems or evaluating systems.
So why is rating system so popular? Is it useful? The rating system and evaluating system give users a way to share their feeling or their experience. If a user knows more about the content, he can post a comment and tell others about that. For example, a user who has bought a TV can post a comment about how it works. If the TV is not good, then it will receive low rating and bad comments. In this way, other users who plan to buy this kind of TV will see these comments. They may changing their mind and buy other kind of TV for instead.
-Pan
Tags: CS 292, rating system, Amazon, Youtube, Askville
Rating Adds Value to Web2.0
April 12, 2008One of the key lessons of the Web 2.0 era is this: Users add value.
So user rating systems become more and more popular, especially in online shopping websites. Take Amazon.com for example, its rating system is beneficial to consumers in several ways:
1. Look at “what do customers buy after viewing this item?”. It is just nice to know what others experienced before one decides to purchase.
2. It provides free and “democratic” platform to show your opinions about products.
3. The system could know more about your preference based on your rating and other behavior, and then recommend things to you. (Do you notice the “we have recommendations for you” in Amazon?)
Also producers receive a more accurate reflection of the public, which would be a good resource to further develop their products. Compared to traditional editorial reviews, users’ feedback provides a more comprehensive evaluation and shows the wisdom of crowds. These sites suggest that voters do a significantly better job than human editors.
Too much information sometimes causes confusion, and you just do not know whose review is worth reading. However, that would not stop the fast development of rating system.
The key to competitive advantage in internet applications is the extent to which users add their own data to that which you provide.
-Chen Chen
2008-4-11
1.3 Billion Consumers Report
April 11, 2008Online shopping has completely revolutionized the way that retailers market and deliver their products to consumers. Previously the only way to purchase something was usually to take the item in person to the checkout line in the store (mail-order brides being the main exception). Now millions of products can be purchased in seconds from anywhere. Access to items located thousands of miles away is now simpler than driving down the street, but with the tradeoff of no physical inspection of the item. For this reason it can be extremely important to gather some sort of information about a new product before it is purchased.
Traditionally, buyers have made new purchasing decisions based on word of mouth from contacts or from media reviews like Consumer Reports. This magazine, which is now online as well, is still considered one of the best unbiased review sources around. However if you do not subscribe to it, or if the magazine along with your contacts provide you no information about a product, you are making a blind decision. Going into a store and taping a piece of paper onto a purchased item describing your feelings about it I assume is taboo, but now many online stores or review sites let you do just that. One of my favorite sites, Zappos.com sells mainly shoes, but now clothing and accessories as well. Are you shopping for that special shorty in your life and don’t know whether to get her the boots with the fur or the Reeboks with the straps? Well the boots have a 5-star average in all categories from 122 ratings and run slightly large, whereas the Reeboks have the same score over 60 reviews and Anonymous from Virginia loves how they support her “bad ankle with steel rods in it”. This site provides especially useful info beyond just a 1-5 rating. Each review allows the user to write a review and rate 1-5 the overall rating, comfort, and look, along with how the shoe measures up in size, width, and arch. This is legitimately useful information for a prospective buyer provided by a complete stranger who happened to purchase the shoe.
Hilarious
In addition to user ratings provided on the actual purchasing sites, there are many examples of rating sites that have large audiences. Carrying over the shoe theme, I quickly found Athletic Shoes Adviser and believe that there are plenty other sites out there just like it. RateItAll.com (“The Opinion Network”), has ratings on… well… all, and BizRate.com aggregates many products along with the accompanying user ratings for each store. Although ratings for most items can be found in abundance quite easily, there are also drawbacks. It is extremely easy to post fake reviews that carry just as much weight as legitimate ones. I personally know people who inflate their CitySearch or eBay scores and this practice obviously occurs on numerous sites. You are also more apt to get a harshly negative review as these burned customers feel the need to speak out in ways that a happily satisfied customer would not. The abundance of information has its drawbacks, but overall it allows online shoppers to make more informed decisions that they would without the user reviews. This is a clear embodiment of “The Information Age”, and it is allowed by the underlying technology and the opinions and efforts of the masses.
-Michael Wurz
Tags: CS 292, Web 2.0, Shopping, Zappos, Consumer Reports, BizRate, RateItAll
Best Way to Utilize User Ratings is to Find Your Favorite!
April 11, 2008The Web 2.0 world and social interaction has given rise to the multitude user reviews. Wherever you go, you can find user ratings or reviews at almost every website. Almost every retail store has a site, and they allow for user ratings on their products. Some sites are specifically made to provide reviews for certain products like how moviefone.com provides movie reviews. The unique difference is that these sites allow users to provide their own reviews to products, and corporate reviews are allowed as well. The Web 2.0 world has put user interaction just as high as corporate reviewers. Basically, the mass of people are supposed to be able to understand the strengths or weaknesses of a product. The mass should be able know if a product is good or not.
Reviews are everywhere for the music business, the movie business, the retail business, and even sporting events. One can get movie reviews from rental shops like www.blockbuster.com and www.hollywoodvideo.com or you can go to Best Buy’s website (www.bestbuy.com) to view movie reviews or you can go to movie review sites like www.rottentomatoes.com or www.moviefone.com. So many options exist, that it makes you wonder, which site do you trust. How can we really trust any of these sites? How do you know which sites to trust? Honestly, no answer exists to these questions and it becomes a question of personal preference. Some places like www.amazon.com provide user ratings as well as traditional corporate reviews, so sites like this may be a better option. As you can see the first picture shows a review for Shutter (a newly released movie), and users gave it a 4 out 5 stars rating, but the second picture shows the review from Rotten Tomatoes giving Shutter 7 out of 100%. Two completely opposite reviews, so users have to figure out what they trust.
Review 1 from Hollywood Video. 4 out of 5 Stars for Shutter.
Review 2 from Rotten Tomatoes. 7 out of 100% for the same movie Shutter.
So what are the major differences between the current user rating and the old traditional review system? The only way to get reviews previously was to pick up your local newspaper or to read a magazine on popular culture. Local newspapers used to provide a single person’s personal review. His only accreditation is that he has seen many movies. However, a lot of these reviewers cannot say how they truly feel about a movie, because they are afraid a company may not support them for being controversial. User ratings not only provide chances for as many opinions as possible, but they allow users to truly speak their minds. User reviews are seldom enforced as long as bad words, racially targeted material, and graphic examples are left out. However, these reviews are only reported by the users, so only users can report other users. Even newspapers and magazines have had to embrace the new Web 2.0 world, and they have provided for user reviews on their websites. Let user ratings reign and find the source that fits your appetite, because many sources do exist.
-Chris Noel
Should You Listen To The Mob?
April 11, 2008Traditionally, editorials and reviews have been written by people that have a vast knowledge of the subject they are reviewing. These experts compete with each other to be hired by various outlets of the media including magazines, television, and newspapers. They are expected to review the subject of their review throughly and unbiasedly. The motivation for the reviewer is to simply write a solid, objective summary of the subject and perhaps give the subject some type of rating. This rating gives some basis for comparison among similar subjects. Since the reviewer will be clearly referenced in the review, the quality of the review will effect the reputation of the reviewer. This desire to maintain credibility helps to make sure that the reviewer stays objective and fair. The review, once written, then goes through an editorial process which determines if the content is valid and ready for publication.
The Internet, however, has a largely different system for editorial reviews. On several sites, such as CitySearch and Ebay, the user is allowed to write a review of whatever subject they choose. This means that the user may have little or no knowledge of the subject. The motivation for the review can also vary dramatically. While there are users that write reviews objectively and solely for the sake of honestly informing his fellow man, many users write bad reviews for ulterior motives. This can range from writing terrible reviews of a subject in retaliation or as a result of a bad experience to writing good reviews just for the sake of attracting people to a subject that the reviewer may be personally invested in. On top of that, there is absolutely no editorial process. Whatever the user is feeling, regardless of validity, objectivity, and motivation will be published with the click of the post button. On some sites, anonymous reviews are allowed. This removes any motivation for the reviewer to be fair in order to keep up their reputation.
A sample feedback rating of an Ebay vendor.
The largest problem with online reviews is that they can literally make or break a business. Take Ebay for example. Many people will only buy from a seller with positive feedback of 99% or better. This means that for every 100 sales, only one user can give a negative review or your business fails! It is for this reason that many companies that use Ebay as their primary trade arena spend the majority of their time making sure that users leave positive feedback. Ebay has incorporated methods for stopping sociopathic users from writing negative reviews for malicious reasons. A user cannot write a review unless an item is purchased and that anonymous reviews are forbidden. The user also has the opportunity to change their feedback at anytime if the vendor agrees.
-Brian D.
Tags: City Search
Ebay
Ratings
cs 292
Web 2.0
