||[Aug. 20th, 2006|08:17 pm]
Michael jonatthebar writes:
I actually saw your podcast testimony, and it was one of the many things that sent me back for a fateful third dip on the guy. April through September, though -- that is pretty funny.
Want a ride, then?
Never let it be said that doing the podcast wasn't worth it. Okay, so maybe it didn't "pay", exactly. But the fact is that when Darnielle plays a free unticketed show in Seattle tomorrow, and Get Lonely is finally released at midnight, I'm going to be there. Because, as awesome as free Buffy at the Mission Theater is, some things pull rank.
So when you first put out 'Tetrapod I listened to both your version and John's version several times, but had trouble getting it.
Then today, I just needed some idle background music, and since I have 1.6 Gigs of Mountain Goats mp3s, I thought, "why don't I put on the 2nd-to-last album, to see what it's like"
Yeah, I heard the album a few times before I heard it.
I didn't see this until now. You are welcome.
I managed to finish my Darnielle bender, and Get Lonely is growing on me in small, healthy doses. I think I might just be scared of it, though.
My Livejournal kind of sucks, doesn't it?
Watch out. I don't think anyone ever really finishes a Darnielle bender.
Eh. I can respect a blank journal. What drives me crazy are infrequently updated journals in which every update is some variation on "I never update this thing."
Here's my thinking about social Web apps: job fucking one has got to be utility in some already-existing aspect of users' lives. Peoples' pure desire to perform is not going to sustain any behavior worth aggregating. (Cf. 43places.) Nobody feels guilty for not "updating" their Flickr account or not rating enough Netflix movies or not sending enough emails. (Not communicating with a particular person, but that's different.)
So, back to your post: would you do this stuff without the external benefits? The theory falls apart if you would, Lindsey, so don't let me down here.
Peoples' pure desire to perform is not going to sustain any behavior worth aggregating.Oh, really?
2) I don't think this completely contradicts me -- from what I can tell, anyway, the basic structure is like any other game (any other game that's been freakily drenched in marketing) -- just because the carrots are virtual doesn't mean they don't exist.
Maybe I should have put more emphasis on the "pure." And the purer it is, the broader the appeal and (in general) the more valuable the aggregation. That's where I'm trying to go.
Thinking more about it, though, I'm a little nervous this theory doesn't hold together. But I don't think you've dealt a death blow here.