It’s just data

Buzz Blogs

DeWitt Clinton: The idea is that someday, any host on the web should be able to implement these open protocols and send messages back and forth in real time with users from any network, without any one company in the middle. The web contains the social graph, the protocols are standard web protocols, the messages can contain whatever crazy stuff people think to put in them.

DeWitt posted this within Buzz.  If I want to keep up with things DeWitt’s posts via buzz, there’s a feed for that.  This particular post generated a lot of comments, and there is a feed for that.  I do have some issues I would like to see addressed, but basically what this means that Google just made available a blog to every GMail user.


I guess?  I doubt very much though that many people will use it in the same way.  There are some interesting interactions that can happen in the comments in particular that haven’t previously been common in the “blog” format.  For instance, let’s say you had “blogged” this in Buzz.  Instead of linking to DeWitt, you would @-cc DeWitt.  Now I come along, and I think, “Hey, Brian Stoler and Chris Messina should see this too.”  So I can @-cc them from the comments to pull them in.  And unlike Twitter, Buzz uses a global namespace for @-interactions — I’m sure you can see the potential there.  So yes, absolutely, you could “blog” with Buzz in the way that blogging has always been done, and that could very well be an interesting use-case.  However, I would hate to see Buzz get pigeon-holed by, “Hey, you can blog with it!”

Posted by Bob Aman at

What I want, is the opposite.  What I want is the future described by DeWitt.  Distributed conversations, not ones that are “in Buzz”.  I want my entry to appear in the conversation, and for replies authored anywhere to be linked.

That, and I want to host my own profile, one that Buzz and others can crawl.  I may be funny that way, but that is how I roll.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

rejon: ♺ @mlinksva: Haven't had time to eval buzz yet but http://intertwingly.net/blog/2010/02/14/Buzz-Blogs maybe hopeful? !autonomous

rejon’s status on Sunday, 14-Feb-10 22:53:00 UTC...

Excerpt from cwebber and friends at

mlinksva: Haven't had time to eval buzz yet but http://intertwingly.net/blog/2010/02/14/Buzz-Blogs maybe hopeful? !autonomous

mlinksva’s status on Sunday, 14-Feb-10 22:32:50 UTC...

Excerpt from cwebber and friends at

Just to be clear... are you looking to have this post appear as a comment on his Buzz or something else?

Salmon will enable you to push a comment into Buzz, so potentially, you could write your blog software in such a way that it knows you’re “commenting” on a Buzz update and inserts it into the conversation.  I don’t think that was the use-case John Panzer had in mind, but technically, yes, it should be possible to do that.  However, I think the standard use-case was more that you should be able to pull someone’s entire Buzz feed, likely in aggregate with a bunch of other stuff, and be able to comment directly in the aggregator and have that comment get pushed back upstream to Buzz.  And vice-versa:  Buzz as an aggregator should be ideally be pushing comments upstream to whatever content it pulled from whenever possible.

As for hosting your own profile... Buzz is closer to that than most other services.  Right now, Buzz uses the SG API to figure out which service feeds are yours by checking for circular or bidirectional rel="me" links, (and/or some kind of FOAF file that provides equivalent information for the RDF fans).  However, Buzz (the service) still ultimately needs a Google account, and the information search does start with the URL for your Google Profile.  But you can manage that information elsewhere if you link to the Google Profile with a rel="me" link somewhere in the chain.

Posted by Bob Aman at

Bob: if you look at the excerpts on this very post, you can see the beginning of what I am hoping for.  It is not perfect, but I have zero identica specific code, but I can track and participate in conversations that happen “elsewhere”.

Of course, when we are talking about truly open systems, there is no such thing as “elsewhere”.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Or put another way, everything is potentially “elsewhere” but you shouldn’t have to care about what the “canonical” location for some chunk of conversation is.  Completely agreed, and I believe that’s exactly what Buzz would like to achieve.  There’s still a very long way to go, both on the technical side of things and on the advocacy side of things (not everyone is convinced that this is what should happen), but so far, I’m inclined to believe Buzz is a step in the right direction.

As for the “excerpt” thing, IIRC, you’re pulling that in via HTTP referrer, right?  Or is there some other kind of ping mechanism you’re using?

Posted by Bob Aman at

“shouldn’t have to care” : bingo!

overview of my excerpting logic

Posted by Sam Ruby at

So, let’s say we live in a perfect world where everything Just Works and this conversation we’re having right now can be trivially pulled into Buzz.  How would you want it to appear within the Buzz ecosystem?  The way I see it, the conversation we’re having right now is its own thread, quite distinct from the conversation that’s going on within DeWitt’s original update.  So perhaps Buzz should evaluate a “ping” mechanism that will indicate that A) a new conversation has begun, with the original Buzz update as the subject and B) that Buzz should pull in the feed for this new conversation, so that Buzz users have a consistent user experience (and to minimize link spam).  Any comments produced within the Buzz ecosystem could then be pushed back here via Salmon.  You’d definitely want to ensure that the feed really is Salmon-enabled first though, otherwise you’ll end up with fractured conversations and a worse situation, rather than a better one.  Within the Buzz UI itself, you could probably represent this “ping” implicitly by attaching a link to another Buzz update during the creation process.

Posted by Bob Aman at

How would you want it to appear within the Buzz ecosystem?

Here’s one way: Links to this post.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Yes to all this, with a note that Salmon intends to support all this and more, leveraging Activity Streams semantics to differentiate between comments, references, mentions, etc.

Posted by John Panzer at

I’m not much of an early-adopter when it comes to such…

I’m not much of an early-adopter when it comes to such things, but I do respect Sam Ruby and Joe Gregorio’s opinions...

Excerpt from Justinsomnia at

mlinksva: 'about truly open systems, there is no such thing as “elsewhere”.' http://intertwingly.net/blog/2010/02/14/Buzz-Blogs#c1266192090

mlinksva’s status on Tuesday, 16-Feb-10 00:19:15 UTC...

Excerpt from hub and friends at

but if there is no elsewhere, then you reduce the space of one small tiny room… and suddenly the world is a lot less interesting. Opacity (permeability, fog, slow motion, whispers) is part of our lives. No, it is a need for our lives.

Posted by karl dubost at

Add your comment