Jason Unger

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Dear Sage,

I'm sorry to tell you … it's over between us.

I've moved on. I'm drinking the Kool-Aid. I'm a Google Reader user now.

You were my first RSS reader, and I'll remember our days fondly. You taught me about the importance of website headlines, and why content should come to me … not the other way around.

But you were almost too easy to use. I could have you open throughout the day and check you constantly. It was a real time suck. How could I ever get anything done if you were constantly teasing me with your new stories?

Google Reader is different. I actually have to go to a page to read stories. And it's made it obvious that I was overloaded with feeds. Believe it or not, I've cut down. I have to, or I'll never keep up.

It's been a difficult transition — I've already failed at it once — but this time it's going to stick. Sage, I'll always remember you as my first RSS reader, but it's time to move on.

Thanks for all the memories.

Your friend,
Jason

I hate when people say the Internet is going to completely replace deadtree media. It's completely ridiculous.

Printed media is not going to die, it's just going through a major shift in content. Obviously, newspapers are not real-time. Magazines are not real-time. The Internet is.

So what should a print publication do to survive? Embrace that it isn't real-time.

The latest conversation on this comes with the launch of Dispatches, a quarterly magazine based on analysis of events, not news. (Yes, they do have a Web site.)

Why this is newsworthy I don't know. But for some reason, it gets people asking: is print dead?

Mashable, for example, gets it completely wrong.

The printed magazine, content-wise, is just like a web page taken offline: nothing more, nothing less. Is there any hope for the print, then?

First off, people do not read online. Jakob Nielsen has been saying this for 11 years.

People do read offline. When you have paper in your hand, it's a lot easier to focus on one thing. Reading offline is a different experience. You're sitting on the sofa, feet up, relaxed and a drink in hand. You don't sit at your computer desk like that, do you?

Content presentation matters. Big time. Because of that, certain content fares better online while other is better in print. So why bother comparing the two? It's like putting a square peg in a round hole. It doesn't work.

The commenters in TechDirt's coverage of the story mostly seem to be missing the point. It's not about competing with the Internet; it's about offering content in-tune with the delivery and format of the publication.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of noise in this discussion: blogs, balance and bias all get thrown into the mix. Forget about that — it's a different topic.

It's not about the competition; it's about maximizing the user experience. And everytime you think of your users first, you win.

If the Internet is all about conversations, why aren't you asking more questions?

Discuss.

Automating your life is easier than you think.

My finances are on autopilot — and it's been the best thing ever.

Not only does it save you boatloads of time, but it's actually pretty comforting.

So how do you automate the biggest time waster in your life — Facebook? It's easier than you think.

Here are 5 ways to automate your Facebook experience.

Import Blog Posts as Notes

Every one of your blog posts can automatically be imported into your profile — easily. In Facebook:

• Click on "Notes" on your left-hand Applications navigation.
• On the right-hand nav, click on "Import a blog" under Notes Settings
• Enter your blog URL, check off box, and click "Start Importing"
• Verify your RSS feed is appearing correctly, and "Confirm Import"

Ta-da! Your blog posts are now automatically being imported into Facebook.

Subscribe to Friend Updates via RSS

Find what your friends are doing by getting their status updates delivered to you via RSS.

On facebook.com/friends, click on "Friends' Status Feed" in the right-hand column.

Subscribe to the feed in your favorite RSS reader (I recommend Firefox's Live Bookmarks, since there isn't anything more to read than the one-line status).

Sync Your Twitter and Status

Why update your Facebook status if you're using Twitter to do essentially the same thing?

TwitterSync automatically posts your latest Tweets as your status. You can add a verb like "tweets," or "is twittering," "is," etc. before the update, or leave it completely blank.

The official Twitter app also syncs your status and tweets, but (until recently) automatically adds "is twittering" before posting your status.

Add Flickr, Digg, del.icio.us to your News Feed

Don't waste your time uploading your pictures, bookmarks and more to a specific service and to Facebook — automatically import them into your Mini-Feed.

On your profile page, under the Mini-Feed header, click "Import." This will allow you to import items from

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• Flickr
• Picasa
• Yelp

Share Stories with Shareaholic

Instead of heading to Facebook to post links or stories on your profile, use Shareaholic.

The Firefox plugin lets you share any Web page on Facebook, Digg, StumbleUpon, Twitter, Mixx and more without leaving the actual page.

What did I miss? How are you automating your Facebook experience?

In Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox this week, he proposes an interesting next step for Microsoft, now that their bid for Yahoo! is over (emphasis is mine).

Now that Steve Ballmer has earned his bonus for the year by walking from overpaying for Yahoo, he needs to do something else with his $50B. One idea I would like him to try is to refund some of the outrageous sums harvested by search engines.

a) Give back to the websites that create the content that search engines currently scrape for free: pay sites for only being indexed in one search engine and refuse the other engines. In particular, allow access to deep link archives of value-added content for users entering from your search engine. Value proportion to users: When you search on engine X, you find stuff that's otherwise not available.

So Microsoft, Google or Yahoo should pay me to list my information? Interesting idea, but it's way too late for that.

In a "normal" capitalistic agreement, Nielsen is right — they should be paying me. I put out my information, they use it in their product, and they make money off of selling ads near my listing.

But, given where we are in our expectations with the Internet, this will never happen. Users expect to find the best information when they do an online search — not a company-filtered answer to their query.

What good is a resource if it has no good resources? Obviously, it's no good at all.

This is a similar argument for net neutrality. If your access provider can greatly affect where you get your information, your viewpoint is going to be skewed.

I highly doubt Nielsen's suggestion will happen, and if it does, the types of sites entering into an agreement will be low-profile. Would CNN really NOT want to be indexed by Google News? Would Engadget ONLY want to be indexed by AOL (which owns it)? It would be pretty stupid.

Would you accept money from a search engine for an exclusive listing?