Something is in the water at Clara. The exception that proves the rule?

Market predictions? I've long said that was going to be the REAL monetization.

And it's also why Google should have snatched up Twitter. It was the last piece they needed to own the puzzle outright.
http://ike4.me/ote

David, if it's done in the right way, it's not noise.

C'mon... how many women do you know who are already showing off their new 'do in a profile pic? When it's accompanied by data about where the style was done, and by whom, it becomes a recommendation with relevance and actionable information.

There's an added benefit, too. If you get in the chair and are greeted by an unfamiliar stylist, it would help to have past pictures available as a guide. "Make it look more like this one, and nothing like that one."

There are plenty of reasons this would be a good idea.

I'm quite amazed that people refuse to look at the consequences of raising tax rates.

Based on where we are now, raising rates does NOT increase revenue. Likewise, it is not true that cutting rates always leads to greater net tax collected, so I am not arguing that absurd end, either.

If you want to talk about which perceptions really fuel action, look at the number of people who believe that we're close to a tipping point, where more than half of the voters have a negative tax liability. They're the ones who bandy that Tytler quote around.

THAT is a perception that affects people, moreso than the income equality argument.

Jay -- while you feel that corporate America already does an effective job, the declining number of working journalists makes that job more difficult.

There's already a vibrant debate ongoing about the lens or prism of various outlets. The idea of Journalism as strictly neutral POV is something relatively recent, too.

As there are fewer Big-J journalists, and fewer outlets for reporting, entire industries will fill the slack -- and how better than by hiring the very people who have years of experience in telling stories? People have proven they can be discriminating about where they get their information. This is little more than a continuation of the path created when people could see News Releases directly, and they DO find them through search engines.

Kyle, I like what you are trying to do here, but in the process you are a little too "cut-and-dried" on failing people.

Anyone who has the time to do all 25 things you list doesn't have time for clients.

I'll give you an example or two.

I've played around with Ning, but I'm not active on it. However, I know enough about it that I know when it is a solution -- and I know who I can refer them to to get the most out of the experience.

I am on LinkedIn, but for my current business needs and model I do not use it much at all. However, I know what its strengths are, and when someone ought to be on it instead of elsewhere. And again, I wouldn't dare try to lead them through it myself.

As for the people who really know what they are doing, a couple of names pop to mind. Josh Hallett and Phil Gomes both have blogs, but I don't think either one of them much talks about social media anymore. Jeremy Pepper writes about five times a year now -- and when he does post, it's stellar and spot-on. I dare you to find three people who know this stuff any better. And you can't. But they would flunk your list, because they don't blog often enough to count.

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of what you have here, but it's the sort of thing that people will find and use to disqualify those who might be in the best position to help.

Find a listener.
Find someone with "dirty fingernails": http://ike4.me/smio
Find a mentor and coach.
And find someone who is interesting in solving *your* problem, instead of selling you the solution to one you didn't know you had.

The rate of increase of the human population is already declining.

Estimates are now that worldwide human population will top out at 14-billion, then slowly decline.

There is enough room for all of us, unless we do something stupid like cripple the world's economy.

When economic conditions improve, people have fewer children.

It all smacks of attention-whoring if you ask me.

Well, you didn't, but I went there anyway.

Trav --

I don't give a rip about what @oprah does.

I am curious to see what the 500,000 people who joined BECAUSE of Oprah do.

I'm looking at the fluid dynamics of Social Media and Networks - how information propagates, how people form new relationships and friendships, and what they do with them.

Focusing on @oprah is like paying attention to the rock that caused the ripples, when the interesting part is the ripples themselves.

I'm not so sure I agree with the metrics.

I've shown in the past that they are easily gamed, and don't provide an accurate measure of value. Other than helping you weed out a spammer, there is no metric that recognizes "quality" or the even-more-important "relevance."

I always try to provide something to the people with whom I interact. It might be value, information, or merely a chuckle. But it's something other than driving traffic to me, or adding to a mythical "collection" of followers. The numbers mean only what you project upon them.