"Everybody Googles" So Let's Give It a Try

First document [link]:

Search entries in Google in an attempt to identify this document:

1.     "I am afraid I have never been a very useful member of the Daughters of the American Revolution letter” à The first link took me to a Wikipedia entry

2.     “Feb 26, 1939 refusing constitution hall to a great artist” à The first link took me to an educational website about FDR

3.     “Feb 26, 1939 refusing constitution hall to a great artist spell checked” à The first link took me to another Wikipedia entry

4.     “February 26, 1939 Daughters of the American Revolution Mrs. Roberts” à The first link took me to a government website, The National Archives.

I believe out of all of the search entries I tried, the fourth is the more credible because the only way for any organization to get a “.gov” in their domain address, is to be affiliated with the government. From these four search attempts, I discovered that this document is a letter from Eleanor Roosevelt to Mrs. Henry Roberts about Roosevelt resigning from the Daughters of the America Revolution for refusing to let Marian Anderson sing in the Constitution Hall.

Second document [link]:

Search entries in Google in an attempt to identify this document:

1.     “Background map arrested released jailed” à The first link too me to a background check website.

2.     “Background map Newark 306 jailed Jackson” à The first link took me to the Library of Virginia

The second link is the more credible of the two links and correctly identified the document. The Library of Virginia is a credible website because it is involved with the government and they got the document from the Library of Congress. The document is a Freedom Riders map from 1961, which identifies the routes the Freedom Riders took and where violent incidents occurred.

Third document [link]:

Search entries in Google in an attempt to identify this document:

1.     “City of Montgomery police j.f. flake in front of Empire Theater” à The first link took me to a copy of a newspaper article, seeming unrelated.

2.     “City of Montgomery police department 12-1-55” à The first link took me to a website titled, “Historical Thinking Matters”.

The second link is more credible of my two search entries because it is a website which teaches students how to identify and read documents like historians. “Equally important, they will become critical users of the vast historical archives on the web.” Essentially, this website was created or is related to the quest, “Everybody Googles”. The document is identified as a police report about a bus operator in 1955 who complained about Rosa Parks sitting in the “white” section of the bus. However, the document found on Historical Thinking Matters is not the absolute correct document. The absolute correct document can be found the tenth link listed in the second search entry at the National Archives, which is affiliated with the government (has a “.gov” domain, and is therefor credible.

Fourth document [link]:

Search entries in Google in an attempt to identify this document:

1.     “Roll call house of representatives eighty-eight” à The first link took me to a government website about membership of the 112^th Congress.

2.     “Roll call house of rep 88 feb 1 0 1964” àThe first link took me to the exact image. The second link took me to a website which is a teaching resource about congress.

The second link of the second search entry is the most credible source because they list their sources, have received a grant from the Community Foundation of Central Illinois and are supported by the Dirksen Center, a non-partisan, non-for-profit organization. The document is identified as roll call for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the House of Representatives. The Act discussed was passed with a majority, 290 - 130 vote.

Explaining My Tweep List

I chose to add Philip Defranco as one of my “tweeps”because I believe he is very knowledgeable about literately starting from nothing but a camera and Internet access, keeping one’s self afloat, becoming one’s own broadcaster and eventually develop not only a business, but essentially a franchise, and all the while working with the Internet community eventually forming his own community. To explain: (1) Philip Defranco starting posting videos to YouTube in 2006 and created the Philip Defranco Show. DeFranco began building an audience by speaking frankly in his videos about pop culture, entertainment news, politics and world events. (2) In 2007 he created Like Totally Awesome, a YouTube channel which generally reviews movies, game, or technology. (3) In 2007, he also created The Vloggity, a YouTube channel, which is an informal video log. (4) In April 2011, he created his website/blog. (5) In December 2011, he created Sourcefed, a website and YouTube channel, which he hopes to be the next news network. Overall, Defranco has built a considerable audience with over 2.2 million subscribers, has created successful YouTube channels and so far, a successful company, Defranco Inc.

Secondly, I chose to add both Lewis Brindley and Simon Lane as two more “tweeps” because they too appear to be very knowledgeable about starting a company and Internet community by using technology. To explain: Lewis Brindley and Simon Lane are the creators of the Yogscast, a group of producersof highly successful videos and podcasts, generally about video games. They have a community of Yogna(ugh)ts which gather on their website, a podcast, multiple YouTube accounts [1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9], and remarkably, the two people who began the Yogscast started with the idea of sharing Simon’s natural humor with the world.” A lot of people enjoyed hearing his unique perspectives on things as they played games together- and it all started from there.” [Link]. Overall, Lewis and Simon have built a remarkable audience with over 2.5 million subscribers on their main account; have created successful YouTube channels and a successful brand, the Yogscast.

 

I am a Yognau(gh)t and the Yogscast is my Lovemark

I am still not certain if I completely I understand what a lovemark is. Please don’t get me wrong, I realize that a lovemark is a brand which has “loyalty beyond reason”, where the average consumer feels an emotional or spiritual connection. In short, a lovemark is a product that is more than a product; however, I am not there is a brand in my life where I feel this type of ideology.

In class I brought up how perhaps The Yogscast [pronounced: yogs-cast] could be my lovemark. Let me explain, The Yogscast is a group of producers of highly successful videos and podcasts, generally about video games; however, in recent years the material this group covers has evolved. The crew of The Yogscast includes: Lewis Brindley and Simon Lane, Hannah Rutherford and Duncan Jones, Joakim Hellstrand and Liam MacKay, Paul Sykes and Chris Lovasz, Martyn Littlewood and Toby Cottrell (not technically a Yogscast member, but he teams up with and is featured in Martyn’s videos). Other staff members include Steven Goates, Alex Parvis, Sam Thorne, Anya Ferris and a man by the username of “Sparkles*”.

So, how is The Yogscast a brand? Well the company started with two individuals, Lewis and Simon, and evolved to include the other individuals I listed. As a whole The Yogscast have several brand-like entities:

1.       A label, a title, a name: The Yogscast
2.       A website: https://yogscast.com/
        a.       A forum where” Yognauts/Yognaughts” (people who are fans of Lewis or Simon) can create an account and discuss The Yogscast.
        b.      A directory to Yogscast comics
3.       A main Youtube account
4.       A Podcast, the YogPod, on iTunes
5.       Two official Facebook pages [1, 2]
6.       A Twitter
7.       A Wikia, Yogwiki
8.       An office building, referred to as the YogTowers
9.       A store where individuals can buy shirts, hoodies, and button badges.
        a.       Yogscast Gear UK
        b.      Yogscast Gear EU
        c.       Yogscast Gear USA
        d.      Minecraft Gear
10.   Finally, The Yogscast is working on producing a video game, Yogentures. Link to YouTube Kickstarter video.

Do you have a lovemark? What is it and why are you devoted to it? In short, I believe I have a lovemark, which is The Yogscast. I started watching Lewis and Simon’s videos and I immensely enjoyed their back-and-forth dialogue and funny personalities. Why would I consider The Yogscast to be my lovemark? The answer here rests in the fact that I am devoted to watching every new Yogscast video, especially Lewis and Simon’s videos. Although I have not seen every video created by the entire Yogscast crew or even every video published by Lewis and Simon, I can easily admit that I have seen several hundred (over a long period of time, of course!) videos and I make a point to take time out of my week  to watch their videos. I watch at the very least one Yogscast video a day (usually between 3:00-20:00 minutes depending on the content), although it tends to be more or less, five videos. If I have to rationalize it, I am devoted to watching The Yogscast because they have never failed to meet my entertainment-expectations. I love the personalities of the people, the content of the videos; I just love The Yogscast. Period. What values are expressed by your lovemark? What identity are you expressing? What needs is the lovemark fulfilling for you? Humor, community, and friendship are values expressed by The Yogscast. You see, when I watch a Yogscast video or mini-series, I get the feeling of being a part of a community (after all, I am a Yognau(gh)t). When I look down to the comments section of YouTube, the majority of commenters have seen many Yogscast videos and they appear to view the Yogscast in the way I do. They understand who the Yogscast members portray themselves to be and the majority of Yogscast YouTube commenters are Yognau(gh)ts – we understand each other and therefore communicate more easily than if we did not have The Yogscast in common. This Yogscast YouTube comment section builds a community between Yognau(gh)ts and in this community we, of course, joke (because humor is a driving force behind The Yogscast) and build friendships.

We're all DOOMED: Let's Dissect an Arguement!

In the article “Why Facebook is bad for you” published on January 18^th 2008 by The Sun, a news broadcasting website, the author projects the idea that Facebook is bad for the everyday person because thoughtless acts by Facebook users could cost them their job. Simply stated, the overall thesis of the article is, the “networking website Facebook seems [to be] a harmless way to swap gossip and pictures with mates, but it could cost you your job and blight your future”.

As many authors already know, in order to convince an audience of one idea being better than another, there must be evidence of some kind presented in the argument. The author of the article, “Why Facebook is bad for you” presents four supporting ideas to back up their argument of Facebook being bad. The first supporting detail the author puts forth is, “Employers don’t want to take risks with employees. One way they can find out who they’re hiring is by checking their Facebook page. Recent research by an American university found 23 percent of employers reviewed candidates’ profiles on social networking sites.” While the percentage of employers reviewing candidates’ profiles on social networking sites could not be verified per se, an article uploaded to the news website, the Huffington Post, on April 20, 2012, states, “A new study says 37 percent of employers use Facebook to pre-screen applicants”, therefore verifying the idea that some employers may us Facebook to pre-screen applicants.

The second supporting detail presented by the author of article is stated as, "There have also been a number of cases of people being fired for criticizing their employer on Facebook. One incident in Britain involved a worker who wrote “I Work At Argos And Can’t Wait To Leave Because It’s S**t” and was promptly sacked." Evidence reinforcing the second supporting detail is found in the form of another Huffington Post article uploaded on May 24, 2011, which states that "The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced today that it has filed a complaint alleging that a Chicago-area car dealership wrongfully fired an employee after he posted commentary critical of the company on his Facebook page. The complaint is the latest in a string of moves by the labor board indicating that it wants to clarify workers' rights when it comes to Facebook and labor law." Furthermore, Coane & Associates, Immigration and Employment Law Attorneys posted a Facebook note on Sunday, January 30, 2011 backing up the idea that employers may legally fire their employees for Facebook posts, by stating, "Many employees think that they are protected by “freedom of speech” found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. This may be true if your employer is a government agency, however, the first amendment does not otherwise apply to non-government employers. If you work for a big corporation or a small company, they CAN fire you if you criticize them on Facebook or elsewhere.”

Next, the third supporting detail found in the article is when the authors states, “Other institutions have also used Facebook. Oxford University last year used the site to help discipline students for chucking flour and eggs around as part of their post-exam celebrations." Sustaining the of third supporting detail, an article uploaded to The Guardian, yet another news website, on July 17th, 2007 comments on the Oxford-Facebook situation, "The joy of putting your favorite photos on Facebook took a sinister turn when an Oxford student was caught breaking university rules after posting a picture of herself covered in foam”.

Finally, the author of the article, “Why Facebook is bad for you” concludes their discussion with the statement, “People should consider what information they are letting out about themselves and to whom. Even if you think you have secured your pages through Facebook, the data may be accessible through other routes like Google.” The warning of personal Facebook information be accessible through search engines such as Google certainly provides food for thought; however if an individual were to type  "Philip Defraco+facebooK" into the Google search engine, they would easily discover the first link to be Philp Defranco's main Facebook profile. One might believe this proves the author’s final supporting detail; however, if I were to input my own name and “+Facebook” into the Google search engine (while logged out of Facebook), I would be unable to find my own Facebook profile or any links leading to my personal Facebook information (possibly due to the fact that I constantly monitor who I allow to view personal information uploaded to Facebook).

Notes:
Evidence supporting the first supporting detail was found by typing, “Employers look at Facebook” into the Google search engine and viewing the fourth link.

Evidence supporting the second supporting detail was found by typing, “Employee fired for criticizing on Facebook” into the Google search engine and viewing the second link, and typing, “Can I be fired for criticizing my employer on Facebook” into the Google search engine and viewing the second link.

Evidence supporting the third supporting detail was found by searching, “Oxford University+Discipline+Egg+Facebook” into the Google search engine and viewing the third link.

Philip Defranco is video blogger and YouTube celebrity.

Reading Quest #2

In the book, How We Decide by Johan Lehrer, “Chapter 7: The Brain Is An Argument” states, “Regardless of which areas are doing the arguing, however, it’s clear that all those mental components stuffed inside the head are constantly fighting for influence and attention” (Lehrer 199).  From this, I question how does the human mind decide which component deserves more attention and which actions/thoughts/etc. should be followed? How does a human know what to do? Which side of an ‘argument’, thought or decision is ‘better’?

If “even the most mundane choices emerge from a vigorous cortical debate” and the decision-making process in general involves “a particular set of emotions and associations, all of which then compete for your conscious attention”, how does the human consciousness not get overwhelmed with this abundance of information (Lehrer 199)? How can, for the majority of people, the decision-making process be viewed as relatively easy and yet all of what has been mentioned is going on in their brains for absolutely every decision they make?

Furthermore, I question if the human brain is so complex and it is said to be the greatest machine mankind knows of, how is it that humans aren’t using their brains to its fullest capacity?

Works Cited

Lehrer, Jonah. "The Brain Is An Argument." How We Decide. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009. 196-218. Print.