Articles on this Page
- 02/09/15--04:28: _When Do Regulators ...
- 02/09/15--04:45: _Get More Done by Fo...
- 02/09/15--05:16: _Three-person embryo...
- 02/10/15--22:58: _Newly Discovered Ne...
- 02/11/15--00:04: _Robots Perform Manu...
- 02/11/15--00:31: _Facebook's News Fee...
- 02/11/15--09:16: _Rich School, Poor S...
- 02/11/15--19:10: _1500 Year Old Panch...
- 02/11/15--22:44: _Big Data and Data C...
- 02/12/15--01:26: _Degrees don’t matte...
- 02/13/15--20:44: _Facebook Continues ...
- 02/13/15--23:28: _ACCELERANT USED IN ...
- 02/14/15--05:10: _IS YOUR CEO OUT OF ...
- 02/14/15--19:27: _HOW TO LAY THE GROU...
- 02/15/15--04:48: _Big data redefines ...
- 02/15/15--05:12: _How Twitter plans t...
- 02/15/15--22:59: _Is Your Leadership ...
- 02/16/15--20:33: _Can we use technolo...
- 02/16/15--20:58: _The Best Leaders Ar...
- 02/17/15--01:19: _A ranking of busine...
- 02/09/15--04:28: When Do Regulators Become More Important than Customers? 02-09
- 02/09/15--04:45: Get More Done by Focusing Less on Work 02-09
- 02/11/15--00:04: Robots Perform Manual Labor to Make Farming Easier 02-11
- 02/11/15--09:16: Rich School, Poor School 02-11
- 02/11/15--19:10: 1500 Year Old Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir in Karachi, Pakistan 02-12
- 02/11/15--22:44: Big Data and Data Center Operations 02-12
- 02/12/15--01:26: Degrees don’t matter anymore, skills do 02-12
- 02/13/15--23:28: ACCELERANT USED IN SE HOUSTON ISLAMIC COMMUNITY FIRE 02-14
- 02/14/15--05:10: IS YOUR CEO OUT OF TOUCH OR BEING MISLED? 02-14
- 02/14/15--19:27: HOW TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR YOUR CHILD’S VOCABULARY GROWTH 02-15
- 02/15/15--22:59: Is Your Leadership Style Right for the Digital Age? 02-16
- 02/16/15--20:58: The Best Leaders Are Humble Leaders 02-17
- 02/17/15--01:19: A ranking of business schools' alumni Network effects 0-17
When Do Regulators Become More Important than Customers?
Get More Done by Focusing Less on Work
Three-person embryos: how the mitochondrial donation battle was won
Newly Discovered Networks among Different Diseases Reveal Hidden Connections
Facebook's News Feed changes have been "catastrophic" for non profits
Bruno needs a new home, and to look at him, you might think he’ll have no problem finding one. The energetic 2-year-old pit bull is friendly, gets along well with other dogs, and has a soulful set of deep-brown eyes that complement his brindle fur and regal profile. But despite his many agreeable traits, the young shelter dog may forever remain an orphan, in part because the animal rescue organization trying to match Bruno up with the right owner relies on Facebook for community outreach. And these days, that hasn’t been going so well.
“We just haven’t had many applications for him,” said Erin Jenkins, a volunteer in Boston for Karuna Bully Rescue.
It’s not for lack of trying. The Facebook page for Karuna Bully Rescue has more than 4,700 fans, people who have “liked” the page presumably because they’re interested in updates about dogs in need. But nowadays, very few of those fans ever see Karuna Bully’s Facebook posts. The tiny animal-rescue group is a victim of Facebook’s news feed and its notoriously diminishing returns, and in that sense, it’s in the same boat as major news organizations and multinational brands.
“It’s getting out of control,” Jenkins said. “No one can really use Facebook anymore.”
Recent changes to Facebook’s news feed algorithm have brought about a significant decline in “organic reach,” the number of people who see a post that hasn’t been boosted by paid advertising. Two years ago, organic reach for many posts was at about 16 percent, but over the last several months it’s been throttled to 2 percent or even less. That means a typical post by Karuna Bully may reach only about 95 people unless the group pays money to boost it.
Discussion around the issue -- and there’s been lots of it -- has tended to focus on the immense frustrations of brands and marketers, many of whom have been understandably shaking their fists at the gods of social media. But nonprofit organizations are getting caught in the algorithmic filter too, and some say the change has crippled their ability to share critical information and maintain the online communities their memberships rely on.
“It’s an absolute catastrophe for us and every organization that’s paying attention,” said Seth Ginsberg, president of the Global Healthy Living Foundation, an advocacy group for patients living with painful joint conditions like rheumatoid arthritis.
Ginsberg said it’s now almost impossible for his organization to reach a majority of its more than 75,000Facebook fans. He said the reduced engagement is a threat in a community where social interaction is vital. Rates of depression are higher among people suffering from chronic pain, and Ginsberg said his membership over the last several years had come to rely on Facebook as a place for helpful information, articles and discussions, which can help sufferers feel less isolated.
Even more problematic, he said, the organization has been unable to spread important health news relevant to the community it serves. “If the FDA has a drug recall because they find shards of glass in a medicine, we have to blast that out to our membership,” he said.
A spokesman for Facebook Inc. declined to comment on the plight of nonprofits that use the site. But across the nonprofit sector, executives and staffers at organizations large and small are expressing similar concerns.
“We’ve heard quite a bit about it,” said Rick Cohen, a spokesman for the National Council of Nonprofits. “Ice Bucket Challenge notwithstanding, the algorithm changes that Facebook has made just makes it a lot more difficult for nonprofits to expand their reach.”
An obvious solution here would be for organizations to accept that the free Facebook ride is over and revert to the methods they used before Facebook existed. The social network is only a decade old, after all. But nonprofit executives say Facebook, with its rapid growth and unrivaled penetration, has replaced many of the outreach strategies groups used before the advent of social media. Whereas nonprofits once poured resources into email campaigns and direct marketing, some switched gears a few years ago and began accumulating "likes" under the promise that a Facebook page could serve as a mass communication tool. Now that tool is crumbling.
Ginsberg said GHLF, which has an annual operating budget of about $1.8 million, spent $30,000 on Facebook advertising to build up its page, and now he’s unable to reach those fans without paying more to boost each post. “It’s the ultimate bait-and-switch,” he said.
For some newer groups and younger volunteers, Facebook is the only outreach strategy they’ve ever known. “I got involved in animal rescue because of Facebook,” Jenkins said. “For the nonprofit community, Facebook is a bulletin board. It’s how we get donors, volunteers. It’s so incredibly vital to how rescues operate now, and losing this venue is just detrimental to us.”
Earlier this week Jenkins launched a petition calling on Facebook to stop throttling the organic reach for nonprofit pages. She said part of the issue is that Facebook treats every page like a marketing tool when, in fact, many are trying to raise awareness about important causes. “There should be an easy enough way to understand the difference between a nonprofit page and a page that’s profitable,” she said.
What’s In A Like?
Facebook has long been consistent in its explanation for the decline of organic reach. Part of it, the company has said, is basic mathematics. As activity on the site has grown, news feeds have become increasingly crowded and posts are competing with more content.
The second component has to do with Facebook’s proprietary algorithm, which culls news feeds so that users see -- or supposedly see -- only the content most relevant to them. Tweaks to the formula have resulted in a decline in reach for content the algorithm deems uninteresting or overly promotional. Facebook calls these changes improvements, but critics say users should have more control over what they see in their feeds. “Liking” a page, they say, is the equivalent to opting in to receive its posts, and the visibility of those posts shouldn’t be determined by the whims of a machine.
“There’s a lack of transparency about the weight of their engagement algorithm,” said Brian Steel, a social media manager for PayScale Inc. “What exactly is going on? It’s not really clear.”
Facebook currently offers no option to view an unfiltered news feed, and to users who want one, its pitches about “relevant content” ring particularly hollow. Even if users wanted to see every post from a particular page, there is no way to make them appear in their news feed. (An “all updates” setting was quietly done away with.) Facebook does let users receive notifications when new posts appear, but page administrators say the extra step is burdensome and tiny red notification indicators are no replacement for news feed visibility.
“It is not very effective,” said Dana Keithly, an animal shelter volunteer in Southern California. “When an animal’s life is at risk, or there is a time-sensitive cause, you don't really think about, ‘Oh, I need to turn the notifications on.’ If I have liked the page, that should be enough.”
All of which speaks to disagreements over Facebook’s evolving role in community engagement.
Ginsberg said major tech firms Google Inc. and Twitter Inc. have done a better job recognizing the utility-like role they now play in society and have accommodated the nonprofit sector accordingly. For instance, he said his group receives about $40,000 a month in advertising from Google’s Ad Grants program. He said Facebook could offer a similar program for its news feeds. “We’re hoping that Facebook will grow up, quite frankly,” he said.
Back at Karuna Bully Rescue, Jenkins agrees. By Friday, her petition had reached almost 2,000 signatures, and she said she’s heard from a number of users who say they want to receive all the group’s posts, not just the ones Facebook robots deem relevant. She said for dogs like Bruno, nothing could be more relevant than simply being seen. “It’s not about bringing in money or having the most likes,” she said. “At the end of the day, it’s about saving animals, and that’s all we want from all this.”
View at the original source
Degrees don’t matter anymore, skills do
If I were to make a nomination for the most destructive belief in our culture, it would be the belief that some people are born smart and others are born dumb. This belief is not only badly off target as a shorthand description of reality, it is the source of many social pathologies and lost opportunities.
Those who get low test scores think they are just not as smart andavoid tough majors that lead to some of the best jobs.
A strong belief within an academic field that talent is innate goes along with that field having fewer women and African-Americans.
Many people utter the black magic spell “I’m bad at math” and it becomes so. A lucky few have that spell broken, and find they can become good at math after all.
People misunderstand the past and imagine a dystopian future, not realizing that each generation is smarter than the last.
Too much of our educational system, both at the K-12 level and in higher education, is built around the idea that some students are smart and others are dumb. One shining exception are the “Knowledge is Power Program” or KIPP schools. In my blog post “Magic Ingredient 1: More K-12 School” I gave this simple description of the main strategy behind KIPP schools, which do a brilliant job, even for kids from very poor backgrounds:
They motivate students by convincing them they can succeed and have a better life through working hard in school.
They keep order, so the students are not distracted from learning.
They have the students study hard for many long hours, with a long school day, a long school week (some school on Saturdays), and a long school year (school during the summer).
A famous experiment by Harvard psychology professor Robert Rosenthal back in 1964 told teachers that certain students, chosen at random, were about to have a growth spurt—in their IQ. These kids did wind up having their IQ grow faster than the other kids. If we had an educational system that expected all kids to succeed, and gave them the kind of extra encouragement that those teachers unconsciously gave the kids they expected to do well, then kids in general would learn more.
Kids whose teachers had low expectations can expect more typecasting in college. Too many majors fall into one of two categories: (a) majors in which there is no easy way to tell whether a student has mastered any skills that will help get a job or make life richer, or (b) majors designed to weed out all the slow learners and only try to teach the students who catch on quickly. Behind the practice of weeding out slow learners is the misconception that a slow learner is a bad learner, when in fact a slow learner who puts in the time necessary to learn often ends up with a deeper understanding than the fast learner.
The good news is that a total transformation of education is coming, whether the educational establishment likes it or not. I draw my account of this transformation of education from two prophetic books by Harvard Business School professor Clay
Christensen and his co-authors:
Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns by Clay Christensen, Curtis Johnson and Michael Horn
The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out by Clay Christensen and Henry J. Eyring.
The road ahead is clear: the potential in each student can be unlocked by combining the power of computers, software, and the internet with the human touch of a teacher-as-coach to motivate that student to work hard at learning. Technology brings several elements to the equation:
customized lessons adapted to each student’s individual learning style at a cost that won’t break the bank.
lectures from some of the most talented instructors in the world (such as this course in financial asset pricing by the impressive John Cochrane and many other economics classes by Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok)
the kind of software motivational tricks that make it so hard for kids to pull away from video games
flexibility for students to learn at their own pace.
But since motivation—the desire to learn—is so important, a human teacher to act as coach is also crucial. In particular, without a coach, the flexibility for students to learn at their own pace can be a two-edged sword, because it makes it easy to procrastinate.
In the end, none of this will be hard. The technology and content for that technology are already good and rapidly improving. And although it is a bit much to expect someone to be both a great and inspirational coach and to be at the cutting edge of an academic field, the number of great athletic coaches and trainers at all levels indicates that, on its own, being an inspirational coach is not that rare.
Being an inspirational coach in an academic setting is not quite the same thing, but I am willing to bet that it, too, is blessedly common. By having the cutting-edge knowledge from the best scientists and savants in the world built into software and delivered in online lectures, all a community college has to do to deliver a world-class education is to hire teachers who know how to motivate students.
Similarly, at the K-12 level, it is easier to find teachers who will be inspirational if those teachers can connect each student with expertly designed software customized for each student’s learning style. And teachers will be able to encourage each student to dig deeper into some particular interest that student has—well beyond the teacher’s own knowledge. Yet the teachers themselves will end up knowing a lot—much more than they learned in college themselves, simply from working alongside the students.
But what about all the forces arrayed against educational reform? Though they have won over and over in the past, those reactionary forces will be overwhelmed by these new possibilities. They will be like the corporate information technology department trying to stop workers from downloading unapproved, but inexpensive software on their own to get the job done.
The day is not far off (some would argue it is already here), when any parent who has the inclination to be a learning coach can team up with inexpensive online tools to give his or her child an education that is 20% better (say as measured by standardized test scores achieved) than what that child would get in the regular schools. It is hard to start a new charter school, and harder still to change a whole school district.
But when an individual family can opt out, it is no longer David vs. Goliath in a duel to the death, but David leaving Goliath behind in the dust in a foot race. In the end, I think organized institutions can do a better job at teaching than parents on their own—but only if those institutions do things right. The ability of individual families to opt out will force most schools to get with the program, or lose a large share of their students.
None of this will happen instantly. In K-12, some states already have a strong tradition of educational reform, and will jump-start these changes. In other states, the forces arrayed against reform will be able to hold back progress for quite some time, by fighting tooth and nail against it. Rich, educated parents may help their kids tap into the new educational possibilities more quickly than poor parents who aren’t as attuned to education. But when performance gaps open wide enough, education in the laggard states will come around, by popular demand. And the scandal of ever more substandard education for the poor will encourage efforts by concerned citizens toward solutions empowered by the new learning technologies.
In higher education, students voting with their feet will make schools at the bottom of the heap change or die. Many of the most prestigious colleges and universities will resist change much longer, but some will embrace the “flipped classroom” model of doing everything online that can effectively be done online, and doing in the classroom only those things for which face-to-face interaction is crucial. But some of the prestigious colleges and universities will embrace the new methods, and will move ahead in the rankings as a result. The rest will ultimately follow.
There is one other force that will propel the transformation of education: a shift from credentials to certification. In most of the current system, the emphasis is diplomas and degrees—credentials saying a student has been sitting in class so many hours, while paying enough attention and cramming enough not to do too much worse than the other students on the exams. More and more, employers are going to want to see some proof that a potential employee has actually gained particular skills.
So certificates that can credibly attest to someone’s ability to write computer code, write a decent essay, use a spreadsheet, or give a persuasive speech are going to be worth more and more. And any training program that takes the need to maintain its own credibility seriously can help students gain those skills and certify them for employers in a way that bypasses the existing educational establishment. Just witness the current popularity of “coding bootcamps.” That model can work for many other skills as well. For many students, that kind of certification of specific skills is a very attractive alternative to a two-year degree.
When this transformation of education is complete, K-12 education will cost about the same as it does now, but will be two or three times as effective. College education will not only be much more effective than it is now, it will also be much cheaper. There will still be a few expensive elite colleges and universities; these schools are not just providing an education, they are selling social status, and the opportunity to rub shoulders with celebrity professors.
But less elite colleges and universities will find it hard to compete with the cheaper alternative of community college professor as coach for computerized learning. So the problem of college costs will be a thing of the past for anyone focused on learning, as opposed to social status. (Of course, if lower college costs are one side of the coin, lower college revenue is the other side. College professors as a whole are likely to have a lower position in the income distribution in the future than in the recent past, with premium salaries limited to a shrinking group of well-paid academic stars.)
Facebook Continues To Dominate Social Logins, Expands Lead To 61% Market Share
Facebook has long been the dominant player in social logins and it continues to expand its lead, according to the latest data from identity management platform Gigya.
For the first time since 2011, Facebook surpassed the 60 percent mark and powered 61 percent of all social logins on Gigya’s network in the last quarter of 2014 (up from 58 percent in the previous quarter and up 10 percent from a year ago).
For the most part, Facebook is taking market share away from Google at this point. Google’s overall share on Gigya’s network dropped from 24 percent in the third quarter of 2014 to 22 percent in the last quarter.
On mobile, Facebook’s dominance is even more pronounced. There, it owns 77 percent of all social logins, up from 62 percent in the previous quarter. All of those gains came at the expense of Google, which dropped from 28 percent to only 16 percent.
Facebook is pretty much dominant across all business segments. It powers 72 percent of social logins on e-commerce sites, for example, and 76 percent on education and non-profit sites. The one small exception is media sites, where it “only” has a 55 percent market share. That’s not a bright spot for Google either, though, as it only owns about 21 percent of that market, too, while Twitter and Yahoo are relatively popular with 11 percent and 8 percent market share, respectively.
I asked Gigya CEO Patrick Salyer how he explains this trend. “We’re seeing that Facebook’s line-by-line controls for Facebook Login are making a big difference for how consumers interact with Facebook as an identity provider,” he told me. “While the difference was most pronounced on mobile in Q4 2014, we’re seeing an overall trend that Facebook continues to make progress in the war for identity.”
Looking ahead, he also believes Apple’s Touch ID could become a major threat to existing log-in providers. “If it gets traction with developers as an authentication mechanism on mobile apps, it could really start to eat Facebook’s lunch in identity.”
Yahoo, by the way, saw the largest drop. Yahoo once accounted for 18 percent of all logins and is now down to 6 percent — on par with Twitter’s social log-in numbers, which have grown slowly over the last year.
View at the original source
We are left speechless by these repeated acts of violence and arson.Only the perpetrators and cause change. reason of course is always hatred. fallout is always loss of precious and property.
If we relate this action to the behavior pattern of an individual....
How do we analyze ....
Hate is an inherent attribute (as per english dictionary we can call hate an attribute) in people.Only thing is it can be easily inflamed in some, with a little effort in others. may be with with great difficulty in some others,
The reaction to stimulus differs from people to people. For some it is just a mild verbal expression, for others it may be more vehement verbal expression leading to discussions and arguements.
But only a small minorty can be inflamed enough to resort to violence resulting in the loss of life and property.
But these are also the people that have nobility as an attribute. This can also be ignited to get constructive contribution to the society.
So it depends on the facilitator and his act of inflammation or ignition.
The consequence and fallout of a particular behavior by an individual or a group is as much a responsibility of the fecilitator as the offender himself.
So if it is possible to remove the facilitator. it will more or less be equal to removing the cause for the acion.
And may be the action itself.
How do you remove the facilitators???
Total annihilation of facilitators should precede, prosecution of the perpetrators.
Now The article.....
Fire officials now say an accelerant was used in a fire that broke out at an Islamic community and education center in southeast Houston early Friday morning, and now a group is calling for an investigation into whether the fire was the result of a possible hate crime.
Houston fire officials say the fire at the Quba Islamic Institute started around 5am. The cause of the fire is under investigation, but we've learned HFD says the accelerant was used, which usually points to a purposeful act. Those same investigators met with leaders at another Islamic center just miles away, letting them know that this was an act of arson and to be on alert.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations is calling on state and federal authorities to investigate the fire as a possible hate crime.
That call comes as Ahsan Zahid, assistant Imam at the institute, says he spoke with the Houston arson investigator about their preliminary results.
Zahid said, "They said their dog went through and he hit on some substances inside the place, and he said, 'From what I see right now at this point, I have to say it was an incendiary fire which means that it was started on purpose.' That's all we can go on at this point. I don't want to speculate."
Though we don't know officially if the cause was accidental or deliberate, the FBI is now monitoring the situation.
Flames ate away at a building on the back of the property, which members tell us was only used for storage for books, renovation supplies, and furniture.
"The damage on the back building is total," said Houston Fire Department district chief Ken Tyner. "The whole entire building back there is burned up."
The assistant imam said they found a vandalized, smashed table on their property this morning and that he also said just last night, someone had driven by, screaming mocking chants.
Earlier this week, a masked man had been lurking around the institute, and had to be chased off the property.
The mosque and school at the front of the property were intact, but people who use them are feeling a sense of anxiety.
"The first thing we think about is hate crimes that could go on," said Hala Saadeh, who uses the community center. "It says right on the front -- Islamic Institute. We're not hiding ourselves."
IS YOUR CEO OUT OF TOUCH OR BEING MISLED?
A Troubling Result
Similarly, 43 percent of CEOs think relevant data are captured and made available in real time, compared to 29 percent of all respondents.
CEOs are also more likely to think that employees extract relevant insights from data – 38 percent of them hold this belief, as compared to 24 percent of all respondents and only 19 percent of senior vice presidents, vice presidents and directors.
Is Your CEO Being Misled?
Being Data-Driven Is All About Objective Facts
A CONVERSATION WITH MEREDITH ROWE ABOUT
HOW TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR YOUR CHILD’S VOCABULARY GROWTH
Big data redefines the traditional scientific methods used in medicine
How Twitter plans to move beyond its 288 million monthly active users