For social media savvy savants, Digg and Delicious are two familiar tools that help you bookmark and share news with colleagues and friends. But a competitor may soon dethrone the popular sites to make way for a new Web 3.0 generation.

According to Fast Company, Twine uses artificial intelligence to find and store Web info. The site allows users to create threads, or "twines," with information around ideas, people and events. As the users add new content, articles and topics, Twine tracks and assembles an "interest-based personality profile." In contrast, users of Digg and Delicious generate the content by uses a voting (Digg) or tagging system (Delicious).

Twine's popularity is rapidly growing. Since October 2008, visitors to the site have grown more than 40 percent each month. Fast Company predicts the site should surpass Delicious within the next few months as the Web's premier bookmarking service.

Click here to read the Fast Company article about Twine and its founder, Nova Spivack. What are your thoughts about Twine vs. Digg and Delicious?

Only a few months into my Twitter experience, and I'm already certified as "Twitter Elite" for St. Louis. What am I talking about? Let me tell you.

I stumbled across the Web site called Twitter Grader. You can enter your Twitter name (or "handle" as my co-worker, who will remain unnamed, likes to call it), and it will give you a grade. My score currently is 82, so a solid B-minus. OK, so there's a lot of room to improve, but I consider myself well on my way. And at least Twitter Grader didn't have any suggestions for improvement. I got the, I'm sure standard, "Congratulations! We could not find any areas of concern with this Twitter account. Tweet on!"

I entered the Twitter names of some friends, and some were off the charts high, while others were failing pretty badly. Without naming names, here is the most common feedback:

• "No bio specified. Your profile does not include a bio/description. Other Twitter users are less likely to follow you if they don't know anything about you."
• "No location specified. To get the most out of Twitter, you should specify your location (ex: Boston, MA)."

There are some other cool stuff on Twitter Grader, like a feature that allows you to check if a person is following somebody else and a related program that checks Web sites and Facebook pages. However, as a university-professor-on-the-side, I'm sticking to the Twitter grading part. That's what gets me excited. Anyway, if you don't mind sharing, what's your grade? Oh yeah, and help me build my score. Look for me on Twitter by clicking here. I'm @lopinot.

Update: Since this blog was posted, there is now a full page ad in USA Today (9A) from Matrixx, as well as a video and written message to consumers on the Zicam website.  This time CEO Bill Hemelt does much better.

Yesterday the FDA warned consumers against using two of Zicam's cold products citing reports of a loss of the sense of smell by some consumers. In a quote from the Wall Street Journal William Hemelt, Matrixx's acting president and chief operating officer said "This isn't a new issue for us. We've certainly studied it for many years and we think our products are safe."  Ouch! You're trying to reassure consumers with words like we've studied it... and we think...?

 At times of crisis, corporations are rarely viewed with credibility (even if facts are shown later to support company beliefs).  I'd propose Hemelt consider something like:

The health of consumers and our product safety are our top priorities, that's why we conduct rigorous testing. Millions of consumers have used our products safely and we believe an investigation will support this. As a precaution, we have voluntarily pulled the two products in question and will cooperate fully with the FDA.

 To Matrixx's credit, their message to consumers contains some of these points, however Hemelt's quote within the message lacks warmth and a demonstration of human concern. What do you think he should have said?

Jon and Kate.

In case you've been on Mars for the past six months, I'll explain why everyone is talking about them. Jon and Kate are the parents of a set of twins and a set of sextuplets. They are also the stars of a popular reality show on TLC called "Jon and Kate Plus Eight" that records their everyday lives raising eight kids. And - ready for the kicker? - Jon was caught very late at night drinking with a woman who was not his wife. From there, the media concluded he'd had an affair, and Kate is not sure what to think. Since this incident, the couple's popularity has surpassed their adorable children's, and they are in every tabloid in every grocery store across the country.

Bad press or good press?

While the show's ratings have skyrocketed (9.8 million people tuned in for the fifth season premier, which aired on May 25, 2009), there is some backlash. Kate has now been accused of having an affair with her bodyguard, and the paparazzi seem to follow the family everywhere they go.

Adding to the drama is Kate's sister-in-law, Aunt Jodi, who used to appear on the show frequently. Aunt Jodi's sister has started a blog called The Truth Breeds Hatred where she claims her goal is to "open eyes and help raise awareness for the need for laws to protect children in the entertainment industry." Whether she is sincere or not, her ponderings have caused quite a stir. The show is currently under investigation for possible violation of Pennsylvania child labor laws.

Kate has a blog on TLC's Web site, but each post seems to be a simple recap of the latest television episode. Is Kate missing an opportunity to defend her family's reputation and her own? Are their other social media opportunities that Jon or Kate could use to explain their side of the story? Should they address these accusations on the show, or are we all just tired of hearing about them?

According to a recent study by Forrester Research, pharmaceutical, biotech and medical device companies are well behind every other industry in utilizing online community building and social networking techniques.

As the report states, there may be regulatory reasons for this, but there are strategies these companies can use to join in even if they don't create their own online social networks.

Don't miss out on the opportunity to build brand awareness and understanding by particpating in the online conversation about your organization and the topics that matter most to it. Check out the Digital Communications section of our blog for ideas and tips.

We've had our share of clients who rely on us to help position them in the best possible way with media that reach their influencers or target audiences. Oftentimes that includes an awards strategy, to be listed in the "Top 10" of this or the "Best of" that. As more media outlets embrace reader-, viewer- and listener-driven surveys, it's important that organizations be included on the short list. Seems like a straightforward approach.

Not so much. A recent post from Simpson Scarborough explores a dark side of media rankings, noting that the surveyed parties themselves have a strategy for advancing their respective higher ed rankings year over year. This practice calls into question the validity of the awards program, of course, but it also can tarnish the reputations of the winners, the "fast movers" and the media outlet itself. 

The real eyebrow-raiser for me is that I personally relied on these rankings from U.S. News and World Report as an uninformed teen; and I've honestly thought that I would reference them again as my daughters approach college. The seed of doubt has been planted.

If U.S. World and News Report is smart, they'll take a hard look at surveying, judging criteria and the validity of the information and take actions to reassure people who rely on the rankings. In the meantime, Clemson University might want to develop a reputation management plan of its own.

Baby Boomers, once the fastest-growing age group on Facebook, are abandoning the social networking site in recent months, according to an analysis released on June 1 by Inside Facebook. The analysis ponders some possible reasons why older Americans are not using new communication tools like Facebook. The article suggests Facebook provides less value to people over 55 because most of their friends still use other communications tools. There's also the idea that some Baby Boomers signed up for Facebook to answer a "friend request" from a relative, and just haven't bothered to come back.

As someone who was not an early adopter of Facebook by any means, I can say that many of us in our mid-30s have found social networking through Facebook to be more enjoyable as more friends in our age group have signed up for the service. I would imagine there's an even slower adoption rate for Baby Boomers, who are among a generation that didn't grow up around much digital technology.

I recently heard a story about a man who said something to the effect of, "People over 50 don't use social media." Obviously, such an extreme statement is not accurate, but there have to be reasons why so many Baby Boomers are not coming back to Facebook. What do you think those reasons are?

"It all started on Twitter," said Steve Whitaker, kicking off the first-ever pie bake off in the community of Charlottesville, Va. The C'ville Pie Down, as the event came to be known, started with an innocent tweet. First, Jamie Schwartz of Brown Automotive, a local car dealer, wondered who made the best pie in town. I modestly mentioned that "I am the pie master" and Brian Geiger, The Food Geek, asserted that his pies are pretty darn good, too. Thus inspiring the following tweet:

That's all it took, and over the next 16 days, the execution of the event moved pretty quickly. The hashtag #cvillepiedown trended throughout the local Twitter community and within the first day, four judges self-identified, via Twitter. A wiki was set up so the judges and competitors could frame out the competition with rules, criteria and event details. Over Twitter, a local coffeeshop offered space with free coffee for the judges, free Wi-Fi (for on-site tweeting), signage and promotion for the event. One of the judges set up a Web site. There was a promotional photo shoot and ongoing Twitter buzz to promote the event. I set up the event in Facebook to keep track of attendees. The event took place on May 24 and gained significant media coverage, with the local NBC affiliate filming and interviewing participants, the local daily newspaper covering the event with a fabulous photo slideshow and the next day, page three, color, half the page, above the fold, fantastic story with photos. No wonder, because the event saw more than 50 people in attendance (whole families turned out for the Sunday afternoon fun). The mayor of Charlottesville and Congressman Tom Periello (also invited via Twitter) even made an appearance to taste some pie.

The blogosphere was just as eager to cover the event, an impressive number of links to the local blogger community's posts following the Pie Down appear below.

In short, the C'ville Pie Down turned out to be a remarkable case study in what a community can do using Twitter and other forms of social media; how online interaction turned into real-life interaction and got the attention of traditional media in doing so. This is, so far, the most compelling demonstration of Twitter at work in a community that I have witnessed firsthand.

http://shoulderblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/pie-and-social-media-go-together-like/

http://www.molliecoxbryan.com/journey_of_a_cookbookbiog/2009/05/spreading-the-pie-love.html

http://pyle-associates.blogspot.com/2009/05/piedown-on-may-24.html

http://www.gocho.com/airport/blog/1st-annual-charlottesville-piedown-what/#When:18:11:00Z

http://www.finecooking.com/item/10652/competition-pies

http://pyle-associates.blogspot.com/2009/05/2009-pie-down-results.html

http://www.realcentralva.com/2009/05/26/charlottesville-pie-down-ridiculously-good-fun/

http://www.stlworkingmom.com/2009/05/17/cville-pie-down-the-web-site-and-details/

If anyone knows how much our lives are threatened by chemical exposure it ought to be the members of the Society of Toxicology, the professional organization of scientists who study harmful effects of chemicals and other impacts on people and the environment.

A new survey of toxicologists concludes that the news media and environmental groups tend to overstate the risks of everyday chemical exposure, and some industry groups tend to understate them. In general, we are right to be skeptical of the barrage of information we get about threats to our health:

The survey is based on responses from nearly 1,000 members of the group, and the analysis of responses list the most serious chemical risks starting with tobacco smoke - and the relative accuracy of information sources with government agencies, WebMD and Wikipedia among the best. In other words, new on-line media are doing a better job of conveying information than the traditional mainstream media, and government agencies tend to play it straight up the middle.

The study was conducted by the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University and STATS, the Statistical Assessment Service, both devoted to improving scientific and statistical information.

In some ways, this is old news. Peter Sandman helped pioneer the field of risk communication by determining that people's perception of "risk" is actually a combination of statistical hazard - how likely is it? - and another factor he calls "outrage," an emotional factor based on whether or not the risk is voluntary or well-understood. The new study supports Sandman by suggesting that popular sources of risk information are closer to the Sandman definition than the objective hazards considered by the toxicologists.

In communications about risks, we need to consider how people really perceive risks - including the "outrage" factor - as well as the hazard itself. But it's important to know where we can turn for credible information, and what the experts think is really risky.