8 Comments

hands on a computer screen Urlbots, I'm just guessing here, but...do you guys use the internet a lot? Like, a lot a lot?

I'm asking because I'm interested in what type of internet user you are. Do you stick your head in the stream and gulp it all down? Or do you just take a sip now and then? Do you love letting a stream of tweets wash over you? Or do you find Twitter use to be impossibly aggravating? Do you endlessly refresh blogs? Or do you only read an article here and there?

There's certainly plenty of room between both extremes. But a lot of people are either sippers or gulpers, and I find the divide between the two groups to be pretty fascinating (particularly as it relates to social media), so get ready to go a little deeper than usual for this analysis of the two types of use.

I'm bringing all this up because of a recent experience I had on a Google Groups list I use to keep in touch with several friends from high school. The list gets used regularly and, often, people will send out blog posts, videos, articles, pictures, et cetera, that they think the group will enjoy. One of the members on the list recently got frustrated with the amount of material flooding into his inbox and he sent out an email, part of which I'll excerpt:

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I generally think you guys are awesome and have interesting things to say about the world, but lately there's been so much lame [stuff] you've spammed that I'm not even reading the things you send anymore. Or if I am, I put it off for a while and then am still disappointed when I eventually get around to chasing it down.

Maybe we could get away from internet detritus and back to more substantial things like articles from reputable publications (e.g. The Economist) that generate interesting and intellectual discussion.
This was interesting to me not because he's right or wrong, but rather because I think it reveals the friction that can occur between "gulpers" and "sippers" and how new media tools play a role in that friction.

I, for example, am a gulper. I don't click on even half of the links sent out on the list, but it's not a bother to me. I always have my Gmail open and if something doesn't interest me, I ignore it: not a big deal. Part of the reason I am this way is because I'm used to using social media tools, like Twitter, that provide an information stream. So, naturally I've started to think of my inbox in a Twitter-esque fashion: the information rolls past and I dip in when I care to.

My friend, however, is a sipper. He only checks his Gmail every few days and values highly targeted, high quality content. In his mind, his inbox is, more or less, still a digital recreation of an actual mailbox. If something comes to him and it isn't great, it's just a time wasting annoyance. It's natural that he feels this way, as he doesn't use Twitter and is barely on Facebook: he hasn't been habituated to information streams.

The interesting thing to note about the disagreement between me and my friend is that it is not a classic generational technology divide, in which an older person cannot shake off old formatting standards -- the parent who signs their tweets, the aunt who writes out a full letter when Facebook messaging – or understand the purpose of new media tools. The disagreement also has nothing to do with computer literacy. My friend and I are about the same age and have about the same level of computer know-how and access. Yet, there's a world of difference in how we interact with online media.

The anxiety that my friend feels about services that offer an information stream is a problem of which the CEOs of new media companies are very cognizant.

For example, Tumblr founder David Karp recently spoke to a reporter about "inbox bankruptcy." While discussing Google Buzz, a social networking tool that Google launched recently, Karp was shocked to learn that it includes a count of unread buzzes. According to Karp, Tumblr specifically does not include such a count because it causes mental blocks:
"[On the Tumblr dashboard], you don't get freaked out if you miss stuff. You never feel overwhelmed... Most active Tumblr users have missed things on their dashboards, but they don't remember, they don't know, and it doesn't matter."
It's Tumblr's way of dealing with the potential anxieties of the information stream model. Facebook and Twitter do the exact same thing: they make no effort to alert you to information you may have missed.

You can also see an awareness of the problem of information overload in the details that have started to trickle out about the new Digg. In a recent interview with Mashable, Digg CEO Jay Adelson spoke about a shift towards a more personalized version of Digg. Among other new features, the social news aggregation site will now have a homepage "based on characters like a user's interests, location, who they follow not only on Digg but services like Twitter and Facebook and other 'signals' from around the web like retweets, Facebook shares, and more."

This attempt to make Digg's information stream more targeted precisely addresses one of the critiques implicit in my friend's email: that he hates having to deal with less than completely relevant information. A more personalized Digg means that users will only receive stories that they find interesting...if you like technology articles, but hate cracked.com lists, you can get the former and block the later. It's a way of making Digg more usable for sippers like my friend.

Ultimately, the divide between gulpers and sippers may be something that disappears as people become increasingly acclimated to new media tools. Sure, there will always be holdouts. But in my experience the new media landscape tends to become much less intimidating the more exposure you have to it. The more people who learn to love the information stream model, the fewer disagreements about internet usage style there will be.

Until then, friction will continue to pop up between two groups divided not by age, and not by internet savvy, but rather by attitude and exposure.