what's the difference between openlike and addthis?

[nathan]

I'm failing to see it, please do expand / explain?

(genuinely interested - not meant in an insulting way)


--
Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/openlike/subscribe?hl=en

[Kevin Marshall]

I think it's just a subtle difference between 'share' and 'like'...and
then of course the idea that one is intended to be a nonprofit, open
source sort of thing and the other is a commercial entity (or at least
wants to be).

Overall though, I think they really are very sim...

However, I don't know that a 'like' always means you want to actually
'share' it as well...for example, disqus has a 'like' feature that I
use a lot...when I use it, I don't care if anyone else knows I 'like'
a comment and in fact I don't want to spam my followers with that
information, but rather I just want the commenter to know that I
agreed with them, liked how/what they said, and really have nothing
more to add to the conversation. (In some cases, I guess you could say
I want the other readers of the comments to know I'm endorsing the
comment I 'like' but that's still not nec. my followers or something
that I'm 'sharing' back out to any other system).

Make sense?

- Kevin
http://likefeature.com <- an open sentiment web service that can be
plugged in as an option for OpenLike as well as addthis ;-D

p.s. Any chance we can get [OpenLike] or some type of tag added to
email subjects for this group? Makes it much easier to see what I
want to pay attention to or not?

[Alex Iskold]

I think if we do this, we should do genetic, not just like.

On Apr 25, 8:59 pm, Kevin Marshall <falico...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's just a subtle difference between 'share' and 'like'...and
> then of course the idea that one is intended to be a nonprofit, open
> source sort of thing and the other is a commercial entity (or at least
> wants to be).
>
> Overall though, I think they really are very sim...
>
> However, I don't know that a 'like' always means you want to actually
> 'share' it as well...for example, disqus has a 'like' feature that I
> use a lot...when I use it, I don't care if anyone else knows I 'like'
> a comment and in fact I don't want to spam my followers with that
> information, but rather I just want the commenter to know that I
> agreed with them, liked how/what they said, and really have nothing
> more to add to the conversation. (In some cases, I guess you could say
> I want the other readers of the comments to know I'm endorsing the
> comment I 'like' but that's still not nec. my followers or something
> that I'm 'sharing' back out to any other system).
>
> Make sense?
>

> - Kevinhttp://likefeature.com<- an open sentiment web service that can be

[Kevin Marshall]

I agree...and in fact it's part of my design for
http://likefeature.com (supports any sort of sentiment).

BTW - LikeFeature.com is really just a quick hack/demo to explain what
I think OpenLike should be doing long term...I just thought it was
easier to build a service for people to play with and understand than
it was to try and explain all the details in a lengthy chain of
emails...I prefer to do, then discuss (and fix) when possible! ;-)

- Kevin
http://draftwizard.com

[Nathan]

I quite like the idea of no sentiment, "read" "seen" "viewed", although
a common verb would be good

[Kevin Marshall]

I think from an OpenLike point of view, the sentiment isn't really the
goal...the ability to get your own sentiment system distributed
throughout the web is...

For LikeFeature though, the sentiment is entirely the goal...and in
that case, it's up the implementing service to define the verb that
makes sense for them (all falls back to that open idea).

- Kevin
http://sportsxml.com

[Jeff Eddings]

I like the idea of LikeFeature, but it's still in the hands of one entity.  Ultimately, how is this any different from storing your likes on Facebook or Google Reader or StumbleUpon?  In the world of the Internets, how does an individual really "own" their sentiments?  Unless you are storing them on a device you own (hard drive, thumb drive, etc.) then it's always really owned by someone else, right?  Even Twitter, which has a license agreement that states that you own your tweets and they simply have a license for them, can change that license structure anytime they wish, right? Can law, legal licenses, government, etc. help the problem here?  Or am I thinking too hard about this? :-)

Jeff

[Kevin Marshall]

Thanks. You are right, LikeFeature is still under a
dictatorship...but that's really only because that's the only way I
could build it and get it out there quickly to help try and steer the
conversation...I would be open to opening it up for all if there's
interest...

>  Ultimately, how is this any different from storing your likes on Facebook or Google Reader or StumbleUpon?

I think the big differences at the moment are:

1. Anyone can put anything in, and anyone can pull anything back out
(ie. there are basically no rules or limits defined yet)...so this
means, a facebook user could dump data in, and a google user could
pull data out...this sort of sharing really doesn't happen in most
systems right now/yet...

2. The data is not proprietarily tied to log in...what I mean is that
just because you used your twitter account to say you liked something
doesn't mean that twitter is the only one that gets to know about that
'like' (this is actually my major gripe with all the existing systems
right now...most site owners never even get to know who/how many
'liked' their own stuff!)

>  In the world of the Internets, how does an individual really "own" their sentiments?

As you said, I think the Twitter approach fits perfectly here too...I
think it's the closest to "it's your data, do what you want with it"
that we can expect for the general public right now...

- Kevin

[jrky]

>  In the world of the Internets, how does an individual really "own"
their sentiments?

I think the only way one truly "owns" their sentiment, is if they keep
it to themselves. Not to get all metaphysical, but why click "like"
if it doesn't matter whether others are aware of it or not? If that's
the case, no need to click, correct? The fact that there is a button
to click, placed by the site owner, and you click it, means your
sentiment is not just yours anymore, it's sort of co-owned by you the
clicker, and the person(s) who made it possible for you to click like
in that place. No matter who sets up the service, or creates whatever
protocol, there ain't no getting around that; unless you just keep it
to yourself.

Really, the same is true in the physical world. If you tell someone
you like what they are doing, by the nature of conversation, that
'like' comment is no longer just yours.

@Kevin - I like the direction you are going with likefeature, you seem
smart, so you probably already thought of this, but maybe a way to
extend the service would be ala ping.fm. So that I could connect my
likefeature account to whatever services I prefer, then when I click a
likefeature button it only goes where I want it to go.

Josh

[Kevin Marshall]

Josh,

I agree with you on ownership and sharing...that's actually one of
my biggest gripes with most of the 'like' features out there right now
(actually including openlike)...the site that actually has the 'like'
button on it doesn't actually get the data about who liked their stuff
(only the auth. service actually gets/uses the data).

BTW thanks for the idea about ping.fm...I'll def. look into this
(on my short list right now is to fix up the facebook part [kinda of
clunky right now], then add import and export features so that anyone
can move data in or out of likefeature to/from other services...but
ping.fm is on there now too)...there's actually no concept of a
'likefeature account' yet, but it probably will have to exist at some
point if I want to let people pick and choose where to automatically
push their sentiment...

- Kevin