Obsessed by technology
It’s time for a more realistic view of technology. Human input is still useful, and in some situations essential.
If you go to the bottom of the Google News homepage you will find the following statement: “The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program.”
What exactly is that statement trying to say? There are perhaps two ways you can interpret it. Firstly, it might be trying to wash its hands of any mistakes that are made on the page. It’s kind of like the humans in Google saying: “Don’t blame us. We just work here. It’s that bloody computer program.”
Secondly, it might be implying that the stories that appear on the Google News page have been chosen in a very objective manner by a computer program. No nasty, biased human editors were let near them. It was all done by a thoroughly rational, absolutely objective computer program.
But didn’t humans write the computer program in the first place? Couldn’t there be bias and subjectivity in the program?
There is a belief within the technology industry that technology and programming are pure, rational, logical and good. People, on the other hand, are messy, emotional, illogical and only occasionally good. From this belief flows a logical conclusion: People are the problem, technology is the solution.
I have worked in the “web content management” industry since 1994. From the very beginning I approached things with a very foolish concept in mind. You won’t believe this, but I actually thought that web content management was about the management of web content.
Such a fool was I! I was harshly told to wake up and get real. Web content management was not about the management of web content. It was about TECHNOLOGY. It was all about the technology, the technology, the technology. The web content itself was irrelevant. The management was not even an issue.
The technology would do it all. If you were a web content management professional, your sole purpose in life was to choose the right technology. Then, maybe, you trained some people in how to use that technology. Then you got out of the way. Because that’s what web content management is all about.
And there I was-silly me-thinking that management was important. That if you didn’t have methods to choose the right content you were dealing with a “garbage in-garbage out” situation. And that if you didn’t maintain quality on an ongoing basis, then the quality of the content would deteriorate.
In September 2008, United Airlines lost $1 billion in value due to a six-year-old story being mistakenly picked up by Google News, among others. On October 3, 2008, Apple lost nine percent of its value within minutes when someone put a false report on CNN’s citizen’s journalism website that Steve Jobs had had a heart attack.
Quality content matters. Content management is not a management-free zone. We still need trained professionals to help manage content. Technology is wonderful, but it is not a magic bullet unless you’re playing Russian Roulette.
Alan Charlesworth says:
Added on October 19th, 2008 at 7:37 pmHi Gerry - as usual, yet another worthwhile rant that some of us know is right, but is unlikely to [even] be read by those who simply don’t get it.
The example I use in classes (and books - unashamed plug)is the on-site search facility that MUST have input from folk in sales for it is they who know what terms real customers might use when searching for a product. The same applies in any up-selling/cross-selling - a practice that techies seem to think was invented by Amazon - it has to be a salesperson who says which tie should be ‘advised’ to go with each shirt purchased (etc etc). After that the programmers can work their wonders with the technology - but don’t ask, or expect, them to manage the content.
Oops, now who’s ranting?
Ben Kahans says:
Added on October 19th, 2008 at 10:59 pmGreat article Gerry. I live in an unmanaged Government environment where the intranet is a graveyard for old and dead information. The silver bullet at the end of the rainbow being “the content management system”. But really it is a procrastination technique. Why go through all the hassle of unscrambling an egg when a machine will do it for you some time in the future?
Cheers
Ben
Tomas says:
Added on October 20th, 2008 at 12:13 amI really enjoyed reading this as I have been thinking along similar lines for the past few weeks. For me at least, a human is the best technology.
I say this as one who has personally aggregated over 45,000 articles / items over 3 years on a single subject. I see myself as the content management system or as I call myself an aggregation master. I think this way instead of saying that wordpress is the cms. The emphasis is on the human utilizing the technology to manage the content. Because of this my site/system (hispanictips.com) is super-relevant and organized making it more useful, imho.
James Bull says:
Added on October 20th, 2008 at 3:38 amSurely one of the problems is the way we label the technology, for example Content Management System.
It’s like calling a hammer a “Nail Driving System”.
Caron Mason, CAE says:
Added on October 20th, 2008 at 12:43 pmGreat article!
The following comment rings so true it made me raise my arms up and shout to my computer screen (no one is in the office just yet so I can get away with it):
“You won’t believe this, but I actually thought that web content management was about the management of web content.”
I know! I thought the exact same thing.
After working for years as the associate editor of a monthly magazine, I was promoted at my job (a non-profit association) to web communications specialist. I truly thought the job would be about web communications and maintaining content (why else would they move a staff writer into a web position and leave me as part of the communications department). Despite the name and formal job description, the web communication job was more like an IT position (new people in the office are often shocked when they learn that I have no formal background or training in IT).
I tried fighting for “real” web management for a few years, but I was too low on the totem pole to be heard or seriously considered. Or worse, people listened, agreed with me, and then promptly ignored my recommendations. It was so bad that marketing even did a website redesign without asking for my input (until the end when they were tweaking things). Then they made me part of the marketing department and everything I ever learned from Gerry and others was tossed to the side. After a while I gave up and just went with the flow (I was starting to feel like Wile. E. Coyote after the Road Runner).
I am tempted to pass this article along to the higher-ups at my association, but I always seem to get in a slight bit of trouble when I pass along Gerry’s articles. Besides, I am leaving my association in a few days for a new job at a different non-profit. As part of my new job, I will be in charge of the website (but it will only be part of my overall duties). It doesn’t matter, I will still hold out my hope for the new position.
Thanks for the article!
Geoff Hunt says:
Added on October 21st, 2008 at 1:58 pmA great feature of implementing a Web Content Management system is its ability to make web publishing easy.
A great weakness of implementing a system is when: A) the web team lets the organization know that such a feature exists; B) proceeds to give them access to it.
With the exponential use of blogs, wikis, FaceBook and youTube, staff are demanding access to post their own content on corporate websites. They fail to recognize any differences between the two types of sites.
They equate the popularity of social-media sites with being able to post their own content and feel they could make a corporate website better if they had similar self-publishing abilities. Not realizing that their content is the problem, not who posts the content. Call it the “Web 2.0 Fallacy”.
“With great access, comes great responsibility.”