Above The Iranian Cyber Army’s page, which has replaced the Twitter one at this time.

For those trying to get on to the Twitter website presently, one need not bother: a group calling itself the Iranian Cyber Army claims to have hacked the site.
   Users on the micro-blogging service were presented with a new home page, apparently protesting the United States. It appears to be a DNS attack, redirecting users to the new page.
   The new home page emerged at 6 a.m. GMT today.
   In the poorly translated English (full text noted here), there is an odd reference to an embargo list, and that the hackers were against the Iranian people being stimulated. The hackers gave the address of iranian.cyber.army@gmail.com.
   This publication will hold back on Tweeting till the hacking problem is resolved.
   It marks an already difficult week on Twitter. Twitter application Twitterfeed had a data migration, leaving many users with a reduced service.

Update: Within an hour, Twitter restored its service.

Despite Stephen Fry and fellow Tweeter, brumplum, settling their differences four hours ago, many media outlets are content to spread the bad news that the actor–writer is poised to quit Twitter this morning.
   Yesterday, brumplum called Fry ‘boring’, which the actor took to heart while he felt down. Brumplum later apologized for the remark.
   In addition, brumplum never directed a Twitter tag, #envioushomo, to Fry, which had been another source of contention on Twitter. It had originated from a gay friend of brumplum who had used it to describe himself.
   After a good night’s rest and a change of scene to Los Angeles, Fry acknowledged that brumplum was entitled to say what he did, and accepted his apology.
   Since then, the two gentlemen have conversed amicably and Fry is not quitting Twitter any time soon.
   This is good news story with a happy ending—though in the last few hours the news was still mostly negative, with the exception of the Telegraph, which had the updated version of events.
   To some degree, this incident highlights the mainstream media’s delight with bad news, as well as its scepticism toward Web 2·0 in general. Any bad news with a relatively new website seems to be greeted with enthusiasm.
   The reality is that Twitter served as a medium not just for brumplum’s free speech, but as one that helped two people settle matters in a mature, adult fashion.
   It also shows that the Telegraph, which started its pioneering online edition 15 years ago this month, has never been afraid to show the positive side of technology.
   As we celebrated our 12th anniversary nearly two weeks ago, it reminded me of how “old media” were afraid of the internet in the mid-1990s.
   We have to remember, just as netizens individually already realize, that the internet is not a threat but an opportunity. If we understood our readers, we would position ourselves to use the media that they want us to use.
   In publishing, it means we have to look at both online and offline media, especially in fashion where people expect to have more of a “tactile” relationship with a publication.
   There’s little point, in our mind, to rubbish Twitter, when millions have flocked to the service and are following the people they want—and that includes Stephen Fry, who in per capita terms has arguably brought more of his fellow countrymen to the service than any other.
   So, for us, it’s about being present on the service and encouraging dialogue with our readers. Perhaps like the Telegraph, we want to record the Zeitgeist, albeit with an eye on our fashion, beauty, lifestyle and travel topics.
   And we would say that for many, Twitter is certainly part of that lifestyle.

A tiny addendum should be made: yours truly returned, if only for four minutes, to live television in New Zealand with a brief interview on Facebook and the dangers of photographs on the social networking site.
   The interview on TV3’s Sunrise appears at its site here, and I am glad to report that the network approached Facebook with more fun than many other media. Not surprising, since both anchors (Ali Ikram and Carly Flynn) have Twitter pages, as well as the show itself.
   While it was a negative subject, I like to think we educated people on what to do in the modern era when employers are likely to do Google searches on potential employees. We also made it seem more accessible, I hope, by telling people that there is sometimes a way out when embarrassing photos surface.
   The notes I typed up to guide me, though I never read from them on air, can be found at my personal blog.

Facebook recently changed its News Feed, with some strange consequences. The first is that Facebook selects 250 of your friends for you to follow on your feeds—which means you must manually tell it to select all your friends by raising the limit (there is information here on how to fix that). But more important for many users is that many Fan Pages no longer appear in the feeds by default: some users have to manually switch this on.
   While I’ve used Lucire as the example here, this would apply to any Fan Page you want to see in your Facebook feed.

1. Make sure you’re looking at the News Feed.

Above is my News Feed, though for privacy reasons I have hidden my friends’ status updates.

2. Scroll down to the bottom of this page, and look for ‘Edit Options’. Click on it.

A box should appear, looking like this:

3. Click on ‘Pages’ in the box.
You should now see your Fan Pages listed. Scroll down to Lucire.

Click ‘Add to News Feed’.

And that’s it: you should now see Lucire as either part of your News Feed or Live Feed:

   We might send word of this to our fans—which would make it the first time since we have used Groups and Fan Pages on Facebook (in close to two years) to send our readers any direct messages. We hope you’ll forgive this very rare intrusion.

The ‘Insider’ section has now been facelifted for the first time, bringing it in line with the new pages on the Lucire website. It has also dawned on us that this blog celebrates its second anniversary.
   Lucire was a late convert to blogging, even though I had been blogging away—on a very irregular basis—since 2003. There was a belief inside Lucire that blogs were for writers who didn’t have access to a web design crew, and for some time they were the poor cousins of the well designed website.
   By 2007 that was very untrue. Many blogs had started and were credible, with plenty of traffic to boot; and others were even running entire magazines using blogging software.
   At Lucire, at least, ‘Insider’—taking a name from the print editions—seemed to be a very good way to record some of our op–eds, which were traditionally deleted from the editorial page when a new one came along. Back then, the idea was to emulate print magazines by having a single, overarching editorial for the entire site. Obviously, those requirements changed after Lucire launched its own print editions.
   The first posts tried to give readers an insight on the items that came in here every day, as well as underline our editorial decisions. On September 11, 2007, we re-ran our 2001 editorial to commemorate the terror attacks in New York. Since then, ‘Insider’ has become a depository of almost anything that does not fit into the main part of the site; and as the RSS feed is based around it, to many people it is the main part of the site. Lucire’s mobile edition, Twitter account and Facebook fan page take content from here.
   The flexible nature of sections such as ‘Insider’ is so typical of the web, which continues to evolve after all these years. I dare not make any prediction on what ‘Insider’ will focus on in 2011, but I believe it will be on more media, including some very high-resolution, hand-held devices, for people who want their news on the go. I also believe it will drive the content in our print magazines, with a model that is yet to emerge. It is more interactive, and it engages people more instantly. The headlines pose the issues, which might get to readers via Twitter or elsewhere—and they come here to give more detailed feedback. The print magazines reflect readers’ inputs and their opinions, and act as collectible records.
   Watch this space: the 2010s will be a very interesting time for publishing.

If you came via the home page today, then you’ll know Lucire has a new look on the web. We haven’t put this design on all the pages yet—obviously this page, at the time of writing, still has the old look. But we are continuing to roll it out across the site and all subsequent feature pages will have the new style.
   The redesign process began last week, and some of the rationale behind it was discussed in an earlier post. The home page, however, has had a more serious rethink, and it’s still open for discussion.
   Obviously, we wanted a more startling lead image, and with more detailed monitors today—even on laptops—we decided that it could vary between 480 and 600 pixels in width. (The old design was at 390, plus some extra room to record a blurb.) It won’t always be as tall as the current one of Eva Mendes—we expect to have some landscape shots in the space, which would bring up the three stories beneath it.
   We wanted to bring up more to the top part of the screen: this could be either a Lucire TV clip or ‘Insider’ headlines.
   But we also wanted to make the local elements faster, and thanks to a reduction in the code, they are—despite having more information displayed.
   New on the page is a Twitter feed from us, as well as the standardized footer we have on new pages going forward.
   One concern is that the page is the deepest, or tallest, we have ever had—10 years ago, this would have been a no-no. Today, with scroll wheels on computer mice, this has become less of a problem; and tall pages seem to have become the norm today (many Facebook pages are indicative).
   We will continue to tweak the page and value reader feedback.

[Cross-posted] One of the topics raised by Summer Rayne Oakes, author of Style, Naturally and a scientist and strategist in her own right—not to mention Lucire’s editor-at-large—was why chat rooms fell out of favour this century.
   During the last week, Summer Rayne and I had plenty of good chats, but this is probably one that relates directly to some of the issues I discuss on this blog.
   The obvious answer is all the odd people who used to venture into these chat rooms, often wanting to get on to a sexual topic. I’ve encountered my share, and it seems that women are targeted even more. These were always at non-sex spaces, and even they would attract those looking to get off on discussing these topics.
   But that can’t be it. This is partly my memory giving chat rooms a bad name. The overwhelming majority of conversations I had on them were productive and only a handful had visitors whose minds were on sex.
   Yet in the last 10 to 20 years we’ve also seen the rise and fall of the email and online discussion group. Spam may have had something to do with that. But the newsgroups also seem to be less well frequented: in fact, I found it very odd when someone referred me to a newsgroup earlier this month on, of all things, Karl Malden’s nose. A newsgroup? Do people still use those?
   There have been the rise and fall of MySpace, and the rise and seemingly continued rise of Facebook and Twitter.
   Anyone who has been on Twitter for a little while can see that many people out there have their own websites now. The blogging revolution that people such as Helen Baxter predicted has come to pass: people are expressing themselves, and everyone is vying for their share of the internet audience. Some do it by being sarky (some of the celebrity gossip sites come to mind), others by being deceptive (a few so-called news sites attacking people), and, hopefully, the majority are there just trying to get by with some honest reflection and communication.
   But in this quest for self-expression, the victim seems to have been communicating in a common space. We bloggers still want to share, but we expect readers to come to our space to do it. The chat room, which worked on the idea of a central location that was common to one’s interest, has given way to everyone playing host to a variety of subjects, and netizens pop by to the one that suits their subject area. Ultimately, they are found on a search engine, not at something as neutral as Egroups.
   In other words, we no longer go to the community centre, we play guests at people’s homes. Except this is done virtually. And the relationships, seemingly, are more shallow.
   Unless it’s a blog that I have great affinity with, I’m unlikely to visit again. Last week, Ashes to Ashes finished its second series on BBC1. I frequented blogs that reviewed the finalé. I might leave a comment. But they are unlikely to be places I’d revisit, certainly not till the next series begins in 2010. By then I am likely to have forgotten who they were.
   There have been some wonderful readers on this blog whom I have come to admire and respect. But there are also many whom I do not know beyond their single comment.
   I’m wondering whether the blogosphere has given rise to the sort of deep connection that one can form personal or professional relationships on, because our contact is more fleeting. Certainly it cannot work alone: something must complement the blogosphere if two people are to form any sort of relationship. In that vein, the old discussion groups seem to be more self-contained.
   When I look back at my dozen or so years managing discussion groups and blogging, many of the strongest bonds are still with people I met on discussion groups. Someone like Simon Young falls into that category. Others I know in person, before they even became bloggers, such as Johnnie Moore.
   The blogs have opened the door to my meeting other people. I’m sure Cat Morley, whom I met on the blogosphere, and I, would get on famously if we met face to face. Jim Donovan falls into that category. But Jim and I meet almost monthly, and we’ve opened the door to that more extensive contact.
   Maybe I’m not one of those “celebrity bloggers”, so blogging has not resulted in a rise in my work. It has helped a bit with my profile. But it is a surface medium, one that hasn’t supplanted the chat room or email group. It is a very wordy business card or a calling card.
   Yet we humans still seek those deeper relationships. They are not to be found on Facebook groups, because at the end of the day, Facebook is about keeping in touch with those one already knows. It is a social network in the literal sense: people are there with brains switched off (I know I am), socializing. While I have met people through it, I am not convinced that it is a medium where one can espouse those deep thoughts in a group, the same way some of us used to on email groups. There are so many people there that it lacks the feel of a chat room or a discussion group, where there were regulars. Its one great benefit, as far as I can tell, has been the fact that the majority of the conversations have been clean and so far, no one has engaged me in a discussion about sex on a Facebook group about, say, freeing a jailed journalist.
   So the answer to Summer Rayne’s question may be that we have ventured too far into becoming talkers and not listeners. The shift to the blogosphere has allowed us to come forth overwhelmingly, because we could, all of a sudden. For those of us not wishing to write posts as long as this (1,000 words and counting), Twitter has become that great substitute, where 140 characters are all that are available. Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame, and since few of us wish to debase ourselves on reality television, the blogosphere and Twitter allow us to control the message.
   I somehow think we will congregate again. I know some people who have set up Ning groups, to some success. A friend of mine, and a former Lucire beauty columnist, frequents one devoted to young mothers. We must get to a point where everyone who wants one has their own blogs or Twitter account, and we get sick of talking without any certainty over whether anyone is listening.
   People are creatures who wish to communicate, and that implies a two-way dialogue. Blogs were meant to deliver just that, but I’m waiting for the next online revolution that restores that two-way street.

[Cross-posted] If a Twitter presence is de rigueur in 2009, then who is using it as a tool for generating dialogue and connecting with stakeholders?
   A few weeks back, I posted my top 10 reasons for following someone on Twitter. While not everyone agreed with the 10, I dare say that the majority struck a chord. And one of the things many of us agreed on was that certain celebrities wanted the same level of worship on Twitter as they had in the offline world—and how that wasn’t exactly encouraging for some of us to become one of their followers.
   That’s fine: it’s their prerogative, but I see it as rather self-centred. ‘Come, look at me, I am Tweeting,’ doesn’t seem as accommodating—or even human—as, ‘I want to hear about you, too.’ All the ideas about modern marketing—from Christian Gronröos and relationship marketing, to the Medinge Group’s writings about humanizing branding, to Stefan Engeseth’s One—are summed up in the latter quotation.
   Part of the reason for President Barack Obama’s campaign’s success was his staff’s use of the service. It should be noted that since winning his election he has been an irregular Tweeter, which suggests to me a reduced desire to interact with the Twitter community, but only he really knows for sure. What is less arguable is that the President has a reasonable following-to-followers ratio: he is following 766,815 people, while 1,044,307 follow him.
   It means that if the President ever logs in to his account, he’ll see the latest updates of some of these 766,815. And if he does want a feel of the Zeitgeist, he can do that very easily. As Barack Obama is probably the most tech-savvy American president in history, this would be a good way for him to keep his finger on the pulse—and ignore any biases in opinion polls.
   One can compare this with the other extreme: actor–producer Ashton Kutcher. I recently saw that he had proclaimed himself ‘Mr Twitter,’ which is laughable, considering he doesn’t have a grasp of the service at all. Mr Kutcher follows 142 while he has 1,542,437 followers. If the internet is this great equalizer, one where there’s one-to-one or even one-becoming-one communication, then Kutcher fails terribly based on his ratio: he sees Twitter as a one-way service, another channel to broadcast without needing to hear back from his supporters.
   It’s his right, of course, and we all have our ways of using Twitter. I just don’t see his as being particularly fruitful for his personal brand, and I see the proclamation of ‘Mr Twitter’ particularly arrogant. That would be like my calling myself ‘Mr Branding’ just because I wrote and co-wrote a few books.
   There are in-between cases, such as actor Stephen Fry, who maintained a very healthy ratio before he gained more followers than he could handle in a very short space of time. Cases like that are totally forgiveable, in my book. I understand, though I have not known of his account for long, that Hugh Jackman found himself in a similar boat.
   And perhaps some of us are on information overload. For my first year on Twitter after I joined in April 2007, the only people I followed were those I met in the real world, because I didn’t need another thing to follow. After a while I opened myself up to reading more from others—it helps one feel connected to the dialogue on our planet, if that’s what one wants.
   So by this reckoning, how are others’ ratios? As of this Friday (this post was written around 1.30 p.m. GMT), we are looking at the below numbers for a few people I can think of. And with the exception of a few politicians, many in that field are doing a terrible job of listening to the people: I’m talking about Sens. John McCain and Claire McCaskill in particular. Politicians should be doing better than that.
   Gov. Sarah Palin’s account is still, from what I can tell, very new (started April 29, 2009), and I’m prepared to extend to her the same courtesy as I have to Stephen Fry and Hugh Jackman—for now.
   With an emphasis on American politicians, here’s how things are stacking up in terms of Twitter ratios. Does it say much about their egos or how much they wish to interact with the public, or does the ratio cease to mean much when we talk about the very well known?

This is a lovely tag-cloud from a service called Wordle, which takes blog feeds and rearranges them as a graphic in a variety of typefaces. The image, taken from Lucire’s ‘Insider’ feed as of yesterday, is licensed by Creative Commons, attributed to Wordle.