I have noticed a trend present in the comments section of blog postings across the blogosphere. Blog commenters spend a great deal of time discussing what is NOT said, instead of constructively evaluating what IS said. Based on the paradigm shift that Web 2.0 blogs have on the typical reader/writer roles, the reader gets the chance to be the writer when he/she makes comments on an article, thus the original writer becomes a reader of these comments. This allows the reader to publicly inject opinion into the original author’s work, a task that comes with a burdening responsibility to maintain the agenda and flow of the article.
The reader is basically changing contextual details of the content in a way that alters the direction of the content for other readers. The reader/commenter must be aware of their core responsibility to maintain article relevance, focusing first on comprehending what IS written before getting excessively outspoken about has NOT yet been addressed. It is human nature even in spoken conversation to interject with alternative theories before the speaker has a chance to rest the point. As with spoken conversation, sometimes a reader doesn’t even attempt to relate to the writer’s point of view, but instead funnels the information through his/her own life experiences… thus completely missing the writer’s objective.
Certainly there are times when it is important for the reader to interject with alternative information, specifically if he/she feels that the writer is misrepresenting fact or deliberately ignoring crucial details in order to derive a false conclusion. But it seems to me that quite often supplementary information in blog comments stray away from the writer’s key objective. Before one introduces supplementary content into the work of another, two questions should be asked: Is this added content relevant to what is already written? Is the content I am adding purposely excluded from the original article for a creditable reason?
I installed the Google Toolbar last month on one of my machines and didn’t realize that Google’s Web History was activated by default. Angel and I had fun (or not) looking through some of the search queries I made over this month-long period. I had a tough time explaining the motivation behind a few of them. 😉 Some were a little scary and others were downright hilarious, but one point became clear: If you’re not careful, Google will know every move you make on the web… the good, the bad, and the ugly.
There is certainly no need for a lengthy introduction to this post. We all know that Google has some extremely useful shortcuts and 
that you enjoy can be a truly rewarding experience. Most of us have a modest selection of artists that we love to listen to on a regular basis. But what happens when you yearn for a new set of tunes? Where can you search for different artists and bands with a similar sound to the ones you already listen to?
Since most terrestrial radio stations these days play the same forty songs in a continuous loop, finding new music you actually enjoy may seem like a daunting task. But never fear, because while terrestrial radio stations provide a lack of choice, creative minds across the Internet have set up online services specifically designed to assist their users in finding new music that they will enjoy. While each music service differs in design, the ultimate goal remains the same, matching the bands and artists you already like to other artists with a similar sound and message. Some of these services will even stream full songs to your computer speakers allowing you to instantly preview the different artists while you browse through the suggested options.