Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Jennie Lynn Rudder
Jennie Lynn's posts

Post has attachment

Post has shared content
I'd been wondering what was up...
New Klout scores are out and they still screw up real-world influence has a list of technology VIPs and their +Klout scores. All the scores changed today in order to better reflect offline influence. So Bill Gates moved up the list. 

But things are still pretty wacky.

My score of 86, for instance, still puts me ahead of lots of people. Here's just a small portion of the more deserving people of high Klout scores that are on that list:

+Jimmy Wales invented Wikipedia, but he only has 85.
+Steve Case came up with AOL and he's only 85.
+jack dorsey invented Twitter and runs +Square but he only has 85.
+Marissa Mayer runs Yahoo and gets paid tens of millions, yet she only has a score of 84.
+Kevin Rose has invested in half a dozen huge winners (me, none) and he has 84.
+Joichi Ito is the director of MIT's Media Lab and only has 84.
+Steve Wozniak cofounded Apple and only has 83.
+michael arrington started and sold Techcrunch. Me? I only linked to it. He only has 82.
+Matt Mullenweg started Automattic, the company that makes Wordpress, yet only has 81.
+Chris Anderson runs TED, which gets more views than my videos do, and he only has 81.
+Reid Hoffman started LinkedIn and he only has 81.
+Marc Benioff started and runs and he only has 81.
+Eric Schmidt ran Google for years, still is on its board, and he only has 81.
+David Sacks started Yammer and sold it to Microsoft for a billion dollars and he only has 80.
+Loic Le Meur started LeWeb, the most influential tech conference in Europe and he only has 79.
+John Doerr is one of the top VCs alive (invested in Google) and he has a score of only 78.
+Philip Schiller is a VP at Apple and only has 77.
+Chad Hurley started YouTube and only has 76.
+Tim Berners-Lee invented the Web and only has 73.
+Fred Davis started Wired Magazine and only has 72.

Shall I go on? There are lots of examples on this list of people who should have a higher real-world score than me, but that don't.

So, should we take Klout seriously?

Now, on the other side of the fence, I will defend Klout. If you are measuring online popularity AND activity AND ability to get other people to engage, ala click +1 on a post, then I guess I deserve to be higher than most, but what good is measuring just that? 

That said, if you compare someone with a score of, say, 60 or more, with someone with a score of 20 or less, you can see a HUGE difference in quality of content and engagement and influence and all that. So, there is some value when you compare the high end of the scale with the low end. But the numbers are just funny money in my book.

On the other hand, my number is 86 and that's pretty damn cool to my  overinflated ego. :-) All that means is my wife is gonna make me change more diapers and clean more dishes tonight. Sigh.

UPDATE: Klout CEO +Joe Fernandez commented and responded to this below in the comments.

Post has shared content

Post has attachment
I have been hankering for a MailChimp t-shirt for almost a year now...once they hit 1,000,000 newsletter subscribers they will give away 10,000 t-shirts, 2,000 hats, and 1,000 plushies. So fun!

MailChimp's a local Atlanta company (who I use for marketing e-mails) and awesome because they're free (you can pay to upgrade certain things), have a great UI, and are super-duper helpful if you ever need it...oh, and they also have well-designed templates and GREAT downloadable PDFs for things like "Common Rookie Mistakes" ( and "MailChimp for Designers."

At the moment, they have 998,179 subscribers to their newsletter. I'd recommend subscribing anyway, but if you do it now, there's a good chance you could snag some cool swag, too. Check em out if you have a minute...

Post has shared content

Post has attachment
Scrapbook Photos

Post has shared content
UGA is thinking about razing Rutherford Hall and building a new dorm in its place.

You can head straight over to sign the petition here:

Or, if you're interested, here are my thoughts on why this idea is, at best, misguided...

First of all, I'm not totally clear on how ($75,740 x 260) could be less than ($63,184 x 140), so Mike Adams' statement that "it would be more cost-effective for the university to raze the structure and build a larger dormitory" (quoting "Students Organize..." article that paraphrases his quote) is specious...

$19.7M is NOT less than $8.85M.

The additional 120 beds (net gain: 110 beds) increases the price tag $10,850,000. That's $90,417 per/new bed.

Remember that the cost of demolishing and building from scratch was approx $75,740 per/bed. This means that building somewhere that doesn't require tearing out one of South Campus' few historic buildings would likely also cost around $75,740 per/bed.
(for reference, Rutherford beds currently rent for approx $2000 per/semester (fall + spring) in a double-occupancy room)

Seriously, a difference of 120 rooms (net gain: 110) at an additional cost of $10.85M + losing a historic and much-beloved building + losing one of the few remaining small-dorm housing options in the heart of campus (Myers Quadrangle = cool)...irresponsible.

And if I hear one more time about "increased energy efficiency" as justification to demolish a building and construct a new one, I'll scream.

(and yes, every time UGA mentions Rutherford they say something about the "new, more energy-efficient building," as though operating efficiency were more than a tiny fraction of the total energy costs involve in the life-cycle of a building)

Think "cradle-to-cradle," meaning: energy "costs" are much, much more than just the numbers on your monthly power bill. There is a tremendous sunk cost in any construction project long before it opens for operation, and “The greenest building is the one that is already built.”

Consider the costs of construction such as:
-oil for materials manufacturing and transport;
-resources (embedded energy) lost by sending chunks of the existing (livable!) building to a landfill;
-resources consumed in construction of new building;
-energy consumed demolishing and transporting existing building scraps away;
-energy consumed sorting and recycling anything they opt to repurpose from the existing building;
...and I could go on and on about the costs in terms of coal, water, carbon emissions, etc. which are all SUBSTANTIALLY higher in demolish-and-rebuild vs. reuse-and-adapt, but I think you get the point.

And while buildings constructed in 1939 may have issues with asbestos and need to be updated (if it's not already clear: I totally support rehabilitation and DON'T think we should just keep Rutherford as-is), they are often more energy-efficient than we'd expect. Built in the deep south prior to the widespread adoption of air-conditioning, Rutherford's design necessarily utilizes once-standard passive energy-saving techniques that architects now tend to only consider for high-end and LEED-eligible buildings. Deep-set windows, an orientation to minimize solar gain, etc.

And, let's face it: South Campus needs to keep whatever historic buildings it has if it wants to ever feel like "campus." The open-space redesign in recent years has been a great start! Let's build on what we've temporarily inherited and make it better for future generations of students. No need to scrap it and start anew.

See also:

Post has shared content
Inspired by +Jonathan Terleski's recent post, I'm sharing with you the "Zen Stress Chart", which I like to think about sometimes:

(JT's post: )

Post has shared content
Today we rolled out the ability to edit the name of your album from G+

Go to Photos > My Albums > Album and click the title to edit.

This was the most requested photos feature since launch. We're listening to your feedback.

Post has shared content
Now have 27 circles. Topics, locations, big circles, and small circles.
Wait while more posts are being loaded