It's time for the semi-annual Facebook profile redesign. Unlike previous changes, we've known about this one for a while, but that doesn't make change any easier, does it? One complainant argued that the design looks too much like MySpace and that they hate it. That seems a bit extreme and I'll reserve the M-word comparison for when Facebook starts allowing any schmuck with a keyboard to kill the website design with gaudy backgrounds, unreadable fonts, and auto-playing Flash videos. Even with this drastic change, Facebook isn't opening the flood gates to the visual train wreck that was the hey day of MySpace.

On to the impressions! First off, reading through a Timeline-enabled profile can be tricky at first. Although everything is chronological, stories are deposited in alternating fashion into two columns on either side of the titular feature of the redesign. Each story has a little connection pointing to the dividing line that provides a frame of reference relative to the surrounding stories. Once the eyes adjust to scanning down the timeline and jumping from side-to-side to see relevant posts, it's not so difficult to follow.

Cover photos is the natural evolution of the featured photos from the last redesign. Many people used the bar of recent photos featured at the top of the profile to create some cool effects. However, it also became a venue for pranksters to spell PENIS or create other unsavory composite images by appropriately tagging their friends in multiple photos that create a whole. Putting ultimate control over the banner image for a profile into the profile owner's hands is the natural evolution to support the people who wanted more space to express themselves than a profile photo alone provides, while also allowing us to relax (slightly) when our more mischievous friends start tagging pictures.

One last thing about cover photos. When you click the button to select a photo, Facebook displays the following message:

The prohibition on copyright-infringing content is normal and hopefully just a reminder to people who otherwise might not think of such things. The prohibition on advertising is a little less justified and the idea that you shouldn't copy from other people's covers is simply overreaching. While they may have some acceptable reason for wanting to deter cover copying, if there's no legal issue (ie: copyright infringement) involved in the act copying someone's cover photo, I don't see any good reasons for prohibiting this act. It might be worth taking a look into the Facebook Terms of Service to see if they've added similar language related to this silly "don't copy other users" mandate.

Scrolling through past events is nifty. It's both wonderful and strange to go back in time and see things from five or six years ago. In a way, this will allow us early adopters from the (then) college-aged crowd to more easily reminisce about the days of a college-only walled garden. For example, I just found the first time that someone posted on my wall, all the way back in August, 2005. Some people may find this level of access creepy, but I think it's amazing that Facebook has found a way to organize all of this information in way that can be more easily accessed. Besides, it's not like any of this old stuff wasn't already available to someone with enough patience. Yes, it may make it easier for your potential boss to find those drunken photos from sophomore year of college, but if you hadn't already restricted access and removed tags, then I'm sure you can go back to not caring after the initial indignation from being reminded about past follies wears off.

Final thoughts on the first impressions: Overall this is a good redesign, if you can even call it a redesign. This is an attempt to change how Facebook is used, not just how its information is displayed. The visual design is a little cluttered, but after a brief adjustment I find it easier to read than the old list of posts and status messages. Profile navigation is definitely improved, although adjusting may require a slight learning curve. The more I explore with Timeline, the more I find to look.

First impression: Good job, Facebook!

If you use Google Reader to aggregate news feeds and you browse with Firefox, Chrome, or Safari, you owe it to yourself to try Feedly. It's great. But enough about the web app, I want to talk about their iPhone app and why it has replaced all other RSS reader apps on my iPhone (also available for Android).

The news reader app space, especially apps that can synchronize with a Google Reader account, is not sparse. Several apps hold the top spots, including Reeder, Byline, and NetNewsWire. If you ask someone to recommend an app for reading news feeds, there's a very high probability that one of these three will be what you're offered. Before proceeding, I haven't used NetNewsWire, so I'll refrain from dissing it. However, I have used the free version of Byline for several months and briefly used the full version of Reeder.

So with so many good and well respected options in this area, including one that I've already paid for, why would I emphatically switch to a relative newcomer?

First, Feedly understands design. This app is beautiful. Just like with their web application, the iPhone version of the application provides a clean, well designed interface. Despite a minimalistic aesthetic, there are clear lines that make skimming headlines a breeze. Each "section" in the application has a "front page" that highlights a recommended article from your sources, while subsequent pages display four headlines each, along with an accompanying image (if available). Dividing headlines into pages instead of a continuous list may not sit well with all users, but it provides a very structured, easy to read layout that I find much preferable to the never-ending list with one headline always halfway off the screen. The transitions between pages and when loading articles are smooth, even on my old iPhone 3G. In short, the app looks great without severely taxing your phone's resources.

Second, the gestures used within the app are by far the best implementation I've seen in any news app on the iPhone. Moving between pages? Swipe left or right. Mark an article read? Tap to the right of the headline. Save the article? Tap to the left of the headline. Mark a whole page read? Swipe down. Want the page unread? Swipe up. These gestures are intuitive, and while most apps have something similar, the combination of design and gestures just works better with Feedly.

Of course, not everything is roses. As a relatively new player on the mobile app scene, Feedly is missing many features that the more established offerings provide. While the navigation gestures are exceptional, if you are reading an article, there is no gesture to move to the next article. Something simple like swiping left or right to move to another article (as done by Byline) would be perfect. Several configuration options are missing. I couldn't find a way to rotate the screen, which is normally the only way to get a decent view of images. However, Feedly does address this shortcoming somewhat by having an excellent "touch to zoom" feature for images. After connecting the app to my Instapaper account, I could no longer use Google Reader's built in Saved Articles feature. Actually, the app seems to randomly switch between using Google Reader's Saved Articles and Instapaper, so mark that down as a bug. There's no way to configure the number of articles that will be synced and there's no caching for offline reading (potentially a major drawback for some users). For the first few days, the session connecting Feedly to Google Reader would expire every few hours and require a new login.

Despite all of these shortcomings, Feedly for iPhone has replaced my other news readers. I got it for free during a promotion last week, but is it worth the $5 regular price? Reeder and Byline are $2.99, NetNewsWire is $4.99, and the latter two have ad-supported free versions. Right now, I could fully understand not wanting to spend the money when cheaper alternatives are available, especially with several competitive features missing. I can't wholeheartedly recommend the app due to incompleteness relative to other offerings, but it's simply the best news experience I've had on my iPhone within its current limits. I expect great things from Feedly in the near future and expect the app to become directly competitive on a feature-by-feature basis very soon. When that time comes, I might consider $4.99 undervalued.

UPDATE: This is what I get for not checking the iTunes store before clicking the "Send" button. It appears that Feedly is still free as of this writing. Thanks to @blakedanner for pointing this out. To restate an earlier question, is it worth its current price in the App Store? Definitely. There's no reason not to try Feedly while it's free, and soon I think it will be worth much more.

If you've spent much time on YouTube, you've no doubt seen the many "unofficial" music videos uploaded by fans of their favorite artists. Sometimes these videos have the lyrics of the song or photos of the artist. Sometimes they are the actual music video, only uploaded by a fan instead of the artist or a record company. You may have also noticed many of these videos being removed after the copyright holder complains that the videos infringe their rights.

That experience has led me to keep Jimmy Eat World and their music close throughout the years, even when I thought they had gone slightly off track. Clarity was pretty good, and Futures was amazing. I didn't really care for Chase This Light (their last studio album). I knew I would like Bleed American and Futures from hearing one single, but even after multiple listens through Chase This Light I just couldn't bring myself around to like the entire thing. I'm listening to it right now and it still seems weak compared to what came before.

The recent release of iTunes 10 has generated notable discussion, from the new Ping social network to the questioning of colors and button placement. However, there is one "issue" I've had with iTunes for years. It may not be a bug, but it's something that has puzzled me across multiple versions. What does the "Add Folder to Library" option in the File menu do?

Anyway, with the spiel out of the way, I've noticed a particular trend on the Avenue. Certain influencers (the Empire Avenue term for members) make very large gains in share price during their first day or so, despite contributing very little in the way of activity and I think I know why. This is not a typical scenario where a new member joins a site, is active for a few days, and then drops off the face of the planet. These accounts start with no real activity, skyrocket, then plummet because they still have no activity. So what is behind this? Boobs. The real trend here is that any profile photo that shows cleavage will almost always gain several eaves (that's the virtual currency) worth of value during the influencer's first day or two on the site.

This isn't particularly surprising, as similar behavior happens on other social networks. As this hilarious spoof explains, no one really needs Facebook privacy controls more than hot chicks. (Gizmodo opined: "Nobody is Facebook stalking you, nerdy guys. It's just the way it is.") And if you can remember back to that brief period when MySpace ruled the online social sector, it was not uncommon for women to restrict access to their profiles to keep the creeps at bay.

What makes Empire Avenue different is that wisely choosing investments can return dividends to your own account. Literally, you get paid dividends in virtual currency when the people you invest in are active. These accounts with enticing photos but no content are not wise long term investments because the dividends will never be large and the initial gains will soon evaporate. However, if you catch one of these accounts immediately after it is created and still hovers at the $10 mark, by all means buy up to the limit, since there will probably be anywhere from 10%-30% gains in the first day. Just don't forget that this is a high-risk, short-term investment and unless they pick up the activity by day two, you should probably take your money and run.

In summary, riding the trend can be good for short term gains, but realize those gains won't last long and you have to act fast before the window to sell slams shut on your fingers.

In other Gmail news, the Google Voice integration has worked well. I've heard others complain of dropped calls and various annoyances, but my experience so far has been great. AT&T often drops my connection two or three times over a period of one to two hours when I try to use a mobile phone inside the walls of my apartment (even next to a "wall" that is really nothing but floor high windows), but using Google Voice through the browser interface has been superb on connection stability. The sound quality isn't quite up to par with a real phone, but it's definitely comparable to other free VOIP products like Skype or Ekiga. Now, if only they would release a desktop client based on that Gizmo5 code so I don't have to keep a browser window open just to complete a call. Based on Google's recent attitude that "everything is better as a web app" we may never see such a desktop client, but I can always hope.

Not that all commenting systems are bad, or that they do not serve a purpose in building a community or providing feedback to an author. There are very specific trends with commenting that I dislike. First among this trends, is the tried and true "let us know in the comments" method of wrapping up every post. On a personal blog, I consider this a plea for attention, a way for the author to declare to the Internet that they need you to acknowledge their existence by providing a response. When I see similar requests closing out posts from sites that wish to convey some level of authority, I become slightly worried. Why does a prominent blog on social media feel the need to consistently ask for comments? Do the authors on a highly trafficked web site really feel the need to point out their commenting system and ask what we think? First, I find the request unnecessary, since the concept of commenting on posts has become ubiquitous in recent years, as evidenced by the ability to comment on virtually any content posted to Facebook. In short, commenting is so common that users expect the feature and don't need a reminder. Second, ending almost every post with a request for comments is a trite way to replace what should be a conclusion. I won't hold it against anyone for using this line occasionally, but when I see allegedly good writers with a large audience including this on almost everything they write, I question both their writing ability and the sincerity of their interest in my opinion. Save the requests for comments for things that are actually important or that you really want to hear about. And find a better way to end your posts.

My second pet peeve comes not from blogs, but from traditional news sources masquerading as blogs. There is nothing bad about using a blogging system to run a traditional news source's website, since a blogging platform allows easy online publishing. Blogging systems are a natural fit for news generating organizations and it would be ridiculous to expect these organizations to overlook technology that can make their jobs simpler. However, I always wonder why a sites like CNN or the New York Times allow comments on their articles. I'm not referring to editorials and opinion pieces, but the content allegedly written by professional trained journalists, even syndicated pieces. Why do I, a reader looking for the most recent and up-to-date information, care what some random person I've never met thinks about this given story? I don't, and I doubt you do either. I read these sites for news, not to see what other readers think. The previously mentioned sources aren't the only ones that allow this, either. Almost all of the major news organizations, from the major television networks to the major newspapers, allow almost anyone to post whatever comes to mind. These articles are allegedly professional content from people who earn their living by digging up information and presenting it to the masses. Treat the content as such and don't allow the ramblings of nut jobs and trolls to pollute these pages. If someone really wants to air a grievance with the news organization, they can send an email, or start their own blog or website where they can post as much and as often as they wish. This way those of us simply looking for the latest news don't see the digital eyesore that these comment threads often become. Or simply make comments a separate page, so that I don't have to see the drivel unless I specifically click through.

Comments are not a sounding board. If you want to spout off random crap, go create your own blog or website. Comments are meant to increase community by letting readers share with authors, and allow authors to respond to readers in a public forum. And that's the way they are often used by "new media" blogs, when they don't insincerely request our opinion on every trivial item they post. Traditional media do not provide a community, and I do not understand why anyone cares what other random Internet users think of the news. If I want to know your opinion, I probably know you personally and will ask you myself.