My extended answer is, “Of course. Why wouldn’t we?”

First, let me note that support for “competitive blogging” does not disallow non-competitive blogging. For instance, I personally will blog regardless of competition, blissfully unaffected by the Eddies or my Technorati ranking (mine is 68–big deal). The two can (and do) live side-by-side, because the web has dismantled the supply-and-demand barriers to self-publishing.

Having said that, even for myself informal competition affects my blogging in a positive way. The nature of any competition is to compare one subject to another and judge aspects of one to be superior. Informal competition is when I compare my blog post to better posts by colleagues, and am motivated to improve my writing or posting style–either to existing posts or to future drafts.

To this end, competitive blogging can encourage improvement and innovation in individual blogs. When I read Chris Lott’s blog posts on ChrisLott.org and especially Cosmopoetica, I’m reminded to reflect deeply before I publish, and to enhance my posts with appropriate media. His posts also exemplify good linking tactics. But Chris is probably not up for an EduBlog award, so why did I choose him? One, because his blogs are personal favorites of mine; they fit many of my own interests and (excepting politics) perspectives, and, two, to prove that moderately popular blogs can still thrive in niches.

Competitive blogging can reward and call attention to those who have put in extra effort or have best utilized their natural/developed talents. This may be an incentive to bloggers, but more importantly it’s deserved recognition that serves as a kind of justice.

Awards and recognition may help readers separate the milk from the cream, the chaff from the wheat, the cliches from the originals. I at least have no time to waste reading mediocre, let alone lousy, blogs. That’s why we read movie and book critics, right?

Models of good blogging encourage networking and promote diverse interactions, as the best bloggers frequently and astutely link to colleagues, neighbors, and even critics.

Even if you dispute the “authority” of traditional institutions, it’s hard to dispute the popular authority garnered by folksonomies or democratic measures such as the nomination/voting process used by edublog awards. Sure, not all blogging awards do this, but most consider public opinion in addition to the more objective criteria found in their rubrics. Technorati uses a number of more sophisticated, Googlistic measures, and we could apply some of these (and more!) to automate different measures of “significance”; for example, relevant interlinking, significant comments, conversion rates, etc can come into play for authority ranking as well.

I end by asking, “Why not?” but it’s not a rhetorical question. I submit that if you disapprove of the awards or authoritative ranking systems, ignore them. If you don’t care about competition don’t engage. Those of us who find consistent, authentic value in competition will utilize it to our advantage. But if someday you’re devastated that didn’t get an award for your blog, don’t complain to those who chose to play.

creepy treehouse

see also creepy treehouse effect

n. A place, physical or virtual (e.g. online), built by adults with the intention of luring in kids.

Example: “Kids … can see a [creepy treehouse] a mile away and generally do a good job in avoiding them.” John Krutsch in Are You Building a Creepy Treehouse?”

n. Any institutionally-created, operated, or controlled environment in which participants are lured in either by mimicking pre-existing open or naturally formed environments, or by force, through a system of punishments or rewards.

Such institutional environments are often seen as more artificial in their construction and usage, and typically compete with pre-existing systems, environments, or applications. creepy treehouses also have an aspect of closed-ness, where activity within is hidden from the outside world, and may not be easily transferred from the environment by the participants.

n. Any system or environment that repulses a target user due to it’s closeness to or representation of an oppressive or overbearing institution.

n. A situation in which an authority figure or an institutional power forces those below him/her into social or quasi-social situations.

With respect to education, Utah Valley University student Tyrel Kelsey describes, “creepy treehouse is what a professor can create by requiring his students to interact with him on a medium other than the class room tools. [E.g.] requiring students to follow him/her on peer networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook.”

adj. Repulsiveness arising from institutional mimicry or emulation of pre-existing community-driven environments or systems.

Example: “Blackboard Sync is soooo creepy treehouse.” Marc Hugentobler

In the field of educational technology a creepy treehouse is an institutionally controlled technology/tool that emulates or mimics pre-existing technologies or tools that may already be in use by the learners, or by learners’ peer groups. Though such systems may be seen as innovative or problem-solving to the institution, they may repulse some users who see them as infringement on the sanctity of their peer groups, or as having the potential for institutional violations of their privacy, liberty, ownership, or creativity. Some users may simply object to the influence of the institution.

I’ve been observing this phenomena increasingly, as instructors push down hot Web 2.0 technologies, while students push back with vocal objections or passive resistance. I call this the creepy treehouse effect.

More directly, any move to integrate or aggregate new institutional tools or systems with pre-existing tools or systems already embraced by the community may be seen as creepy treehouse, in as much as it may be construed as institutional infringement upon the social or professional community of it’s participants.

For example, the Blackboard family of learning management system products are often seen as creepy treehouses, as they provide e-learning tools in a very rigid, closed environment that is institutionally controlled in an attempt to “engage” students through technological novelty or mimicry of existing Web-based tools for social engagement. Increasingly, learning management systems are incorporating what educators assess as being potentially valuable learning tools such as blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, instant messaging, etc., not recognizing that these tools may be seen as artificial, meaningless, tiresome, temporary, or simply another aspect of The Man by the institution’s target participant group: the students.

At the same time, other LMS tools that are more exclusively related to the traditional activity of teaching (e.g. gradebooks, online quizzing, material posting, etc) are not viewed as inherently creepy treehouse. Tyrel Kelsey suggests:

Students reject creepy treehouses for one reason: they are creepy. I think a better approach to education is the idea of a Personal Learning Environment (PLE) … which [students] can invite the professor into when they feel comfortable doing so.

In Students should build their own tree house

Creepy treehouses are not limited to the realm of education or educational technology. In the computer software environment, for instance, Microsoft Office Live is likely to be judged as creepy treehouse relative to Google Docs & Spreadsheets and Zoho, not due entirely to it’s competitiveness or the relative similarities of the products, but more to the origination of the software: Microsoft is often seen as a controlling, soulless, self-centered institution, whereas Zoho and Google are seen as not only preceding Microsoft Live, but also open, user-centered, community-driven, or alternative.

Opinions in the community as to the creepy treehouse-ness of a given system or environment may vary greatly due to the subjectiveness of individual experiences. I expect that newly introduced tools, systems, or environments are more likely to be suspect and labeled “creepy treehouse”, though over time such systems may prove to have more salient long-term value to the community than anticipated.

]]> http://flexknowlogy.learningfield.org/2008/04/09/defining-creepy-tree-house/feed/ 73