Sites like Flickr are a great way to share our photos and creations with the world. When we upload our photos we are allowed to tag them with whatever words we feel like so that people will be able to find them when they type the tags into the search bar. However, is this system always accurate and more to the point, what does it say about people online?
If two people uploaded a picture of the same car, but tagged it differently it would respond to different searches. For example, one person might know alot about cars and tag the photo as the exact model and specific details. But, the other person might just tag it as a "red car". If someone searches for a particular model, that car would not come up because of it's tagging.
So, how does the tagging represent a person online?
People who know what they're talking about will tag a photo specifically and type in the specific words when they want to find something. However, if you're just a normal browser then it won't matter to you what type of thing you're looking for as long as it includes the tags that you have selected. The different tags that people use show how much they know about a certain subject and how they want their items to be viewed. Other users who have the same ideas of how things should be tagged will find their content much easier than those who don't.
Furthermore, those who upload the same types of content show what their main interests are. Using the above example, if someone uploads loads of pictures of cars, then it is obvious that it is what they are interested in sharing and finding. This also allows them to be targeted by people/companies who are involved with cars themselves, especially if they are doing a search on a search engine like google which scans your keywords to bring you adverts. Therefore, tagging can determine our online identity because it can lead us to adverts that are specifically tailored for us. It allows companies to target us through our tag searches so that they gain a specific audience that they know will be interested in their products/services.
Sunday 27 March 2011
Wednesday 2 March 2011
Does immersion mean that games become more real when we play them?
Video games are easy to get addicted to. When we play them we become so in touch with the characters and story lines or missions that we forget about our everyday lives. We become attuned to the problems that our character is facing and they become our priority.
When playing a first person game such as Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (KOTOR) you get to customize your character and it becomes the spawn of you. Throughout the game you complete the missions of that person. Also, because of the nature of Star Wars you can decide whether to enter the dark or light side of the force. In short, you become the character that you have created as you decide everything from the speech to their fighting style. When you become this close to the action does it allow you to become attached? Do we enter cyberspace?
In a third player game, where you control from a far away position and switch between characters, does it still have the same effect? In the case of something like The Sims, I would say it does. As with KOTOR, you can customize them to look how you want and chose their characteristics but they cannot be completely controlled. If you use the 'free will' setting then they'll do whatever they want to whilst you watch over them. So, even though we cannot completely control their destiny, it is still something to get immersed in- but why?
I think that video games are so easy to get immersed in because they represent lives that many of us would like to have. The younger audience that play them are more likely to get addicted because they'd like to be super heroes or drive fast cars and catch the bad guys. Games allow us to enter a place where our real life problems are put to one side as we look out for an avatar that isn't and will never be, real.
When playing a first person game such as Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (KOTOR) you get to customize your character and it becomes the spawn of you. Throughout the game you complete the missions of that person. Also, because of the nature of Star Wars you can decide whether to enter the dark or light side of the force. In short, you become the character that you have created as you decide everything from the speech to their fighting style. When you become this close to the action does it allow you to become attached? Do we enter cyberspace?
In a third player game, where you control from a far away position and switch between characters, does it still have the same effect? In the case of something like The Sims, I would say it does. As with KOTOR, you can customize them to look how you want and chose their characteristics but they cannot be completely controlled. If you use the 'free will' setting then they'll do whatever they want to whilst you watch over them. So, even though we cannot completely control their destiny, it is still something to get immersed in- but why?
I think that video games are so easy to get immersed in because they represent lives that many of us would like to have. The younger audience that play them are more likely to get addicted because they'd like to be super heroes or drive fast cars and catch the bad guys. Games allow us to enter a place where our real life problems are put to one side as we look out for an avatar that isn't and will never be, real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)