Is reading online making us more prone to reading shorter and shorter articles and pieces of writing? I wonder sometimes, at least from my own personal experience.

The Economist (“Reading online: Words, words, words“) has an excellent column on LongReads.com, including its Twitter hashtag origins, and what a long read is (“Mr Armstrong defines a long read as between 1,500 and 30,000 words. Any shorter and it is an article; any longer, and you might as well call it a book.”)

With so many things to potentially read online, websites which do a good job of picking out the interesting from all the rest have a lot of value. So how does LongReads work?

“Curation is key, says Mr Armstrong, at least as customers go. Longreads is an attempt to fish out nuggets of literary genius from the preponderance of online dross. These need not be and, indeed, typically aren’t the most popular stories. Suggestions, some coming from followers tweeting the #longreads tag, are posted on its website, as well as on Twitter, Facebook and in e-mail newsletters. Longreads also automatically constructs a user page on its site for any Twitter user (identified by an @tag) who employes the #longreads tag.”

The Economist mentions some of the dollars and sense behind online reading, reading services, and what kind of impact it might mean for publishers of that online reading content.

And while we’re on the subject, Instapaper and Read It Later are absolutely essential websites/apps in terms of keeping organized with your online reading.

Just for fun, check out Newsweek’s “31 Ways to Get Smarter in 2012.” You can find the complete list of 31 brain-building pointers (I probably would have cut the list down to 20 … but at least there’s something for everyone) at The Daily Beast here.

Some of them (#5: Toss your smartphone; #8: Go to a Literary Festival) are quite worth adding to the New Year’s Resolution List.

For what it’s worth, here are my personal favorites: #18: See a Shakespeare Play; #24: Write by Hand and #27: Drink Coffee

Interesting observations from craigmod, “The iPad screen is not your desktop screen” on the reading experience seen through the iPad screen: “if the iPad’s screen uses the same technology as our desktop screens, how can it possibly be more comfortable for reading?”

We’ve talked about this previously (see also: Thoughts on the iPad and Eyestrain), but the line of thinking here is — yes, they are both backlit screens, but reading on the iPad is different. Why? Per craigmod –

“I think there are five reasons why we’ve never enjoyed reading books on our computers:

• The distance between reader and the text is too large
• Vertical orientation is unnatural for book consumption
• Using a mouse to manipulate position in a book is sterile
• Computer screens aren’t technically optimized for text
• Desktop OSes aren’t optimized for concentration”

When it comes down to jotting down writing notes and ideas, I prefer analog. I’m very fond of my Moleskine and pencil, and nothing is threatening to replace that anytime soon, or ever.

But sometimes, the iPhone does have its advantages over the analog method.

And thanks to all of that texting and emailing practice, I’ll admit the iPhone makes for a pretty handy alternate for pencil and paper. Sometimes.

I’d often resort to sending myself emails or using Google Docs mobile, or EverNote, or the Notes app. But none of those options are all that satisfying for one reason or another.

Writing apps don’t need to be anything fancy. In fact, simpler is better. It just needs to be easy to use, and work well. Some basic formatting would be nice. Syncing would be a must (“it’s in the cloud!!!”), so you can work wherever you go with minimal hassle. Plus, lots of other multi-purpose apps function perfectly well as writing apps in a pinch.

eBookNewser (“Best iPhone Apps for Writing“) has a nice list to get you started. Personally, I like WriteRoom best out of that bunch but that’s merely a matter of personal preference.

Another useful list, courtesy of Freelance Folder: “The Great Big (30+) List of iPhone Apps for Writers.”

My Writing Spot is worth taking a look at.

I still haven’t found the perfect writing app. Do you know one? Let me know, please!

Is Google planning a social reading network? Perhaps. Rumors and conjecture are the next best thing to actual information, right?

There is some intriguing information about a new Google social reading platform AllThingsD: “It’s Called Google Propeller and It’s Aimed at Flipboard (and Facebook, Too, Natch)”

“I heard from someone working with Google that Google is working on a Flipboard competitor for both Android and iPad,” posted Scoble. “My source says that the versions he’s seen so far are mind-blowing good.”

Sources said Propeller is apparently one of a number of new socially focused announcements Google is prepping, including new apps. But the timing for their launch is unclear.

Here’s what is: Propeller is a souped-up version of similar reader apps such as Flipboard,AOL’s Editions, Yahoo’s Livestand, Zite (which was just bought by Time Warner’s CNN) and Pulse.

Facebook is also making social versions of publications available within its site. So, instead of just seeing a sidebar on a news site of what stories your friends liked, you’ll get a personalized and reformatted version of the latest news when you visit that publication’s page within Facebook.”

Flipboard is an exceptionally good app, both in overall design aesthetic and its intelligent approach to social content. Naturally, speculation centers around questions such as, “Can Google’s Upcoming Social Reading App Compete With Flipboard?” It probably can, yes.  It remains to be seen exactly how Google will leverage its massive user base, and what connection it might have to other services (Google+, etc.?) –

“Google reportedly tried to acquire Flipboard last year, but was unsuccessful in its bid and then went on to start building its own competing app. If nothing else, this signifies how the popularity of socially-fueled tablet reading apps are changing how people consume content, something of which Google obviously wants to be at the forefront.

If tablet sales continue to explode, the way people consume at least some of the content on the Internet is going to shift, at least in part, toward this personalized, socially-fueled model.” 

This is all well and good. Although, I do wonder — if people are only reading what other people like them are reading, is this an inherently healthy thing for we all find information? Think about the front page of a newspaper. We’re confronted with many stores, some of which we wouldn’t actively seek out, but once we see it, we become informed. Social reading represents a shift of content curation — from news editors, who set the reading agenda, from a more reader-centric approach. Not that two are mutually exclusive, by any means.

More thoughts, “Google Will Enter Social Reading Apps with Propeller”

“The beauty of curated content is its stickiness to the user. The user has pre-selected the curator as a trusted source of information and so the magazine is then much more likely to be what the user wants to read, which creates much more exposure of the ads. Google Propeller might be very well done, because there is much more data about preferences than what its competitors can provide. The competitors are limited to certain databases of preferences, whereas Google can draw upon those same data sets and behaviors in Google Reader, Chrome and searches.” 

Some thoughts on the strangeness of film criticism, courtesy of The New Yorker, “Redeeming Criticism”  –

“The essence of criticism is disproportion: a director or a novelist may spend years on a film or a book, and the critic dispatches it in a few hours or a few days. The result is an essential indecency; criticism is a practice in need of redemption by its practitioners …Critics raise the practice from the parasitical by entering the field with artists, albeit metaphorically—by seeking the point of view of the artist.”

None of this is of course covering new territory that Oscar Wilde hasn’t already navigated for us, but it never hurts to stop and reflect on the purpose of an(y) act of criticism — the usual sorts of questions of objectivity vs. subjectivity apply here:

“These writers’ presumption to expertise in matters of technique and form actually reveals the opposite of the magisterial objectivity to which they lay claim: they’re thinking about their reactions to a movie rather than thinking about the movie. There’s no such thing as “bad acting” or “sloppy blocking” or “bad lines”; none of these aspects of a film exist apart from the ideas and emotions, the world view, of the filmmaker.”

Perhaps what sometimes irks us in a particular work of criticism is the presumption of objectivity –

“Most critics, myself included, lapse into the shoddy shorthand of our own pleasures when we feel constrained in space or time … The goal isn’t a more collegial sort of criticism—getting to an artist’s world view or inspiration doesn’t mean approving of it—or, for that matter, a less passionate one, but, rather, one that reflects the critic’s position and the responsibility that it entails, toward the film and toward oneself as a critic.” 

Per Discovery Channel (“T-REX BONE + DIAMONDS = ONE EXPENSIVE IPAD“), and presented without further need for comment:

“the world’s most expensive custom iPad 2 contains bits of T-Rex thigh bone shaved into its Ammolite frame. The Canadian-sourced stone is over 75-million years old, making it the oldest in the world. The rest of the iPad is encased in 24-carat gold, has an inlaid 8.5-carat flawless diamond set in platinum with 12 gems surrounding it. The home button is crafted with 65 diamonds and 53 separate gems forming the Apple logo, totaling up to about $8 million”

Visit the official website for a closer look at what 5000 years from now is surely going to end up in museums as future generations try to pinpoint exactly when civilization reached its true apex: “iPad 2 Gold History Edition“

To follow up on our recent look at iPhone writing apps, I decided to spend some time putting together a list of favorite iPad writing apps. While it’s hard to argue that an iPad is a proper replacement for a laptop or computer, sometimes it does make a handy writing tool. And the right app makes all of the difference in the world.

Gizmodo (“Information Architects’ Writer, or Building the Perfect iPad App“) has some insight on the thought process that went into the iA Writer  writing app–

“the group outlines the many decisions they made in their quest to design the perfect writing environment for the iPad.

The key to good writing, they say, is focus, and the guiding principle of Writer was to minimize distractions. That means no autocorrection, no scroll bars, and no cut and paste. Just you and the text. A Focus Mode even blurs out everything but the three lines you’re currently working on, keeping your focus locked on the sentence you’re writing.”

Aside from the name (ugh), it’s one of the better writing apps out there: a simple and clean design that is actually really good for writing. If you’re looking for a good writing app to start with, it’s worth a visit to their website: www.iawriter.com.

Two features in particular which impressed me:

• Focus Mode: “Focus mode does not only limit the field of view to one sentence at a time, it also makes sure that the eyes do not need to wander too much around the window while writing“
• Reading Time: “Page numbers work well for physical objects where they have a physical frameset that you can touch, but they are pretty much meaningless for digital text. We believe that reading time is a more useful measure“

Favorite iPad app for book planning and writing: Manuscript ($6.99). I rather like this one. It’s marketed as an all-in-one solution: “Whether you are writing an entire novel, a short story, or even articles for submission to magazines, Manuscript for iPad takes care of the details and lets you focus on writing. This all-in-one writing app will take you from pitch to a publication ready document, in four easy steps” — and guides you through the process (Pitch, Synopsis, Chapter Outline). Also has a nifty Storyboarding feature with index cards.

Favorite iPad app for outlining and brainstorming: OmniOutliner ($19.99). It’s a lot of money for an app that does outlining. But, it does outlining really, really well. Check out their website for more features and see what you think.

Favorite iPad apps in lieu of a real notebook: Moleskine (free) is kind of fun, and looks neat.

But Notebooks for iPad ($8.99) is a much better, full-featured app. It has a ton of file format support: text, HTML, RTF, PDF, MS Office, iWork, photos, iPhone Notes, and Safari web pages. One of the more expensive options, but really a solid and very functional word processing app.

Favorite iPad app for handwriting app: Penultimate ($1.99) is pretty one of the best, if not the best note-taking apps for the iPad. And fun to use, too.

Favorite app for poetic inspiration: PortaPoet ($1.99). Much easier than keeping a rhyming dictionary on hand.

Favorite app for all-purpose sketching: Adobe Ideas ($5.99). For the visually-minded, this is an impressive amount of software to use as a digital sketchbook.

Favorite app for anything PDF-related: iAnnotate PDF ($9.99). I use this all the time. Has all of the annotating tools, document library management, and importing/exporting you could want.

———————————

What is heavy social network use doing to our brains? Some research, link courtesy of BBC, “Internet ‘may be changing our brains‘ –

“Researchers counted the number of Facebook friends each volunteer had, as well as assessing the size of their network of real friends.

A strong link was found between the number of Facebook friends a person had and the amount of grey matter in certain parts of their brain.

The study also showed that the number of Facebook friends a person was in touch with was reflected in the number of “real-world” friends.

“We have found some interesting brain regions that seem to link to the number of friends we have – both ‘real’ and ‘virtual’,” said Dr Ryota Kanai, one of the researchers from University College London.

“The exciting question now is whether these structures change over time. This will help us answer the question of whether the internet is changing our brains.”

So, what is a “friend,” exactly? I prefer Aristotle for such matters. But, his Facebook page kind of sucks, so who really cares about him? (seriously, though: you can find Nicomachean Ethics for free in many places; you’ll like it).

Do we treat Facebook as a vetting process (“hmm, that person is all right, but is she/he Facebook material?”). Or, is the opposite becoming the norm? Some argue that Facebook isn’t for real life friends anymore.

But, we digress. Let’s file all this under the category of “small sample size” and “relationship between causation and correlation unclear.” It’s still fun to think about. For more info on this UK study – Reuters: “More Facebook friends linked to bigger brain areas”

“Scientists have found a direct link between the number of “friends” a person has on Facebook and the size of certain brain regions, raising the possibility that using online social networks might change our brains.

The four brain areas involved are known to play a role in memory, emotional responses and social interactions.

So far, however, it is not possible to say whether having more Facebook connections makes particular parts of the brain larger or whether some people are simply pre-disposed, or “hard-wired,” to have more friends.

… 

The students, on average, had around 300 Facebook friends, with the most connected having up to 1,000.”

And be sure to check out The Atlantic Wire, “The Things That May Shrink Your Brain.” Watch out for back pain, vegetables, and internet addiction. Wait, what was that second one?

(pic above sort of related)

Sometimes even I’m amazed at the things I find myself occupied with instead of sleeping. Things such as, The Monty Hall Problem. The Monty Hall Problem is arguably the most famous math/probability questions of recent times. And, I don’t think you have to be a probability or math nerd to appreciate it — I’m not, and I do.

Do you remember a tv game show called Let’s Make a Deal? Oh well, that’s ok. The idea of the game show sets up the problem thusly:

“Suppose you’re on a game show, and you’re given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1 [but the door is not opened], and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, “Do you want to pick door No. 2?” Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?”

This really became a big deal when addressed by Marilyn vos Savant (famous for holding the “Guinness Book of World Records distinction for Highest IQ”) in Parade magazine’s “Ask Marilyn” column. Needless to say, she’s pretty smart. Her answer was: “Yes; you should switch. The first door has a 1/3 chance of winning, but the second door has a 2/3 chance.”

A diagram helps to visualize it:

Now, think about that for a second. And then, read some of the flurry responses that this generated.  What’s so tantalizing about this, of course, is that it’s so goddamn counter intuitive until you really think about it and, if you carefully read through the explanation (still confused? an explanation really does help to make all of this much clearer). John Tierney, who also wrote about this at length back in 1991 (“Behind Monty Hall’s Doors: Puzzle, Debate and Answer?“), writes more recently:

“This answer goes against our intuition that, with two unopened doors left, the odds are 50-50 that the car is behind one of them. But when you stick with Door 1, you’ll win only if your original choice was correct, which happens only 1 in 3 times on average. If you switch, you’ll win whenever your original choice was wrong, which happens 2 out of 3 times.” 

Tierney’s 2008 New York Times article “And Behind Door No. 1, a Fatal Flaw” has an updated twist on this problem, with how the Monty Hall Problem might also apply to the cognitive dissonance, and the psychology of choice preference. If you’re interested in this problem from an intellectual standpoint, check it out. And even if you’re not interested from an intellectual standpoint, the article does also discuss monkeys and their preference for different M&M colors.

———————————-

More Monty Hall Problem-related links!

• The Monty Hall Problem is also treated at length in Leonard Mlodinow’s excellent and interesting book, Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives.
• There is a lot to be said about this topic (enough to fill an entire book, The Monty Hall Problem: The Remarkable Story of Math’s Most Contentious Brain Teaser, Oxford University Press, 2008).
• The official Let’s Make a Deal website has a brief chronology of how that problem has appeared and reappeared in recent years.
• A close relative of this is also called The Three Prisoners Problem.
• And check out this cool interactive version from The New York Times: “Interactive Feature: The Monty Hall Problem” (click on the image below to play the game at nytimes.com): “Play enough rounds and the best strategy will become clear: You should switch doors.”