Pics or it didn’t happen Culture.

If a tree falls in the forest, and it isn’t captured, can we be sure it happened?

‘Pics or it didn’t happen’ started as an IRC in-joke, but it’s quickly becoming a cultural norm; it is so difficult for something be completely unobserved, we’re starting to demand visual ‘proof’ of any claim.

If you meet a celebrity, you take a picture.  If you see an police officer abusing authority, you videotape it.  Experiences are recorded to ensure we know they exist.

The interesting thing, is that I think this is good.

The most common example is people watching a concert through the screen of their cellphone, recording video and taking photos of the performance. 

This matters, because it’s ranking the social element of an experience, sharing and using it as a means of developing relationships with others, rather than looking at the experience of solitary.  Until we can actually distribute recordings of our sentences, we need to pick: Do I rank my experience over the ability to share it with others, or do I rank the relationship value of an experience over the personal value of that same experience?

As more and more people are using publishing as a form of communication, they are inherently taking the second option.  They are quite literally putting others ahead of themselves, when it comes to their cultural experiences.  Experiences are considered to be for sharing first, and for consuming second (although maybe not on a conscious level).

I thought of this while I was taking pictures of my niece on Christmas morning, because I knew that my sister (who couldn’t be there) would appreciate being able to see them.  The cultural and relationship value of the experience was greater than the amount of immediacy sacrificed by putting a lens between myself and the action.

I’m pretty sure this will only become more true over time.

No, I haven’t seen your video. Here’s why:

I hear a lot about the value of video online, and I generally agree.  Video can be hugely engaging, eye catching, and is fantastic for explaining complex concepts.  But everyone knows that by now - so here are my top 5 reasons video is the wrong way to reach me.

1. I work all day, generally without headphones on.  As such, I can read an article during the day without bothering a co-worker - I can’t do this with video.
2. An article can be opened, read, stopped, re-read, stopped, re-read, shared, and then finished without disrupting the reading experience any more than I need to.  Video doesn’t play well with multitasking, in my experience.
3. I spend most of my non-work time on a mobile device. Even though my iPhone 4 (sorta) has multi-tasking, video requires dedicating all of my screen, and the entire audio output, to the video.  Massively disruptive from an information intake standpoint.
4. Video has trouble selling itself to me before I start watching.  An article headline is often descriptive of a problem or idea that will be explored.  It’s either harder to express why a video is worth watching in a headline, or people don’t take the time.
5. There’s no good video-only aggregator that I’ve found.  When I find an article or blog I want to read, it goes into google reader or instapaper.  When I find a video, it might end up favourited for later on YouTube, but more likely it will go unwatched.

No disrespect intended to web video, as I consider it hugely influential and powerful, especially in relation to branded content, and real-world experiences.  But at the same time, I’m a member of a demographic that’s targeted by a large number of brands, and web video that doesn’t end up going viral generally doesn’t hit my radar, despite the absurd amount of content I consume.

YouTube Hero.

[Sometimes I give away ideas, either because I cannot execute them alone, or because I think they are more valuable as inspiration for someone else.  Laziness may also be a factor.]

I’ve been fascinated with the use of game mechanics in Foursquare: the idea that you can incentivize real world social behaviours with a point system, acheivements that can be unlocked, and social reinforcement, is beautiful, and fits closely into the concepts that Jane McGonigal discussed in her TED talk.

The inherent problem I’ve had with this system is that it’s too easily gamed, and often limited.  I’ve had friends check in at places they’ve driven by, and called people expecting them to be at home, only to find out they’re still on the highway.

Hence: YouTube Hero.

The idea is based on setting up a system of acheivements, point totals, and awards, based on the difficulty, location, and peer rating of your accomplishments - all of which is based on linking to video, either first person or taken by an observer / accomplice, of the player completing a task.  When a video is submitted, people watching the specific task, specific tags, or those who have added the user as a contact, get a notification of the submission, including a link to the video, and a yes / no option.  If X number of people vote yes, it counts.  You have your verification, and your points.

Obviously, this requires internet connected, video capable mobile devices.  I’m not sure how that’s a bad thing, but people always seem willing to suggest it is.

This also allows the achievements to be anything, from philanthropic (donate to a food bank) to utterly bizarre (set fire to a striped left sock) and any point in between.  While this could degrade into the absurd, it also incentivizes positive behaviours that people need a small extra push to complete (sign a petition, write a letter to your MP, etc) and encourages a transparency of action.

This is obviously the germ of an idea, as evidenced by the lack of a definitive ‘why?’, and less importantly, the use of a name that would be complete legal suicide.  Someone go have fun with it.