Google’s Audio Overview is an AI love-bath and a propagandist’s dream

Why are people raving about the conversations produced by Google NotebookLM‘s Audio Overview? Because Google’s Audio Overview is an AI love-bath!

I can’t take credit for characterizing Audio Overview’s appeal like this. Kudos to Johnnie Moore, who responded to my first post on Audio Overview with this insight:
"And you've really nailed the trouble with the relentless enthusiasm. When I tried Notebook the first time on my own stuff I loved it. Cos, I now realise, I was flattered by the AI love-bath. But now I see it says this to all the people it's dating!" —Johnnie Moore

“And you’ve really nailed the trouble with the relentless enthusiasm. When I tried Notebook the first time on my own stuff I loved it. Cos, I now realise, I was flattered by the AI love-bath. But now I see it says this to all the people it’s dating!”
Johnnie Moore

I’ll return to the dangers of this seductive tool later in this post. But first, let me share what happened when I fed content containing inconsistencies and incorrect information into Audio Overview.

Testing Audio Interview with inaccurate content

In last week’s post, I showed how Google’s Audio Overview tool in NotebookLM generates bogus output from accurate content. This week, I tested its performance when fed inaccurate content.

I asked ChatGPT to write a short article on the solar system, deliberately including a few inconsistencies and errors. Below is the article, along with ChatGPT’s list of factual errors and inconsistencies.

ChatGPT_inaccurate_article_about_the_solar_system

 

Now here’s the audio “conversation” that Audio Overview generated from the article, along with a transcript:

Google NotebookLM Solar System conversation

Man: All right. Get ready for liftoff. We’re diving deep into the solar system today, and you’ve given us a stellar lineup of readings on each planet, from the Sun to Mars. We’re gonna ditch the boring textbook stuff and blast off into the really mind blowing parts.

Woman: Exactly. Think cosmic secrets, the kind of stuff that’ll have you winning all the trivia nights and impressing your friends.

Man: You know how everyone thinks they’ve got the solar system basics down?

Woman: Yeah.

Man: Sun in the middle, planets go round and round.

Woman: Sure, sounds simple enough.

Man: Well, what if I told you even those basics are about to get seriously shaken up?

Woman: It’s true. Sometimes all it takes is a fresh perspective to completely change how we see even the most familiar things. Like, take our sun, for example.

Man: Big ball of fire. Keeps us warm. Pretty important, right?

Woman: Absolutely. But we tend to picture it as this fixed point in the center of everything. But the reality, it’s way more dynamic than that.

Man: Okay, you’ve got my attention. How is the sun not just some stationary star?

Woman: Well, picture this. The Sun, with all its planets in tow, is actually hurtling through space on this incredible cosmic journey.

Man: Hold on. The Sun’s on the move. It’s not just chilling in the center of the solar system. Where are we headed, and do we need to pack snacks for this cosmic road trip?

Woman: Well, imagine a giant spiral, a cosmic waltz, if you will, where our Sun and its planetary entourage are gracefully swirling around the center of our Milky Way galaxy. That’s our trajectory.

Man: Okay, I’m kind of trying to picture this cosmic waltz, but it’s definitely not your average ballroom.

Woman: You’re not wrong there. And when it comes to measuring this journey, we’re not talking miles, we’re talking galactic years.

Man: Galactic years. Okay, now you’re speaking a language that’s out of this world.

Woman: One galactic year. The time it takes for our solar system to make one loop around the galactic center is roughly 230 million Earth years.

Man: 230 million years. That makes driving across the country on a family vacation seem like, well, nothing. It really puts things in perspective, doesn’t it?

Woman: It really does. It’s a reminder that we’re part of something so much bigger than ourselves.

Man: So, back to the sun for a second. One thing that really surprised me was that it doesn’t just give off energy. It actually absorbs some, too.

Woman: It’s true. While the sun’s main energy source is nuclear fusion happening way down in its core, it does have this interesting habit of, well, snacking on space dust.

Man: Space dust? Like the stuff that collects on my furniture?

Woman: Kind of, but on a cosmic scale. And it’s not just some quirky cosmic habit. It actually plays a big role in those incredible solar flares we see.

Man: Wait. Those solar flares that can mess up our satellites and even cause blackouts here on earth, you’re telling me that space dust is involved.

Woman: You’ve hit the nail on the head. When the sun absorbs energy from space dust, it can trigger these massive bursts of radiation.

Man: So the sun is building up energy from these space dust snacks, and then, boom, solar flare.

Woman: That’s a good way to put it. It’s like the sun releasing all that pent up energy, and sometimes we get caught in the crossfire.

Man: Okay, note to self, the sun is a force to be reckoned with, even if it enjoys a little cosmic snacking. It’s on the move, it’s absorbing energy, and it can definitely pack a punch.

Woman: It’s anything but boring.

Man: Alright, with that in mind, let’s shift gears and zoom in on the planet closest to this mighty star, Mercury. Most people probably think it’s this tiny, insignificant little planet.

Woman: Right, easy to overlook.

Man: But the research you sent paints a completely different picture.

Woman: It’s time to ditch that outdated image of Mercury as a dull, gray rock. This planet is full of surprises. For one thing, it’s much larger than people think. It’s almost the size of Earth.

Man: Really? Wow, I had no idea it was that big. But size isn’t everything, right? What else makes Mercury so interesting?

Woman: Well, let’s just say it’s not the fastest spinner in the solar system. In fact, it’s an incredibly slow one.

Man: Okay, how slow are we talking? Like, if we’re on Mercury, how long are we waiting for the sunrise?

Woman: Well, pack a lunch and maybe a book, because a single day on Mercury, meaning one full rotation on its axis, takes a mind boggling 59 Earth days.

Man: 59 Earth days.

Woman: And since Mercury’s orbit is oval shaped, not a perfect circle, a full day night cycle from sunrise to sunrise actually lasts a whopping 176 Earth days.

Man: Wait, so that means you’d have to wait three Earth months to see the sun peak over the horizon.

Woman: You got it.

Man: I think I’d be bored to death by then. Speaking of extreme conditions, you know what else blew my mind? The fact that there might be ice on Mercury. Ice. On a planet that’s practically touching the sun? How is that even possible?

Woman: It does seem counterintuitive, right? But remember that incredibly slow rotation in those long, dark nights. Well, believe it or not, those are the perfect conditions for ice to survive on Mercury, tucked away in those deep, dark craters at its poles.

Man: So it’s like hiding from the sun in plain sight.

Woman: You could say that. Those craters are so deep the sun’s rays never reach them, leaving those spots in permanent shadow.

Man: So we’ve got this paradoxical planet. It’s surprisingly large, incredibly slow, scorching hot during the day, but with hidden pockets of ice. Who knew? This solar system is full of surprises. Alright, next up, Venus, Earth’s so called twin, but I have a feeling those similarities are only skin deep.

Woman: Venus, huh? It’s always been this bright, beautiful thing in the sky. We always hear it called Earth’s twin.

Man: Right. Easy to assume they’re practically identical.

Woman: But after going through this research, you said, I’m starting to think this twin has a bit of a wild side.

Man: You’re definitely on to something. Venus might share some surface level similarities with Earth, like its size and what it’s made of, but that’s about where the family resemblance ends. This planet is like the rebellious sibling, always going against the grain.

Woman: Rebellious how? Give me the dirt! For one thing, Venus spins in the opposite direction of most planets in our solar system. It’s called retrograde rotation. Imagine, instead of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, it’s the opposite on Venus.

Man: Wait, seriously, the sun rises in the west on Venus. That’s wild. Any idea why it spins backwards like that?

Woman: It’s a bit of a mystery. The leading theory is that way back when, early in its life, Venus got slammed by something huge, like a massive collision that sent it spinning off in the opposite direction.

Man: A cosmic fender bender, huh? Makes you wonder what else Venus has up its sleeve.

Woman: Well, its atmosphere is nothing like ours. It’s incredibly thick, full of carbon dioxide, and there are these clouds of sulfuric acid just hanging out up there.

Man: Okay, sulfuric acid clouds. Definitely not on my travel bucket list. So much for Earth’s twin, more like a weird distant cousin we don’t talk about much. But speaking of this crazy atmosphere, I read about these super bright flashes of light that have been observed on Venus. What’s the deal with those? Alien disco parties.

Woman: I wish I could say it was aliens, but the reality is probably a bit less exciting, though just as intense. Scientists believe those flashes are caused by these megastorms with lightning way more powerful than anything we see here on Earth. Venus’s thick atmosphere traps heat, creating this runaway greenhouse effect.

Man: So picture this. We’re on Venus, braving the heat and the sulfuric acid rain, the sun setting in the east, and then bam, these megastorms erupt, lighting up the entire sky.

Woman: You’re getting a pretty accurate picture, but it doesn’t stop there. There’s one more thing about Venus that really sets it apart. It’s magnetic field. Now, we know Earth has a magnetic field. It’s like our protective shield. It’s pretty stable.

Man: Yeah, it keeps us safe from all that nasty radiation from space. Essential stuff.

Woman: Exactly. But Venus, its magnetic field is a whole different story. It’s all over the place, shifting dramatically every few years.

Man: Every few years, that’s nuts. I can’t even imagine what would happen here if our magnetic poles went haywire that often. Our compasses would be spinning like tops.

Woman: Right, it would be total chaos. And on Venus, these magnetic field shifts likely contribute to its extreme and unpredictable weather. Like, Venus can’t catch a break, even with its own magnetic field.

Man: Okay, I think it’s time we retire the whole Earth’s twin nickname. Venus is in a league of its own, and frankly, I’m not sure I’d want to take it to that party. Speaking of strange planetary companions, can we talk about something that really threw me for a loop? Earth’s second moon. I always thought we were a one moon planet.

Woman: It’s not exactly a moon in the traditional sense. Think of it more like Earth has a cosmic dance partner.

Man: Okay, I’m intrigued. Tell me more about this dance partner.

Woman: This object, called Cruithne, isn’t orbiting Earth directly. Instead, it’s locked into this gravitational dance with both Earth and the Sun. It traces out this horseshoe shaped path around our star.

Man: So Earth and Cruithne are in this cosmic waltz around the sun, never quite colliding, but always kind of connected.

Woman: Exactly. And while it’s fun to think about Earth having a secret companion, Cruithne is technically classified as a quasi satellite, not a real moon.

Man: Quasi satellite. That sounds even cooler, if I’m being honest. But should we be worried about Cruithne? Is it going to crash our cosmic party anytime soon?

Woman: Not to worry. Kruthne’s orbit is very stable. It’s not a threat to Earth. More like a curious neighbor, always nearby, but keeping a safe distance. Speaking of neighbors, our next stop is a planet that’s been in the news a lot lately. Mars.

Man: Mars, the red planet, right? Yeah. I mean, it’s always been this red, dusty world in our imaginations.

Woman: Yeah, rusty red deserts as far as the eye can see.

Man: Exactly. But these articles you said, they mentioned something about blue areas on Mars. Is that some kind of Martian mirage?

Woman: Not a mirage at all. We’re so used to thinking of Mars as this red planet, and most of it is thanks to all that iron oxide. But it turns out the Martian color palette is more diverse than we thought. Recent observations have actually revealed patches of blue, especially in certain areas around its equator.

Man: Blue on Mars, huh? Ha ha. Alright, Color Me Intrigued, what’s causing these blue zones to appear?

Woman: It’s pretty cool actually. These blue regions are thought to be caused by concentrations of different minerals, not just iron oxide. Picture ancient volcanic eruptions spewing minerals up from deep inside Mars. These eruptions could have literally painted these blue streaks across the surface.

Man: So we’re talking about a planet that’s not just a flat red desert. It’s got this hidden layer of geological activity and even a dash of color. And speaking of hidden wonders, this next one really blew me away. Mars has auroras, just like Earth, but on a way grander scale. Apparently these Martian light shows can stretch across the whole planet. Talk about a sight to see. What makes these auroras so different from what we see here on Earth?

Woman: You’re right. The auroras on Mars are in a league of their own. See, on Earth we have our magnetic field, right? It acts like a shield, funneling those charged particles from the sun towards our poles. That’s how we get those beautiful but localized auroras. Mars, on the other hand, well, its magnetic field is weaker and, let’s just say, a lot more erratic.

Man: Okay, so instead of a shield, it’s more like a sieve.

Woman: Exactly. Those charged particles aren’t being channeled to the poles on Mars. They’re free to roam across the entire planet.

Man: Wow, so they collide with the Martian atmosphere all over the place.

Woman: And create these incredible, planet wide auroral displays. Imagine looking up at night and seeing the entire sky lit up with those shimmering lights.

Man: Now, that’s an Instagram post. I’d love to see. But okay, let’s talk about the discovery that really has everyone talking. That underground water network on Mars. We’re not just talking about a little bit of ice here and there anymore, right?

Woman: You’re right. This is huge. For years, we’ve been finding hints of water on Mars, but now we have solid evidence that there’s liquid water beneath the surface forming this vast interconnected network.

Man: So like a hidden Martian oasis.

Woman: You could say that. And this discovery has really profound implications, especially when it comes to the search for life beyond Earth.

Man: Because where there’s water, there could be.

Woman: Life. Even if it’s just microbial life, finding it on another planet would be revolutionary. It would totally change how we understand our place in the universe. It would mean that life, in some form, might be way more common, much more resilient than we ever imagined.

Man: It’s mind blowing to think that something as seemingly simple as water could unlock one of the biggest mysteries of our existence. Are we alone? It makes you wonder what other secrets are out there, just waiting to be discovered.

Woman: That’s the thing about space exploration, isn’t it? Every time we answer a question, we uncover a dozen more. It’s this incredible journey of discovery that never really ends.

Man: Well said. From the sun’s cosmic dance to those hidden depths of Mars, we’ve journeyed through some truly mind blowing corners of our cosmic neighborhood. It’s a good reminder that there’s always more to learn, more to explore, just beyond the horizon. Keep looking up, everyone. You never know what you might find.

Evaluating Audio Overview’s performance

So, how did Audio Overview respond to the errors in the article? According to ChatGPT, the original article contained thirteen factual errors. Here’s how Audio Overview handled them:

  • Errors Omitted: Three factual errors (23%): the Sun’s age, sunspot-related gravitational effects, and Mercury’s temperature were not mentioned in the audio conversation. It’s unclear whether the system identified and omitted these errors or simply failed to include that content.
  • Errors Omitted: Three errors (23%)—concerning Venus’s atmosphere composition, the description of Cruithne, and Mars’s mineral colorations—were avoided, possibly suggesting some filtering or avoidance of incorrect data.
  • Errors Repeated: The remaining seven errors (54%) were repeated, including the Sun dragging planets in a spiral, exaggerations about Mercury’s size, Venus’s magnetic field shifts, blue regions on Mars, highly visible Martian auroras, space dust triggering solar flares, and exaggerations about Mars’s underground water network.

To summarize, Audio Overview’s conversation left out 23% of the factual errors in the content I fed it, avoided 23% of the factual errors, but repeated the majority (54%) of the factual errors, creating a plausible “conversation” that reinforced them.

The Real Danger of Audio Overview

The real danger of Audio Overview’s “AI love-bath” lies in its ability to produce convincing, natural-sounding, audio conversations between two computer-generated voices. The seductive quality of these conversations is magnified by what Johnnie Moore rightly termed “relentless enthusiasm.”

In today’s digital world, people are increasingly skeptical of what they read. However, an audio recording featuring two people eagerly summarizing content feels far more trustworthy—even when it’s completely AI-generated and contains errors.

Rather than celebrating how authentic Audio Overview’s conversations sound, we should be wary of how easily such tools can become a propagandist’s dream.

Google Audio Overview tool in NotebookLM generates bogus output

bogus audio discussions: Screenshot of the Notebook guide created for the text blog post. NotebookLM provides buttons to generate a FAQ, Study Guide, Table of Contents, Timeline, Briefing Doc plus a Summary, an Audio Overview, and some suggested questions. Summary The sources compare the responsibilities of news organizations to the responsibilities of conferences, arguing that both should prioritize their users and be transparent, open, and reliable. The author draws parallels between Jeff Jarvis's principles for media platforms and his own principles for conference design, which emphasize participant-driven, collaborative, and ethical practices. Both sources advocate for a shift away from outdated, broadcast models and towards user-centric approaches that foster trust and empower participants. Here we go again—another generative AI service churning out plausible-sounding, but misleading content. This time it’s Google’s NotebookLM, branded as “your personalized AI research assistant powered by Google’s most capable model, Gemini 1.5 Pro”. It now includes Audio Overview, which creates audio discussions between “two AI hosts” who supposedly engage in a “lively deep dive” based on your sources. But Google’s Audio Overview tool in NotebookLM generates bogus output.

As I’ll explain below, when I tested Audio Overview on last week’s blog post, it generated a five-minute “conversation” that misrepresented the content. It introduced contradictory information, and fabricated topics that didn’t exist in the original post.

Why Audio Overview is concerning

The real danger of this tool lies in its ability to produce convincing, natural-sounding, audio conversations between two computer-generated voices. In today’s digital landscape, most people are becoming more skeptical about what they read. But an audio recording of two people enthusiastically summarizing content sounds far more trustworthy, even if it’s completely AI-generated.

How I tested NotebookLM’s Audio Overview

Testing the Audio Overview feature was quick. I created a new Notebook, uploaded the text of my recent blog post titled “How the Responsibilities of Conferences Mirror Those of Media Platforms,” and waited for the tool to generate its insights.

As you’d expect from LLMs these days, NotebookLM provided a good written summary of the post:

“The sources compare the responsibilities of news organizations to the responsibilities of conferences, arguing that both should prioritize their users and be transparent, open, and reliable. The author draws parallels between Jeff Jarvis’s principles for media platforms and his own principles for conference design, which emphasize participant-driven, collaborative, and ethical practices. Both sources advocate for a shift away from outdated, broadcast models and towards user-centric approaches that foster trust and empower participants.”

So far, so good. But then, I clicked on the Audio Overview feature, and that’s where things took a turn. I’ve added the audio and a transcript below.

Listen to at least some of the audio to understand how eerily convincing such an AI-generated “conversation” can be. You’ll hear what sounds like two people constantly interrupting each other in their enthusiasm to share their 100% positive take on the post.

Audio track

Transcript

Woman: Ever feel like you’re stuck in a conference rut? You go, you sit, you listen, maybe snag a pen or two.
Man: Yeah.
Woman: But something’s missing. Like it doesn’t really change anything back at your desk.
Man: Right.
Woman: That’s what’s got me so fired up about this deep dive. We’re flipping the script on conferences, how to make them crazy, valuable, engaging, all that.
Man: Okay.
Woman: Get this. Our source. It’s this blog post comparing, get this, designing online platforms like the Big Dogs, Google, Twitter, to designing amazing conference experiences.
Man: Totally.
Woman: I know, right? Total apples and oranges, you’d think?
Man: Totally.
Woman: But stick with me. This article makes a killer case. Borrow some key things from those platforms, that user first mindset.
Man: Okay.
Woman: And boom, revolution in conference land.
Man: See, that’s what I’m talking about, because what’s always bugged me is how we treat conferences.
Woman: Yeah.
Man: It’s always been the same old, experts on stage, everyone else just sits there, soaks it up.
Woman: Passive.
Man: Exactly. But the platforms we use every day, they’re all about putting you in control. Choices, shaping the experience, big difference.
Woman: Huge! And this Jarvis guy, he wrote the article, nails it. He lays out these parallels, like how platforms are all about users controlling their own data, right? And he says, hand over control to your users, give them power, design and flexibility. Imagine that, but for conferences, forget the fixed schedule, you choose what sessions actually speak to you, your own path.
Man: It’s not just showing up anymore, right? We’re drowning in information everywhere else. I want to grab what matters, meet the right people, walk out with, like, usable knowledge, you know?
Woman: Totally. And that’s where this openness thing comes in, Jarvis talked about. This whole data portability thing really stuck with me. In the online world, it’s like, taking your stuff with you, contacts, files, whatever, when you switch platforms, no biggie.
Man: Right, right.
Woman: So how do we steal that? For conferences, make them really pay off for people, you know.
Man: It’s that feeling walking out and it’s not just a blur. Like what was that keynote again? No more business cards. You’ll never actually…
Woman: Tell me about it. The black hole of business cards.
Man: Gone. You leave with stuff you can use.
Woman: Okay, I’m with you. But how? How do we take data portability? Make it real for conferences.
Man: Picture this, conference app, right? Not just the schedule, but as you’re there listening, you’re highlighting stuff, snapping pics of slides.
Woman: Instead of scribbling like mad while they talk.
Man: Exactly. Your own notes, all in the app. Then, boom, conference ends, it bundles it all up, highlights notes, even like who you need to connect with, your own little takeaway package ready to go. That’s data portability.
Woman: No more digging through that stack of notes a month later trying to remember.
Man: Exactly. You get max value. You’re not just consuming, you’re curating. Putting it to work.
Woman: It’s so obvious when you say it like that. But honestly, so many conferences I walk out. Yeah, I learned stuff. But what am I going to do?
Man: Missed opportunity, right? Yeah. For everyone. You’re putting in the time, the money, you deserve to get something back.
Woman: For sure. Okay. So say we buy into this whole user first thing. Where do we even start? How do organizers make it happen? That’s a whole new way of looking at it, right? Not just an audience in the dark, but they’re part of it, shaping the whole thing.
Man: And that starts way before anyone even shows up. What if, like, before the conference, bam, organizers send out surveys?
Woman: Okay.
Man: Not just “How’d you hear about us?”
Woman: Yeah.
Man: But what are you hoping to get out of this? What are your goals even? How do you learn best?
Woman: I love that. It’s like actually caring if people get something out of it. Like, say it’s about the future of work or something. Wouldn’t you be way more into it if you had a say in what they even talked about?
Man: Totally. And picture this. What if there were, like, online forums, but before the conference?
Woman: Okay.
Man: People connecting, saying what they’re hoping for, starting the conversation early. By the time they get there, they already know people.
Woman: No more awkward icebreakers. You’re already halfway there.
Man: Exactly. And then the conference itself. Ditch those long, boring presentations, right? Shorter, punchier, more hands on stuff, workshops, solving problems together.
Woman: Instead of just sitting there, you’re doing something, working with people, trying out new ideas, so much better.
Man: And feedback. Not just those forms you forget on the way out.
Woman: Yeah.
Man: But all the way through, telling them what’s working, what’s not. They actually listen and make it better.
Woman: So you’re always tweaking, making it better as you go, based on what people actually need.
Man: Exactly. People feel like they’re part of it. Like their voice matters. That’s community, right there.
Woman: So, bottom line, maybe it’s time we stop just accepting the same old conference, you know?
Man: It’s time to expect more.
Woman: We can be those users demanding better, and who knows? Maybe change the whole game. That’s what I’m taking away from this.
Man: Me too. It’s about potential. Conferences could be so much more than we settle for.
Woman: Totally. Thanks for diving deep with us. Hope this got the wheels turning about what these things could be. See you next time.

How NotebookLM’s Audio Overview went wrong

Everything I wrote is wonderful!

My post about how the responsibilities of conferences mirror those of media platforms was an opinion piece. NotebookLM’s Audio Overview turned it into a PR flack’s dream.

Can NotebookLM be critical? Does it ever respond: “I can’t summarize this post intelligently or accurately?”

Somehow, I doubt it.

Despite sounding fluent and convincing, the generated “conversation” was riddled with inaccuracies. Here are some major issues:

Who wrote the blog post?

Hey, Audio Overview, I wrote the blog post, not Jeff Jarvis!

Misrepresentation of the responsibilities of platforms vs. conferences

The “woman” in the conversation says the blog post compares designing online platforms like Google and Twitter to designing conferences. This isn’t accurate. My post compares the responsibilities of media platforms and conferences, not their designs.

Exaggeration of user control

The conversation suggests that platforms like Google or Twitter are “all about putting you in control,” implying complete user freedom. However, my post and Jeff Jarvis’s quote are more nuanced. While Jarvis advocates giving users power and flexibility, there’s no suggestion that media platforms fully hand over control to users.

Invention of new topics: data portability, apps, and live feedback

The audio invents topics I never mentioned, such as data portability (taking contacts and files when switching platforms), a high-tech conference app where participants take notes and pictures, and vague musings about live feedback during the event. While these are interesting ideas, they have no basis in the original post, where I discuss the portability of the peer conference process, not technology.

Fabrication of pre-conference engagement

The “man” talks about sending surveys to conference attendees before the event, to ask what they want to learn. While this could be a useful idea, I didn’t mention anything about pre-conference surveys in the blog post. The blog discusses uncovering participants’ wants and needs during the event, not beforehand.

Conclusions

Audio Overview in Google’s NotebookLM generates bogus output. The tool transformed my blog post into an overly simplified, inaccurate PR pitch for conference engagement. What concerns me most is that it does this convincingly by aping the conversations humans have used to communicate and connect for over a hundred thousand years. Consequently, users may not question the validity of what is said because the format is familiar and comfortable.

But wait, there’s more! In my next post, I’ll explore how the Audio Overview service handles factually incorrect content. Stay tuned for my next test!

22 great Apple apps for event professionals

great Apple apps for event professionals

Two years have passed since the last update of my great Apple apps for event professionals. Apps continue to be born, evolve, and, sometimes, die—so it’s time for my latest list of event professionals’ great apps!

Read the rest of this entry »

Get Rid Of Human Resources

Get Rid Of Human Resources! A photograph of a Human Resources sign hanging from an office ceiling.Get rid of Human Resources. Human Resources: what an ugly term!

Wikipedia defines a resource as “a source or supply from which benefit is produced“. Is this how we think of employees—as resources for a company’s benefit?

I think it’s telling that many organizations still use this term to label the office that hires, manages, and fires employees. And such organizations, at least in the IT industry where I’ve had some experience of them, often don’t do a very good job.

Nowadays I’m noticing a trend in larger organizations to rebrand Human Resources as Talent Management. This is better—we’re not classifying people as resources like steel ingots. But the m-word—management—is still there, emphasizing the role of guidance on how employees work.

So here are a couple of alternative descriptions that I like better.

The first is Talent Leadership. As I’ve written here, I see leaders as influencers and facilitators of process rather than high-ups laying down the law. Organizations need both leaders and managers, but I think that forward-thinking institutions should have their talent led rather than guided.

Want an alternative? Google calls its Human Resources Department People Operations; employees shorten this to POPS. I think this neutral term is a sensible reframe of what “HR” does in a modern organization; covering the nitty gritty work while avoiding any connotation of employees-as-cattle.

Words have power. Let’s use the best ones we can.

Photo attribution: Flickr user olathegovnews

Do conference participants want less control?

conference participants control: photograph of a complex control center in an industrial plant

Do conference participants want less control?

When Google announced the end of its popular RSS reader Google Reader, many assumed it was a business decision based on economics.

Maybe not.

Christina Bonnington writes in Wired:

…there’s another reason Google decided to put its RSS reader to death. According to Mountain View, most of us simply consume news differently now than when Reader was launched…

…No matter what Mountain View says about changing user habits, though, both Now and Plus do one thing: They keep you in Google’s world. It’s a de-emphasis of content source. In other words, rather than reading Cat Fancy religiously, you’re reading the Animals category religiously — a category populated by the sites Google’s products think you’ll enjoy most [emphasis added].

In other words, Google says it can do a better job choosing what we read than we can. If you’re cynical, you might interpret this move to be Google’s way of keeping you in GoogleWorld, surrounded by the ads that supply most of Google’s profits. (Yes, I know there are no ads on Google Plus. Yet.)

Now I’m not disputing that Google does a fantastic job in some areas: Search and Maps come immediately to mind. But I’ve seen no evidence to date that Google (or other single source for that matter) is capable of serving me content that’s better than what I can actively discover myself.

Meta-curation

We all need help these days to discover important content and ideas online. How we define “important” is unique to each of us. I, and I suspect most people, rely on a mix of human-curated sources. Mine cover around eighty sources on topics like meetings and events, associations, news, tools, play, facilitation, privacy, copyright, networking, business, politics, personal development, consumer issues, philanthropy, Apple news, and a number of “interesting stuff” sites. Yours will be different. Jon Udell calls this approach meta-curation.

I’ve written here and here about my skepticism of conference curation. Individual participants want different things from events, and predetermined conference programs are a poor way to satisfy attendee needs. In my experience most conference attendees, when given the power to determine what they wish to experience at an event, relish the opportunity. The tragedy is that still so few meetings these days allow attendees to make this choice.

From this perspective, moves like Google’s are a small step backward toward a world with less control. Removing a tool that allows us to monitor online information sources that each of us selects incrementally reduces our options. In this case, luckily, there are alternatives to Google Reader available (though I still haven’t found one I like as much). But restricting choice, whether it concerns online meta-curation or conferences’ responsiveness to real participant needs is something that should concern us all.

Do conference participants want less control? I’ve found they want, and appreciate, more. What do you think?

Photo attribution: Flickr user PSNH

Using Google Hangouts On Air to stream a keynote

On May 7, 2012 Google opened up Google Hangouts On Air (HOA)—a free service for broadcasting and recording live video with up to 10 participants—to all Google+ users. Six weeks later, the night before edACCESS 2012 started at the Peddie School in New Jersey, I decided to try using Google Hangouts On Air to stream and then archive the conference keynote. A couple of edACCESS old-timers who couldn’t attend in person this year had asked me if there was any way we could stream any of the “public” conference sessions. I had nothing to lose by trying out this new technology.

Here’s what I did, what I learned, and how things turned out.

Google Hangouts On Air preparation
First I created an empty Google+ Circle and went through the process of creating a test Hangout On Air. This allowed me to get familiar with the process and check in advance for any potential problems. I was able to successfully view myself streaming, and see how the stream turned into a YouTube video once I ended the Hangout. This gave me the confidence to announce through social media channels that the stream would be available. (Though I neglected to figure out how to provide a link to the stream in advance).

Peddie’s charming and efficient Director of Academic Technology provided a laptop with a decent external webcam and we circled each other on Google+ so I could add her computer to the hangout on the morning of the keynote. (Important note: you cannot invite people to a hangout unless they’ve added you to one of their circles first.) I decided to use her computer to stream video and audio of the keynote speaker, and my trusty 17″ MacBook Pro with built in webcam to setup the hangout and publicize and monitor the feed.

To broadcast Hangouts on Air you must have a linked and verified YouTube account associated with your Google login. This linked account will be where the broadcast stream, and later the video recording will appear. You only need to set up this linkage once, but I strongly suggest you do so (and test it) before your first HOA. Verification is apparently necessary if you want to save a hangout that lasts longer than fifteen minutes!

Showtime!
Ten minutes before the keynote was due to begin I started a hangout in the usual way by clicking on the START A HANGOUT button on the Google+ hangouts tab. Then I added Emily to the invitee list, named the hangout, checked the option “Enable Hangouts On Air” (and agreed to the warning dialog), and clicked the Hang out button. This led to a normal-looking hangout window, with the addition of an Embed link and a Start Broadcast button at the top right.

Once Emily accepted my invitation, we were nearly good to go. The big picture feed in a hangout is switched to the webcam with the loudest audio. I wanted to avoid having the stream switch away from Emily’s webcam so I muted the microphone on my computer by hovering over my small video window at the bottom and clicking on the microphone icon.

But I still needed to share a link to the stream so that anyone could watch. Clicking the Embed link on the Hangout page I obtained the embed code for the stream and quickly created a blog post with the embedded keynote stream. This embedded a YouTube player onto the page. Visitors could watch the live Hangout On Air directly from the page, as well as on Google+ and my YouTube channel. (Note: once the broadcast is over, this link points automatically to the resulting YouTube video post.) I checked the blog page to ensure the video looked OK before we went live. Then I tweeted the page link to the blog page.

[Later I discovered that when the hangout is starting, if you right-click on the timestamp of the Google+ post that announces the hangout you will also get a link to the stream.]

We were ready!

By this time the speaker was being introduced. I clicked the Start Broadcast button and we went live.

While hosting the hangout on my computer I could watch the broadcast stream, delayed by 5-10 seconds, in another browser window. Pretty cool! I also noticed that an updating count of stream viewers was displayed on the hangout page. Also cool!

After a few minutes I realized that seeing my face at the bottom of the hangout was distracting, so I turned off my camera.

Then I received a tweet from my friend Ruud Janssen in Switzerland(!) who was watching. He asked if I could use my camera to show the slides as the main video, moving the video of the speaker to a small window at the bottom of the screen. This made sense, so I turned my laptop round, pointed it at the slide screen, and clicked on its window to make the slides the main video for the stream. This worked well. (I should have thought of this earlier. Next time I will explore using a tool like CamTwist to pipe presenter slides directly into a hangout feed.)

Unlike a regular hangout, where any participant can override the camera switching that Google normally does, the main window for a Hangout On Air is either determined automatically from the webcam with the loudest audio or by the person streaming the hangout. So I became the camera operator. When the speaker asked for and answered questions, I chose Emily’s webcam. When he began speaking again, I returned to the slides as the main video.

We had no audience microphone, so I asked the speaker to repeat audience questions. That allowed stream followers to hear questions and they’d be included on the final YouTube video. Next time we could add a small netbook webcam to the hangout and have a volunteer run it round as a mike (and video) for audience questions.

When the keynote was over I simply clicked End broadcast. After about ten minutes, a recorded video of the 105 minute hangout automatically posted to my YouTube channel as well as the post on my Google+ Page, and the embed post on my blog. At this point I was able to edit the video information on YouTube. Now it appeared in my YouTube Channel with the same title I had given the hangout. Apparently you can use YouTube’s tools to edit the video itself, but I didn’t do this.

Conclusion
Broadcasting this impromptu stream only required a small amount of preparation. Upon completion the stream automatically turns into a standard permanent YouTube video. The ease and quality of the result pleases me. Sure, it’s not a professional broadcast and recording. But for the cost (free!) and minimal effort required, Google Hangouts On Air provides an attractive solution for streaming and archiving events that will fill many needs. I recommend you try out this approach for a low-profile event.

Tips and resources for Google Hangouts On Air
Here are a couple of useful tips from a longer list of Hangouts On Air tips by Fraser Cain:

– You can join a Hangout twice from two different devices. This will let you put up screenshots, videos, etc in another pane.
– Create an intro screen graphic beforehand that introduces the Hangout. Run this in your hangout for the first 5 minutes before you start.

And here are two useful resource guides for learning more about Hangouts On Air:
Hangouts On Air Technical Guide <pdf>
Google+ support page for Hangouts On Air

Got any questions? I’ll try to answer them if I can. Have you run a Google Hangout On Air for an event? Share your experience here!