This is a post to remind myself to upload some pictures, post them to the Expo's Flickr page (and do a check to see if others posted pics with me in them), maybe give some shout-outs to the social networking and candy people I met at the Expo - and then start up with the reviews!
So much candy, so many snacks and sweets, so many random tales to tell and attempt to recall.
I need to post about the new products coming out from these awesome candy companies, and the giant creepy mascots we encountered (including Garfield, who happened to be hocking coffee products), and some of my highlights of the Expo (oh, Jack Links crane machine, I will miss you). There were wheels to spin, prizes to win, and win we did!
*glances at a 3-foot-long tube of gumballs*
Don't worry, there's pictures.
Speaking of which, one story that I must tell right now because it's freshest in my mind (it happened as we were leaving the Expo center):
I was doing lots of Twitter posting during the Expo. It seemed to be their new thing this year, and the organizers at the NCA sent notifications to everyone attending about Twitter. They had an @SWEETSandSNACKS profile to follow with interesting updates (especially during the showcases and panels), and a hashtag #SSE10 for people to use that would not only show up on a huge TV screen in the Connection Café section of the Expo, but also make you eligible for prizes during the Wednesday Tweetup. Oh yes, there was a Tweetup, and more about that awesomeness (and prizes) later.
Anyway, thanks to Twitter, I was making new network connections, chatting about booths and awesome stuff going on, and taking pictures of interesting people I was meeting.
Fast-forward to the end of the Expo, 2pm Thursday and the mad mob heading out. I make it through security with my giant bag of candy being taken home for Day 3 and I hear people waving towards me and calling for me. I'm taken aback as I recognize the two girls from the Rips booth (where I played Plinko every day trying to win another tin truck like I did last year), and they're calling for me.
They've been following my tweets all week, and told me that they would score some major cool points with the rest of their crew if they could get a photo WITH ME.
That's right - somehow at a convention center full of people who are taking pictures of the exhibitors and their products and mascots, this company's reps wanted to get a photo WITH ME.
I was overjoyed - and as one of them got the shot with the other next to me and my girlfriend, I simply had to thank them and get their Twitter account names (since they'd apparently been using it to follow my tweets). So as soon as I got home, I connected myself to @RipsLicorice and @EiffelBonBons - knowing that they are the company accounts, but if they're really that interested, they'll know where to find me.
And maybe I'll find that picture they took with me - somewhere on the 'net and sometime in the future. So I can have proof that in 3 days at the Sweets and Snacks Expo 2010, I somehow became so awesome that people wanted to get pictures with me.
Come to think of it, there was someone ELSE at a booth who asked to take a photo of me as well - but those were different reasons and another story to tell after some rest and recombobulation after such an exciting time.
Back to the candy sorting and maybe eating some healthier food for dinner!
Read more!
Showing posts with label social networking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social networking. Show all posts
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
My Favorite Online Sweepstakes
Of course, I need a separate post just to detail some of the better sweepstakes out there.
Namely, the sweepstakes that let you earn extra entries by mentioning their sweepstakes in your blog. They usually have the contest on THEIR blog, so it's like a nice kind of social networking?
Anyway, the first to make the list is Table for Five and their sweepstakes: Win a box of Personalized Stationery from Paperlicious.
(This sweepstakes ends June 19th, 2008.)
Keep this page bookmarked, as I intend to promote several more sweepstakes, the blogs they are on, my chances of winning increasing, and maybe get a few more readers in the process! Read more!
Namely, the sweepstakes that let you earn extra entries by mentioning their sweepstakes in your blog. They usually have the contest on THEIR blog, so it's like a nice kind of social networking?
Anyway, the first to make the list is Table for Five and their sweepstakes: Win a box of Personalized Stationery from Paperlicious.
(This sweepstakes ends June 19th, 2008.)
Keep this page bookmarked, as I intend to promote several more sweepstakes, the blogs they are on, my chances of winning increasing, and maybe get a few more readers in the process! Read more!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Employers and Facebook
There's a new lawsuit going on over in England regarding whether or not business employers can investigate potential employees via their Facebook or other "social networking site" webpage.
Before you pick a side or finish hearing the story or my opinion - take a minute to think about your social networking sites (if you have any). What is on your Facebook profile that you would be okay with showing to an employer you're trying to get hired by? What is on your Facebook profile that you wouldn't want your potential new boss seeing? What's on there that you don't even want your family seeing? And we're not just talking about your basic profile information - we're talking about all of the comments left on your page by your friends, whether you think they're appropriate or not for any situation.
Let's continue, shall we?
A coalition including the NSPCC, the Children's Society and the NCH want a new law to prevent employers and colleges searching the internet for "digital dirt" on potential recruits.
Studies show one in five employers use the internet to check out candidates and two thirds of those admit their final decision has been influenced by what they found.
Checking networking sites is also common practice for recruitment agencies with research showing more than 60 per cent of British executives are signed up to Facebook or similar.
The children's charities argue that this is akin to nosing through someone's diary and is examining whether existing discrimination laws could be used to prevent the practice.
Now I'm not entirely sure about their argument that looking at networking site information is the same as reading a diary. In my experience, a diary is personal thoughts for yourself only, which is why you hide it under a mattress or beat up a sibling who discovers its secret location. Social networking sites aren't really meant to be solo experiences. And even if you DO use one for such an experience, there are plenty of filters and privacy settings arranged for most social networking sites so you can keep private thoughts private.
Of course, these filters are rarely used by the less-web-savvy users.
John Carr, secretary of the Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety which is co-ordinating the campaign, said pictures and gossip posted while someone is a teenager should not be used against them years later.
Once again, I'm not in agreement with the argument. Just because there is no foresight about what is being done, that doesn't entitle them to complain when it rears its ugly head down the road. Everything we do is who we are - and while we can certainly attempt to change, we cannot deny our history. How many times can you recall a news story featuring a celebrity (major or minor) who became aghast to discover that old gossip or even photos or video of themselves had been dug up and gotten them into trouble?
The law currently enforces equal opportunities in recruitment and a system that searches social network sites could be unfair because some candidates will have profiles and others will not.
Here's where a real argument lies. It's discrimination to base a hiring decision on a piece of information that doesn't exist for all candidates. I have a Facebook profile, another potential hire might not. But they might have a MySpace page, whereas I do not.
Is each networking site off-limits because of potential discrimination?
Does the balance of each of us having a site mean there's no discrimination?
One could make the argument that both of us have a NAME, so there's no discrimination if an employer uses Google or another search tool to look up information just based on our name - but is a social networking page result equal footing because it was found in an equal-opportunity manner, or does it fall directly under this "not everyone has one" idea of discrimination?
It's a very gray area, and while it might deserve the scrutiny of a lawsuit to make the issue known and get people talking about it - it runs the risk of a decision being made that unfairly benefits one side or the other.
So far, one idea being thrown around is the notion of a "time limit" for surfing these gray-area websites.
Do you have any ideas? What do you think? Discrimination or not?
(The full article)
Read more!
Before you pick a side or finish hearing the story or my opinion - take a minute to think about your social networking sites (if you have any). What is on your Facebook profile that you would be okay with showing to an employer you're trying to get hired by? What is on your Facebook profile that you wouldn't want your potential new boss seeing? What's on there that you don't even want your family seeing? And we're not just talking about your basic profile information - we're talking about all of the comments left on your page by your friends, whether you think they're appropriate or not for any situation.
Let's continue, shall we?
A coalition including the NSPCC, the Children's Society and the NCH want a new law to prevent employers and colleges searching the internet for "digital dirt" on potential recruits.
Studies show one in five employers use the internet to check out candidates and two thirds of those admit their final decision has been influenced by what they found.
Checking networking sites is also common practice for recruitment agencies with research showing more than 60 per cent of British executives are signed up to Facebook or similar.
The children's charities argue that this is akin to nosing through someone's diary and is examining whether existing discrimination laws could be used to prevent the practice.
Now I'm not entirely sure about their argument that looking at networking site information is the same as reading a diary. In my experience, a diary is personal thoughts for yourself only, which is why you hide it under a mattress or beat up a sibling who discovers its secret location. Social networking sites aren't really meant to be solo experiences. And even if you DO use one for such an experience, there are plenty of filters and privacy settings arranged for most social networking sites so you can keep private thoughts private.
Of course, these filters are rarely used by the less-web-savvy users.
John Carr, secretary of the Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety which is co-ordinating the campaign, said pictures and gossip posted while someone is a teenager should not be used against them years later.
Once again, I'm not in agreement with the argument. Just because there is no foresight about what is being done, that doesn't entitle them to complain when it rears its ugly head down the road. Everything we do is who we are - and while we can certainly attempt to change, we cannot deny our history. How many times can you recall a news story featuring a celebrity (major or minor) who became aghast to discover that old gossip or even photos or video of themselves had been dug up and gotten them into trouble?
The law currently enforces equal opportunities in recruitment and a system that searches social network sites could be unfair because some candidates will have profiles and others will not.
Here's where a real argument lies. It's discrimination to base a hiring decision on a piece of information that doesn't exist for all candidates. I have a Facebook profile, another potential hire might not. But they might have a MySpace page, whereas I do not.
Is each networking site off-limits because of potential discrimination?
Does the balance of each of us having a site mean there's no discrimination?
One could make the argument that both of us have a NAME, so there's no discrimination if an employer uses Google or another search tool to look up information just based on our name - but is a social networking page result equal footing because it was found in an equal-opportunity manner, or does it fall directly under this "not everyone has one" idea of discrimination?
It's a very gray area, and while it might deserve the scrutiny of a lawsuit to make the issue known and get people talking about it - it runs the risk of a decision being made that unfairly benefits one side or the other.
So far, one idea being thrown around is the notion of a "time limit" for surfing these gray-area websites.
Do you have any ideas? What do you think? Discrimination or not?
(The full article)
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
