Additionally, studies which support the theory of Pinterest content ‘kitchen porn’ appear to base their conclusions on surveys of the most pins or users, “popular” reducing the complexity and depth of 70 million user experiences to the top eight pinners, for example. Simplifying a multifaceted image collection site, particularly one using 31 languages and including millions of curator-users, by reducing usage to participants suggests that the use of any collaborative site can be evaluated “popular” by averaging the heaviest users. This averaging approach does not take into consideration the size, depth and relevance of the Pinterest curator-user community and seems to provide a and method of supporting preexisting conclusions “quick dirty” about Pinterest content, as well as Pinterest users. Machirori suggests that Pinterest user-curators are being manipulated “by men” and details the perception that women remain content consumers, ( a pejorative role) while men retain the title of content owners (a more desirable position to attain): The arguments against wholesale uptake of Pinterest echo the women’s body of western feminist rhetoric that places a premium on women’s movement from more private and domestic spheres of interaction into more public, male-dominated and politicized spaces. The debate is therefore not only about whether women own social media and technological innovations. But it is also about what they are using them for. Indeed, have Facebook, Pinterest and other sites provided the emancipatory cyberfeminist promise for women to explore the fluidity of their identities? Or have they merely served to further entrench women’s position on the margins of public discourse? In essence, it appears that a limited range of interests and pursuits have been packaged and marketed to women, by men, so much so that the dominant use and consumption of social media lies with women, while ownership and innovation remains the preserve of (p.112). men” This type of political rhetoric, particularly when broadly applied to a largely uncontrolled public image collection site, does not appear to be based on any observable behaviors of user-curator. Based on the data collected for this project, using
Additionally, studies which support the ‘kitchen porn’ theory of Pinterest content appear to base their conclusions on surveys of the most “popular” pins or users, reducing the complexity and depth of 70 million user experiences to the top eight pinners, for example. Simplifying a multifaceted image collection site, particularly one using 31 languages and including millions of curator-users, by reducing usage to “popular” participants suggests that the use of any collaborative site can be evaluated by averaging the heaviest users. This averaging approach does not take into consideration the size, depth and relevance of the Pinterest curator-user community and seems to provide a “quick and dirty” method of supporting preexisting conclusions about Pinterest content, as well as Pinterest users. Machirori suggests that Pinterest user-curators are being manipulated “by men” and details the perception that women remain content consumers, ( a pejorative role) while men retain the title of content owners (a more desirable position to attain): The arguments against women’s wholesale uptake of Pinterest echo the body of western feminist rhetoric that places a premium on women’s movement from more private and domestic spheres of interaction into more public, male-dominated and politicized spaces. The debate is therefore not only about whether women own social media and technological innovations. But it is also about what they are using them for. Indeed, have Facebook, Pinterest and other sites provided the emancipatory cyberfeminist promise for women to explore the fluidity of their identities? Or have they merely served to further entrench women’s position on the margins of public discourse? In essence, it appears that a limited range of interests and pursuits have been packaged and marketed to women, by men, so much so that the dominant use and consumption of social media lies with women, while ownership and innovation remains the preserve of men” (p.112). This type of political rhetoric, particularly when broadly applied to a largely uncontrolled public image collection site, does not appear to be based on any observable behaviors of user-curator. Based on the data collected for this project, using
Sutcliffe_Exploring_Naming_Behavior_Oct_24_2014_.docx