Below we offer you a chance to let us know what you think. Please take our poll and let us know if you think these services being heralded as Augmented Reality are the real deal or something not worth reading about. Just below the poll we offer some links to a few of our most important articles about AR and some opposing viewpoints from readers. Let us know what you think!

Key posts from our past coverage include:
Augmented Reality: A Human Interface for Ambient Intelligence (A good introduction)
Augmented Reality: Five Barriers to a Web That's Everywhere
Prepare Yourself: Augmented Reality Hype is on the Rise
First iPhone Augmented Reality App Appears Live in App Store
Hyperlinking the Real World

Two Opposing Views

Readers have been debating the value of AR in comments on our past coverage. Here are two good ways of articulating opposing views on the subject:

Former HP Labs team member turned tech consultant Gene Becker is optimistic.

"In the same way that the web browser on a computer screen is a window into cyberspace, an augmented reality viewer is a window that looks out on the blended physical/digital landscape, the geoweb, the city as platform.

We're just at the beginning of a fifty year adventure where we will infuse the physical world with connected digital experience. AR browsers like Layar and Wikitude are like Gopher was in 1991 -- early, geeky, not a lot of content, not a great experience...but watch what happens next."

An anonymous commenter left these critical thoughts:

"I must thank MK for the app list. It confirms to me there are no useful AR apps right now, and also that the feasible apps are very limited, because they all seem kind of similar to one another.

It's just so much easier for me to use an ordinary browser map application and see all the locations of interest for any conceivable query than to mess around with a phone's camera.

AR seems kind of like voice recognition to me, in a way.

Recall that some years ago there was a massive hype storm about how much better voice input would be than typing. But despite the general availability of a fairly decent program (Dragon), most people still use keyboards because keyboards just have more utility and usability combined. That's how I feel about these crappy AR apps until there are some serious breakthroughs in both hardware and software.

I mean, you really need a lightweight high-res infinite-battery HMD with meter-accuracy location for it to make much sense to me -- snapping photos through a cellphone and looking at crappy low-res decorations on the result seems very weak to me, especially given the error scale of GPS. But no such HMD exists. Alternatively (as in Vinge's novel) you need something like a long-range RFID on every object or location of interest, and that isn't going to happen any time soon either.

Like voice recognition, there may be some special purpose AR apps in the short term that are useful and effective for narrow uses. I'm sure Dragon is great for many disabled people, and for the few people who are really skilled at dictation, so perhaps the same kind of niches can be found for low-tech AR.

But I don't think it will be broadly useful in the near-term, so it seems to me to be an unworthy thing to spend so much time and effort hyping right now."

What do you think? Let us know by voting in the poll above and in the comments below.

Some of the conclusions were a real surprise. Others confirmed our suspicions. Read on for charts, bullet points and a few thoughts.

Just for context, we'll start with a traffic graph.

Key takeaways from the poll:

Overall

• Twitter is #1, leading Facebook by a respectable margin
• The iPhone is considered less important than LinkedIn
• Almost no-one thinks Digg is the most important
• There is no consensus; every platform named (except for Digg) has a group of backers that believes it is most important.

About the respondents

• 3,615 respondents is a very good number


• Only 4% were business owners, 26% managers, 56% non-managers


• 75% were from small businesses


• 26% were marketers, the largest percentage among job functions


• Twice as many men responded as women


• 83% of respondents were between the ages of 25 and 54, only 17% younger or older

Most appreciative of Twitter: Business owners, C-Level or VPs. People at large- or medium-sized companies. People doing business development, marketing or creative work.

Least appreciative of Twitter: Non-managers. People at very large or small businesses. Consultants, Salespeople and Engineers.

Most appreciative of LinkedIn: C-level and non-managers. At small- or medium-sized businesses. Doing consulting or sales.

Least appreciative of LinkedIn: Owners and managers. At large or enterprise companies. In creative or marketing departments.

By Job Title

• Business owners are most likely to put Twitter at the top, non-management people are least likely
• Non-managers are most likely to favor LinkedIn, owners are least likely
• Non-C-level or VP managers are most likely to favor Facebook, owners are least likely
• About 1 out of 5 people in all positions favor the iPhone

By Company Size

• Large businesses are most likely to favor Twitter
• Medium and small businesses are twice as likely to favor LinkedIn
• Small businesses are twice as likely to favor Digg
• Medium-sized businesses are least likely to favor the iPhone

By Job Function

• Marketing, business development and creatives are most likely to favor Twitter
• Consultants and sales are least likely to favor Twitter
• Creatives and marketing are least likely to favor LinkedIn
• Consultants and sales are most likely to favor LinkedIn
• Consultants are most likely to favor iPhone, marketing least likely
• Engineers are far more likely to favor Digg than anyone
• Marketing is most into Facebook, business development the least (prefers Twitter)

By Gender

• Women are much more likely to prefer Twitter
• Men are more likely to favor LinkedIn, iPhone

By Age

• 55+ far more likely 75% than anyone to favor LinkedIn
• 25-54 more likely to favor the iPhone than younger or older people

So what do you think? Surprises? Confirmed beliefs? This looks like good quality data to us so we suspect we'll be thinking about it for a while. Two things are for sure - there's no topping LinkedIn for professional background information, and there's no chance we'd be able to trust a poll like this if it was performed on Twitter!

Thanks to Tom Humbarger for Twittering about this poll; that's how we found it.

You can find ReadWriteWeb on Twitter, as well as the entire RWW Team: Marshall Kirkpatrick, Bernard Lunn, Alex Iskold, Sarah Perez, Frederic Lardinois, Rick Turoczy, Sean Ammirati, Lidija Davis and Phil Glockner.

The survey found that most people find all the news biased in some way and there were a number of other interesting findings. It's quite striking, though, that we're at a point in history where the internet is trusted more than TV and the Radio!

Other results of interest include:

• 72.6% believe the news they read and see is biased


• 88.7% Republican and 57.5% Democrat respondents describe the news media as biased.


• Lest we conclude that the Republican/Democrat split represents sour grapes more than anything else - 39.3% of those surveyed trust FOX News most for the issues they consider most important, followed by CNN with 16% and MSNBC with 15%.

The survey was commissioned by the Independent Film Channel for the IFC Media Project. The full details will be posted on the IFC site later tonight.

Zogby is a reputable polling firm but they have come up with some very interesting results before in other surveys. Last fall we wrote about a Zogby poll in which 24% of respondents said the Internet could serve as a replacement for a significant other and 11% of respondents said they were very or somewhat likely to "implant a device into your brain that enabled you to use your mind to access the internet if it could be done safely." That's a really bad idea.

A Turning Point in History

This fall we wrote about how Google is changing political debate like nothing else ever has before. It may or may not be particular Internet news sources that are trusted by the respondents to this latest poll - it may just be the world of searchable information that makes for a richer and more informed understanding of the news. That's pretty hard to argue with.

Either way, this is an historic turning point. The Internet, the medium most famous for being untrustworthy, at this time when it's more characterized than ever by the ability for anyone to publish, is now more trusted that professional TV and Radio news!

Given both the obvious and documented affinity that young people today have for learning with the Internet - it doesn't seem like TV, radio and newspapers stand much of a chance in the future. Do they?

Integration with WordPress

PollDaddy and WordPress were already working on integrating PollDaddy into the WordPress.com platform, and, as PollDaddy's founders put it, "in the end, it just seemed like the perfect fit for us to join them." As has been the standard for Automattic's acquisitions, PollDaddy will continue to operate as a standalone platform and the company will continue to support and develop it on other blog and social networking platforms.

WordPress.com has already integrated PollDaddy's functionality for its users, who can now easily add surveys to any blog post, which will surely give PollDaddy's user numbers a significant boost. Automattic is also making a PollDaddy plugin available for self-hosted WordPress blogs.

Here is a short overview of how the WordPress.com integration works:

Maybe it's no big deal, but we think it's an interesting question. What do you think? Let us know in the poll below, even if you work in PR yourself.

RSS readers can click here to view or participate in the poll.

Earlier this month we asked whether good tech even needs PR. In that post we discuss some important things PR agencies do for their clients - things that make voting for them in polls look downright silly. That's our take on it, anyway, what's yours?

Photo: raise your hands for jesus by Flickr user johny hunter.

On the Democratic side, the web looks to have been a little better at predicting the results of the election. Obama, who was far and away the most popular Democratic candidate on the Internet, captured 37% of his party's state delegates, easily beating Edwards and Clinton. So why is it that the web was so reliable at predicting the winner on the Democratic side, but so out of touch with the Republican side? We can piece together the answer from exit polling and other data by figuring out just why each candidate won.

Why Obama Won

We'll tackle Obama first. According to exit polls, most of Obama's support came from the 17-44 age group, which made up 30% of Democratic caucus goers. In the 17-24 age bracket, which made up 17% of the total turnout, Obama won 57% of the vote. It's clear that Obama resonated with young voters in Iowa -- precisely the type of people who would be most likely to follow politics via the Internet. What's more, he (and the Democratic party) were able to motivate young voters to caucus.

Obama also won a plurality of independent and first-time caucus goers. Clearly, the Internet helped Obama a great deal. He was able to mobilize young voters online and actually translate that support into results at the polls. Further, as we noted earlier this year, Obama's online popularity has helped him out-fundraise his rivals.

But Obama also used that money to far outspend other Democrats in Iowa. He reportedly spent $9 million to run nearly 11,000 television ad spots in Iowa -- nearly $2 million more than Hillary Clinton. Obama also made 186 campaign stops in Iowa since July 1, 2007 -- not the most among Democrats, but still indicative of a strong campaign in the state.

The data suggests that though the Internet clearly helped Obama by rallying support among young voters who actually turned up to vote, it was likely traditional offline campaigning that won the state for the Illinois Senator.

Why Huckabee Won

Huckabee's numbers are more curious. He was outspent in Iowa (Mitt Romney -- who finished second -- spent $7 million on TV ads to Huckabee's $1.4 million), and though Huckabee saw a surge of Internet support in the past couple of months, the exit polling showed that young voters made up only a small fraction on the Republican side, where the large majority of caucus participants were over the age of 45.

The exit polls do point to a reason for Huckabee's run away victory, though: 60% of Republican voters identified themselves as "born-again or evangelical Christians," and 46% of those voted for Huckabee. Huckabee, who is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, is generally seen as a champion of the Christian right.

It seems likely, then, that Huckabee owes his Iowa victory to a grassroots support movement among evangelical Christians -- one that likely did not take place on social networking sites and YouTube, but rather in Churches and at small town hall meetings. Huckabee did make 120 visits to the state, the second most of any Republican candidate.

Why Ron Paul Didn't Win

The same exit poll numbers that attribute Huckabee's win to a strong evangelical Christian showing, also demonstrate a poor youth turnout that likely hurt Ron Paul. Most of Paul's votes came from the 17-29 year old crowd, but that only accounted for 11% of the total caucus participants on the Republican side. Where Obama was helped by a strong youth turnout (the 17-29 age group made up 22% of Democratic voters), Paul was hurt by a weak youth turnout for the Republican caucus. It is interesting to note, as well, that Huckabee still crushed Paul in that age group, taking 40% of the under 30 vote, to Paul's 21%.

Paul may also have been hurt by not running a very strong traditional campaign in Iowa. By mid-December, Paul had only bought radio time in Iowa, while his competition was spending up a storm to the tune of 8,500 TV spots for Romney and 1,800 spots for Huckabee. Paul also visited Iowa the least of the top 6 Republican candidates -- only 37 times since July 1. Compared to 144 visits from Romney and 120 visits from Huckabee, Paul was a relative ghost in Iowa.

This could indicate that Paul conceded Iowa to the front-runners and plans to spend his massive war chest elsewhere (perhaps, as many have speculated, to run as an Independent -- note: I am not well versed in campaign finance law, so I am not totally sure if it is legally plausible to spend money donated for a party primary run on a general election as an Independent). Or it could indicate what many of us have suspected, that the Internet can make a vocal minority appear to have much more momentum than they actually do.

The grassroots movement that has sprung up around Paul is spearheaded by a very web-savvy bunch. They have organized around tools like email, message boards, Google News, and Technorati, such that if something is blogged about Ron Paul, or submitted to Digg, or Reddit, they descend on it and make sure their collective voice is heard. But I think poll results -- and I suspect election results as well -- will continue to indicate that Paul's vocal online minority is still just that: a minority.

And as for beating Giuliani? As I mentioned, the traditional polls predicted it would happen, and it's really not a surprise considering Giuliani abandoned Iowa and New Hampshire weeks ago to focus his attention on later primary states, such as Florida (which votes on January 29) or those that vote on so-called Super Tuesday (February 5). Still, 10% of the vote is better than he was polling and is impressive. I don't think it will be enough to carry him to the nomination, but the Internet did make Ron Paul relevant enough to get the mainstream media talking about him, which likely helped him gain some supporters.

I think the most interesting scenario for the future is an Independent run by Ron Paul (let's face it, he's not going to win the Republican nomination, and his politics line up more with the Libertarian party anyway -- whom he represented in the 1988 presidential election). Ron Paul might still not have a realistic shot at winning the general election as an Independent, but with his fundraising prowess, he could make sure he was heard and might draw enough votes away from the major party nominees to have a real impact on the results.