3 ms·
Maybe the most widely-agreed-upon definition of "content" is "others' writing and things they publish". Consider NSBlog, a fantastic blog full of interesting a
by adiabatty 11y ago
Maybe the most widely-agreed-upon definition of "content" is "others' writing and things they publish".
Consider NSBlog, a fantastic blog full of interesting and useful information for programming for OS X and iOS. I don't think of my blog as a content source, but I do think of NSBlog as one.
I wonder under what conditions mikeash thinks of his blog as "content" — as far as I remember, the only time I think of my blog/website as content is when I'm looking at the whole thing and thinking "Man, there's not much here. I should write more often." However, when I'm writing something that goes on it, I don't think of myself as "producing content", I think of what I'm doing as _writing_.
Maybe people call things "content" only when they're sufficiently removed from the specifics of what is being written/filmed/drawn?
- mikeash 11y agoI never thought of my own blog like that, nor did I think of it not like that, it just never occurred to me. Maybe it's just generality versus specificity. My blog has "programming articles," your blog has "writing," blogs in general have "content" (they might have images or video or who knows what). And just like you wouldn't say "objects" when you could say "people," maybe I wouldn't say "content" when I could say "articles." And now these words have lost whatever little meaning they had to me!