5 ms·

Unlink Your Feeds

20 points by telemachos 17y ago

aw3c2 17y ago
I do not understand what this is about.
- sstrudeau 17y ago
  I think the writer suggests that people end the practice of using features that automatically cross-post to multiple "social" sites. E.g., auto-posting your tweets to facebook and buzz -- and start formatting & filtering posts for each context like: http://unlinkyourfeeds.tumblr.com/post/387796108/theres-a-better-way http://unlinkyourfeeds.tumblr.com/post/387796108/theres-a-be...
pmichaud 17y ago
A little more context would be outstanding.
telemachos 17y ago
I started from the post the writer describes as the starting point, but this post might help to give the extra context that commenters are asking for: http://unlinkyourfeeds.tumblr.com/post/396675784/google-buzz-the-slurriest-of-everything-boxes http://unlinkyourfeeds.tumblr.com/post/396675784/google-buzz... The other thing that helps is if you follow the links labelled "More" below the manifesto. I grant that the manifesto jumps in mid-stream (perhaps even mid-stream of someone else's consciousness), but I think the larger points he makes are well-worth considering.
wanderr 17y ago
I have my tweets replicated to Facebook, but that's because I never use Facebook directly, and most of my friends aren't on the twitter bandwagon. The 3 friends who follow me on both are free to stop following me on either, they won't miss anything...
Groxx 17y ago
I'm having trouble extracting any content at all from this, even after reading all the articles. I can't see why it's bad, nor what's supposed to replace it, because there's so little anything. And how exactly is breaking everything up going to occur, when most people can't be bothered, and want an everything bucket? Heck, if things are broken up into atomic units, microformats will probably have their day in the sun, and cross-posting will be magnified a thousandfold. Why did they write this? An elaborate rant because they don't like reading the same thing more than once?
kilian 17y ago
So, the better way is just someone's pipedream? If you can't provide a suitable alternative, there's not much value there. I think there's more value in updating one social network and having a bunch of different networks pick up on that so connections that are not on the original one stay updated as well. I might be special in this case, but the different social networks I use don't have much overlap, connection-wise.
waterlesscloud 17y ago
I've unlinked most of mine. I use a bookmarklet to post most of the things I want to share to google reader, which feeds to buzz. I just have a handful of followers on buzz though, since everyone turned it off in the first few days. So it's not very efficient sharing. But I turned off Twitter feeding into buzz, and into facebook. I use twitter in a pretty bursty way, and the feeds would be annoying on either buzz or fb. And twitter is great for spreading links, but not so good for disucssions on the links. Facebook is ok for discussion of links, but people don't use it that way all that much. Plus I don't friend people I don't know there. And it's hard for things to spread on fb now. Friendfeed was the ideal for me, but it's more or less dead at this point. I suppose the answer is to make a fan or group on facebook and then try to round up followers for it. My goal is to post interesting things and then have a discussion about some of them with interesting people.
arebop 17y ago
I'm looking forward to buzz supporting [1] atom:source [2] so that it's possible at least in principle to automatically ignore buzz duplications of the twitter/reader/whatever streams to which I also subscribe. That and salmon can help reduce redundancy while still allowing us to form the links that help make information discoverable and accessible. [1] http://groups.google.com/group/google-buzz-api/browse_thread/thread/ac8b07ba5d0cc115/96f7784b3831e022?lnk=raot#msg_95949a58c301a3ee http://groups.google.com/group/google-buzz-api/browse_thread... [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-4.2.11 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-4.2.11

Unlink Your Feeds

20 points by telemachos 17y ago

aw3c2 17y ago

I do not understand what this is about.

sstrudeau 17y ago
I think the writer suggests that people end the practice of using features that automatically cross-post to multiple "social" sites. E.g., auto-posting your tweets to facebook and buzz -- and start formatting & filtering posts for each context like: http://unlinkyourfeeds.tumblr.com/post/387796108/theres-a-better-way http://unlinkyourfeeds.tumblr.com/post/387796108/theres-a-be...

pmichaud 17y ago

A little more context would be outstanding.

telemachos 17y ago

I started from the post the writer describes as the starting point, but this post might help to give the extra context that commenters are asking for: http://unlinkyourfeeds.tumblr.com/post/396675784/google-buzz-the-slurriest-of-everything-boxes http://unlinkyourfeeds.tumblr.com/post/396675784/google-buzz... The other thing that helps is if you follow the links labelled "More" below the manifesto. I grant that the manifesto jumps in mid-stream (perhaps even mid-stream of someone else's consciousness), but I think the larger points he makes are well-worth considering.

wanderr 17y ago

I have my tweets replicated to Facebook, but that's because I never use Facebook directly, and most of my friends aren't on the twitter bandwagon. The 3 friends who follow me on both are free to stop following me on either, they won't miss anything...

Groxx 17y ago

I'm having trouble extracting any content at all from this, even after reading all the articles. I can't see why it's bad, nor what's supposed to replace it, because there's so little anything. And how exactly is breaking everything up going to occur, when most people can't be bothered, and want an everything bucket? Heck, if things are broken up into atomic units, microformats will probably have their day in the sun, and cross-posting will be magnified a thousandfold. Why did they write this? An elaborate rant because they don't like reading the same thing more than once?

kilian 17y ago

So, the better way is just someone's pipedream? If you can't provide a suitable alternative, there's not much value there. I think there's more value in updating one social network and having a bunch of different networks pick up on that so connections that are not on the original one stay updated as well. I might be special in this case, but the different social networks I use don't have much overlap, connection-wise.

waterlesscloud 17y ago

I've unlinked most of mine. I use a bookmarklet to post most of the things I want to share to google reader, which feeds to buzz. I just have a handful of followers on buzz though, since everyone turned it off in the first few days. So it's not very efficient sharing. But I turned off Twitter feeding into buzz, and into facebook. I use twitter in a pretty bursty way, and the feeds would be annoying on either buzz or fb. And twitter is great for spreading links, but not so good for disucssions on the links. Facebook is ok for discussion of links, but people don't use it that way all that much. Plus I don't friend people I don't know there. And it's hard for things to spread on fb now. Friendfeed was the ideal for me, but it's more or less dead at this point. I suppose the answer is to make a fan or group on facebook and then try to round up followers for it. My goal is to post interesting things and then have a discussion about some of them with interesting people.

arebop 17y ago

I'm looking forward to buzz supporting [1] atom:source [2] so that it's possible at least in principle to automatically ignore buzz duplications of the twitter/reader/whatever streams to which I also subscribe. That and salmon can help reduce redundancy while still allowing us to form the links that help make information discoverable and accessible. [1] http://groups.google.com/group/google-buzz-api/browse_thread/thread/ac8b07ba5d0cc115/96f7784b3831e022?lnk=raot#msg_95949a58c301a3ee http://groups.google.com/group/google-buzz-api/browse_thread... [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-4.2.11 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-4.2.11