2 ms·

There is a growing attitude in the Internet community that content is worth very little, static content is worth nothing, and old content is the abyss looking b

by shib71 17y ago

There is a growing attitude in the Internet community that content is worth very little, static content is worth nothing, and old content is the abyss looking back at you. I see it reflected in the new obsession with fleeting bits of nothing. Personally, I find myself coming back to websites that cultivate their own content, offering both insight and substance. Perhaps the ideas I find there are old by the standards of Twitter or Facebook, but I suspect they are the better for the chance to mature.

JarekS 17y ago
I don't think that place where you publish your content determines quality of that content. It's more about moving with your content to places where people are.
corruption 17y ago
I still find it astounding that people think real time information is that important. There really aren't that many amazing things happening in the world at any one time. My rule is if it's not worth sticking in my memory system/org-mode it's not worth reading. I can count on one hand the amount of material I've put into supermemo from blogs this year. 99% of blogs are highly targeted linkbait with little actual content. My key sources for information are pubmed and citeseer, then google/delicious search. I wish someone would invent a search engine that scanned for ad-less content, that was old but edited many times by a human, and linked to by other ad-less, old, often updated content. That's important to me, but usually takes 10 pages of google to find these gems due to all the SEO.
_delirium 17y ago
I agree, and I wish search engines would do a better job giving me relevant static content, even old content, when it really is the best content out there. The worst example seems to be anything to do with music, where old-school fan sites or official artists' sites are still the best source of information typically, but somehow are buried in search results beneath ring-tone-laden garbage. If I search for something like bandname songname lyrics, why do I get junky lyrics sites, instead of lyrics from the official site or fan sites? Example of bad results: http://www.google.com/search?q=sisters+of+mercy+first+and+last+and+always+lyrics http://www.google.com/search?q=sisters+of+mercy+first+and+la... Should've been: http://www.thesistersofmercy.com/lyrics/fla.htm http://www.thesistersofmercy.com/lyrics/fla.htm

by shib71 17y ago

JarekS 17y ago

I don't think that place where you publish your content determines quality of that content. It's more about moving with your content to places where people are.

corruption 17y ago

I still find it astounding that people think real time information is that important. There really aren't that many amazing things happening in the world at any one time. My rule is if it's not worth sticking in my memory system/org-mode it's not worth reading. I can count on one hand the amount of material I've put into supermemo from blogs this year. 99% of blogs are highly targeted linkbait with little actual content. My key sources for information are pubmed and citeseer, then google/delicious search. I wish someone would invent a search engine that scanned for ad-less content, that was old but edited many times by a human, and linked to by other ad-less, old, often updated content. That's important to me, but usually takes 10 pages of google to find these gems due to all the SEO.

_delirium 17y ago

I agree, and I wish search engines would do a better job giving me relevant static content, even old content, when it really is the best content out there. The worst example seems to be anything to do with music, where old-school fan sites or official artists' sites are still the best source of information typically, but somehow are buried in search results beneath ring-tone-laden garbage. If I search for something like bandname songname lyrics, why do I get junky lyrics sites, instead of lyrics from the official site or fan sites? Example of bad results: http://www.google.com/search?q=sisters+of+mercy+first+and+last+and+always+lyrics http://www.google.com/search?q=sisters+of+mercy+first+and+la... Should've been: http://www.thesistersofmercy.com/lyrics/fla.htm http://www.thesistersofmercy.com/lyrics/fla.htm