5 ms·

I'm with the author in needing better reading tools, but the 'firehose' of RSS isn't by itself the answer aggregators solve a different variety problem vs RSS

I'm with the author in needing better reading tools, but the 'firehose' of RSS isn't by itself the answer aggregators solve a different variety problem vs RSS -- RSS gives you access to random sources that you curate yourself, whereas HN or link-heavy blogs give you access to a meaningful amount of high-impact articles from high-diversity sources (i.e. more different websites than you subscribe to in feedly) that everyone else is reading at minimum, I need a tool that lets me tame the RSS firehose with some kind of ranking or priority queue, plus mix in some aggregator reading so I don't miss things

trynewideas 6y ago
That was why the friend-of-a-friend social features of Google Reader were such a big deal for me — I got curation and aggregation from a person I trusted, and the people they trusted. I didn't have to subscribe to anything to get content, I just had to follow people I knew, and even if they weren't sharing a lot, their first-level connections collectively shared plenty. The interface let me subscribe to whatever feeds they were sharing from, which is how I discovered a lot of content I never would've on my own, and in a lot of cases likely not through other aggregation methods either. Add the content they were clipping content with the bookmarklet and even sites that weren't syndicating their content were getting my regular traffic via shares.
- awinter-py 6y ago
  +1 all kinds of trust networks are good
  - qznc 6y ago
    Devil's advocate: A public trust network is great for advertisers. They would know exactly who the influencers are and how to cover the population with a minimum of influencers.
    - awinter-py 6y ago
      I half-agree the accidental trust networks that dwell in existing social networks (fb, twtr, IG) are gameable a trust network where real-life experts gain and lose reputation based on their behavior should (in theory) punish corruption
    - skoocda 6y ago
      If influencers choose to work with advertisers, then jeopardize their circle's trust due to advertiser affiliation, they would lose that trust. It self-corrects; as long as the system doesn't reinforce the network effect.

trynewideas 6y ago

That was why the friend-of-a-friend social features of Google Reader were such a big deal for me — I got curation and aggregation from a person I trusted, and the people they trusted. I didn't have to subscribe to anything to get content, I just had to follow people I knew, and even if they weren't sharing a lot, their first-level connections collectively shared plenty. The interface let me subscribe to whatever feeds they were sharing from, which is how I discovered a lot of content I never would've on my own, and in a lot of cases likely not through other aggregation methods either. Add the content they were clipping content with the bookmarklet and even sites that weren't syndicating their content were getting my regular traffic via shares.

awinter-py 6y ago
+1 all kinds of trust networks are good
- qznc 6y ago
  Devil's advocate: A public trust network is great for advertisers. They would know exactly who the influencers are and how to cover the population with a minimum of influencers.
  - awinter-py 6y ago
    I half-agree the accidental trust networks that dwell in existing social networks (fb, twtr, IG) are gameable a trust network where real-life experts gain and lose reputation based on their behavior should (in theory) punish corruption
  - skoocda 6y ago
    If influencers choose to work with advertisers, then jeopardize their circle's trust due to advertiser affiliation, they would lose that trust. It self-corrects; as long as the system doesn't reinforce the network effect.