3 ms·

http://www.aldaily.com/ http://www.aldaily.com/ http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/ http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/ But yes. I agree with you. And not just the

by gruseom 15y ago

http://www.aldaily.com/ http://www.aldaily.com/ http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/ http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/ But yes. I agree with you. And not just the most interesting bits: the ones most out of my usual loops. We have this vast online space and find ourselves locked into a few echo chambers.

tomjen3 15y ago
The problem with those links is that they don't cover what I need to know to be better at my job. Roughly I need something (and my guess is that this is the same for everybody) which covers these areas: * General news which actually matter. This includes stuff like SOPA (but only once and not on every tech site) as well as important elections and a few high profil criminal cases (but only the general overview I don't need to know the details) so that I can converse with others. This shouldn't be more than 20% and less than 10% most of the time. News from friends and relatives -- a combination of Facebook and google plus sorta covers this, but it isn't very good since some people share so much that it gets irrelevant and others share almost nothing at all so I still miss important stuff. This should also be about 10%-15% Professional development -- essentially something like what they were trying to turn Code Quarterly into -- high quality, upto-date, high quality, long (but not padded for length) articles delivered about every two weeks. This magazine (which would properly be sent as an email) would be adfree (for the same reason consumer reports don't have ads) and fairly expensive. This should take up the rest of the time.
- gruseom 15y ago
  I guess I don't agree with you after all. HN is close enough to what Code Quarterly was trying to do that it's hard to believe an expensive product could get off the ground. The real problem is that too few people are able and willing to actually write quality long-form pieces.
- markkat 15y ago
  This is in part my motivation for http://hubski.com http://hubski.com, which is a sharing-based aggregator. I think that news that comes with crowd-sourced analysis is infinitely more valuable than the MSM formula, and that's where aggregators shine. However, curation is something that doesn't crowd-source as well. IMHO curation gets stale if it's completely crowd-sourced, but it also gets stale if it's left up to the individual. The solution I'm trying is to allow users to put their curation in the hands of a group of select people. It's easy to see who is contributing what, and if someone isn't providing value, you swap them for someone else. -You basically build a curation group.

by gruseom 15y ago

tomjen3 15y ago

The problem with those links is that they don't cover what I need to know to be better at my job. Roughly I need something (and my guess is that this is the same for everybody) which covers these areas: * General news which actually matter. This includes stuff like SOPA (but only once and not on every tech site) as well as important elections and a few high profil criminal cases (but only the general overview I don't need to know the details) so that I can converse with others. This shouldn't be more than 20% and less than 10% most of the time. News from friends and relatives -- a combination of Facebook and google plus sorta covers this, but it isn't very good since some people share so much that it gets irrelevant and others share almost nothing at all so I still miss important stuff. This should also be about 10%-15% Professional development -- essentially something like what they were trying to turn Code Quarterly into -- high quality, upto-date, high quality, long (but not padded for length) articles delivered about every two weeks. This magazine (which would properly be sent as an email) would be adfree (for the same reason consumer reports don't have ads) and fairly expensive. This should take up the rest of the time.

gruseom 15y ago
I guess I don't agree with you after all. HN is close enough to what Code Quarterly was trying to do that it's hard to believe an expensive product could get off the ground. The real problem is that too few people are able and willing to actually write quality long-form pieces.
markkat 15y ago
This is in part my motivation for http://hubski.com http://hubski.com, which is a sharing-based aggregator. I think that news that comes with crowd-sourced analysis is infinitely more valuable than the MSM formula, and that's where aggregators shine. However, curation is something that doesn't crowd-source as well. IMHO curation gets stale if it's completely crowd-sourced, but it also gets stale if it's left up to the individual. The solution I'm trying is to allow users to put their curation in the hands of a group of select people. It's easy to see who is contributing what, and if someone isn't providing value, you swap them for someone else. -You basically build a curation group.