Sifting through garbage.
SpeakingFreely which is a GREAT blog posted yesterday on something I’ve been meaning to talk about.
I’ve been really busy lately, so I had to find a way to gain some more time. So I started by eliminating feeds from my RSS reader. What did I cut?
Every feed that regurgitates news, comments on news, has nothing but opinion on news, etc. There’s simply no reason to hit 3 fora and 30-300 blogs all letting me know that Terry Semel is no longer the CEO of Yahoo.
He is exactly right. Whenever I find myself marking “All as Read” on Google Reader more than a few days in a row, i immediately unsubscribe from the feed. Your reader is supposed to be a means to a more efficient internet, one that tolerates little waste and puts the power in your hands. What seems to have really happened is that with the imposition being so little, people are just accepting garbage posts. As you move down the Long Tail and down the newsroom hierarchy, the simple reporting of news has less and less value. I lost count of how many awful and uninformative posts I read about the Facebook Platform or Semel stepping down. And you know, thank God Steve Rubel wrote about the iPhone, otherwise I would have had NO idea it was coming out.
The point is this: Your time is valuable, don’t let people waste it. Robert Scoble brags about reading 600 blogs a day. That doesn’t make him smart, it makes him an idiot. I haven’t found 600 good websites on the entire internet–and my job is to sit at a computer all day and look. If a feed starts getting redundant and derivative, unsubscribe. How else will they know that users are finding their content less than satisfactory? Only when they see the numbers decline will they bother to do anything about it.
And writers: Blogs rose to prominence not for their ability to break news but to provide more detail and more perspective. What good are you doing if you turn my reader into a nerdy AP Wire? If you can’t ADD to the discussion, just sit back and listen. Not every story needs to be commented on by everybody.
UPDATE: Robert Scoble has a good enough sense of humor that he ended up linking to yesterday’s post and dropping me a comment. But one person took issue with my comment that there aren’t 600 good blogs on the internet. I’d like to make a clarification: I don’t think there are 600 good sites on the entire internet. Blogs are just a subset.
But this illuminates a very real opportunity for exploitation–both the reality and the delusion. First, good content is INCREDIBLY rare. Think of all the sites you read, how many of them actually produce what you read? Most of them are just portals to the people who are the real producers. At this point, almost all the A-list, high traffic bloggers have been done book deal. They all failed for good reason: They have very little to offer. They couldn’t expand their stories, delve into issues they’d only scratch the surface of. The idea that the internet is any less susceptible to the woes of Hollywood is ridiculous. It’s not so much that we have a system or a platform problem–we have a people problem. The wrong people are gatekeepers, the wrong people are creating, the wrong people are marketing and the rest of us simply have to accept it. So just like I can’t think of 600 good sites, I can’t think of 600 GREAT movies or 60 current great musicians. The opportunity then–as it always has been–is original and passionate art. Now, the mantra of “just have good content” is too easily tossed around but that doesn’t make it untrue. The problem is no one takes it seriously, no one really tries. But the idea that we can replace Hollywood megalomaniacs with Silicon Valley dorks isn’t going to cut it.
Two, people are so desperate to consume content that they’re willing to accept up to 600 sites a day. That means there is a ton of opportunity, and being talented makes you a commodity. So what you have is a massive market and no one is serving it. The latent demand for quality is there but the people who can satiate it have fallen down on the job.
But you tell me: Is there anywhere near 600 blogs worth reading on a daily basis? I have a solid 150 and maybe–and I mean maybe–6-10 posts a day do I find myself glad I to have read. If so, where are they hiding? And why is Scoble the only one who seems to have tracked them down?
Well, this post just came through my Google Reader. I thought it was funny so I put it on my link blog. Enjoy!
Well, this post just came through my Google Reader. I thought it was funny so I put it on my link blog. Enjoy!
I’m just commenting to let you know I found your article through Scoble’s shared items. Nuff said.
I’m wondering if Robert Scoble cleans up his feeds once in a while, I know he does. Also, the question must be asked if he adds and removes feeds once in a while. I know he does.
I myself are reading 578 blogfeeds, over the last 30 days I read 38.500 items. That brings me to the next point. You say you haven’t found 600 good websites. Maybe your interests differ from Robert and mine. If a feed starts getting redundant and derivative, unsubscribe, what do you think we do?
I think Robert is reading this many feeds because he ain’t willing to miss a news item.
I agree with you that, with the introduction of XML, RSS etc… (which should solve our information overload problem) the problem itself came bigger and bigger. The last year we produced more (partly) redundant info then books have been written the last 150 year. You’re the one that desides to add feeds to the feedreader, not the ones that are creating “news”.
For every blog there seems to be a target group, otherwise the’re doomed to die (sooner or later) The people who’re participating on the internet are behaving like they want to, they can be themselves, or they can create another identity for themselves. So, please stop educating those people. What’s wrong with what they”re doing, what’s wrong with reading so many feeds. Why do you want to call Robert an idiot (oh yeah, that makes me an idiot too 🙂 ) I get your point, but think by yourself, who decided to add redundant articles, who decided to read all those blogs.
Jaap,
Of course there is nothing morally wrong with having too many feeds–other than the gluttony and waste. Not willing to miss anything? 10 years ago, when we didn’t have blogs, were people walking around stupid unless they read 57 newpapers a day? Of course not. Blogs are supposed to make our lives EASIER not more inefficient.
How many of Robert’s (who was nice enough to comment) feeds are tech related? Is there even that much tech news?
To me, it’s nothing to be proud of having an overloaded and overlapping reader.
Oh how true!
I go through my google reader at least once a month purging out the crap.
Jaap, I haven’t cleaned out my feeds lately. I cleaned them out more than a year ago and have been steadily adding to them ever since. It’s easy to “J, J, J, J” over the crap, though.
every sandpiper praises its own swamp
Such valid points. Only wish people would listen to what you say here!