You probably know this, but just thought I'd state it clearly in case anyone misunderstands me. This post is definitely not a criticism of AideRSS. I think it's a really good plugin, I'm using it, and I'll be tracking it in future. The plugin was just an inspiration to the thought.

Thanks for adding your voice, and I do agree with you, that the best way is still to have a human network of good curators. I guess there are some things that technology just can't replace as yet.

However, some answers… Eyeballs on a page is one way we do our analysis, but there are a few more. There are plenty more info here: http://postrank.com/postrank.html — as you can see, the “weight” of a type of engagement is one of the most important factors. How much work is your audience will to do to share your posts?

There will always be some unevenness, I think, between the “big” sites and all the rest of us little guys, however, we do remain cognizant that you can't just compare apples to oranges and expect credible results. Which is why we do two kinds of analysis. Thematic PostRank, which appears in Google Reader in Folder View when you use our extension, does compare all the sites you've selected for a given folder against each other. However, Feed-based PostRank, which is what kicks in when you view a specific feed (or use the website), ranks a single site's content only against that same site's past performance.

It's not perfect, certainly, but it helps good content that's less well known not get buried beneath the TechCrunch behemoths of the internet.

Of course, all that said, I am always all ears about people's strategies for both keeping up with content online, and for hunting down the unique and lesser-known gems. To date the best way I've seen is still to have a great network of smart and curious people and remain tied into to their word of mouth.

You probably know this, but just thought I'd state it clearly in case anyone misunderstands me. This post is definitely not a criticism of AideRSS. I think it's a really good plugin, I'm using it, and I'll be tracking it in future. The plugin was just an inspiration to the thought.

Thanks for adding your voice, and I do agree with you, that the best way is still to have a human network of good curators. I guess there are some things that technology just can't replace as yet.

However, some answers… Eyeballs on a page is one way we do our analysis, but there are a few more. There are plenty more info here: http://postrank.com/postrank.html — as you can see, the “weight” of a type of engagement is one of the most important factors. How much work is your audience will to do to share your posts?

There will always be some unevenness, I think, between the “big” sites and all the rest of us little guys, however, we do remain cognizant that you can't just compare apples to oranges and expect credible results. Which is why we do two kinds of analysis. Thematic PostRank, which appears in Google Reader in Folder View when you use our extension, does compare all the sites you've selected for a given folder against each other. However, Feed-based PostRank, which is what kicks in when you view a specific feed (or use the website), ranks a single site's content only against that same site's past performance.

It's not perfect, certainly, but it helps good content that's less well known not get buried beneath the TechCrunch behemoths of the internet.

Of course, all that said, I am always all ears about people's strategies for both keeping up with content online, and for hunting down the unique and lesser-known gems. To date the best way I've seen is still to have a great network of smart and curious people and remain tied into to their word of mouth.