I’ve just installed AideRSS into my Google Reader a few days ago. It’s an interesting plugin, but using it raised a couple of questions for me – that of staying above the noise.
In today’s world of the web, authority tends to be measured based on how many people link to something. Your Google ranking or Technorati authority is essentially based on the number of people who link to your website. I’m not sure how the AideRSS rankings work, but I assume it’s based on how many people read a post and things like that?
While I understand the need for an authorty system, and I understand why it’s done this way, it’s not a perfect system. As people start using these systems as filters, the higher you rank, the more likely your rank will increase. It’s sort of like an issue of “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer”.
And this makes it even easier to get trapped in the fishbowl – to get trapped just reading what everyone else is reading. In doing so, it gets easier to get trapped writing similar things to everyone else – to get stuck on the same topics, similar viewpoints, etc.
Here’s my question. I understand why a filtering system is needed, there’s just too much noise and all to manage everything.
So how do you manage the filtering system while not getting trapped in the fishbowl?
How do you filter the information you read without getting stuck in reading and writing the same topics as everyone else?
How do you filter what you read – and still maintain originality and come up with something new?
Hi Derrick — Thanks for the write-up. While I'd love to proclaim we'd answered those very quandaries, they're a work in progress for us, too. 🙂
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.
Thanks, Melanie.
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.
Hi Derrick — Thanks for the write-up. While I'd love to proclaim we'd answered those very quandaries, they're a work in progress for us, too. 🙂
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.
Thanks, Melanie.
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.