Tuesday, May 22, 2007

what they say and what reasons they give for what they are saying...

I look at what they say and what reasons they give for what they are saying…*first* and *foremost* — always! ESPECIALLY online… it’s not like you can see the expression on their faces (like you might in the case of a witness) or that knowing that a particular random person wrote a particular post means much — the reverse doesn’t mean much to me either (that a *known* person wrote the post), I mean nowhere as much as what they say and the reasons they give for what they are saying — they may be more *likely* to say something of value but that becomes irrelevant when you have the info in front of you… I suspect you don’t agree but that’s ok :)…. I was just curious what your reasons were… but I don’t really need to know… D.


Dan appears to be *more* than a credentialist: looks like, for him, if you’d rather not share your name with the whole world, you might just as well shut up… (you are NOT standing behind your words…) And nope, it’s not an issue of privacy! After all, why *shouldn’t* the whole world know? (from here to eternity…) you MUST be hiding *something*! ;)…


P.S. (if you haven’t noticed) I’m mostly kidding, Dan…

Seth, it seems to me that IF you are evidence based, you wouldn’t be granting presumptions to anybody — you would just look at the stuff (on an *individual* basis) and decide if it’s good or not — if you already have the thing in front of you, what good are presumptions? (the time those would have been useful has already passed).

Jon, I think it all depends… I can think of a number of circumstances where “the new gatekeepers’ values” (according to you) would do just fine… : for instance, not all useful information requires a lot of pondering and getting something quick may be essential


P.S. The real issue seems to be whether the “non-credentialed reviews” (that *overall* appear to be a mixed bag — well, more so than the “credentialed reviews”) are just something EXTRA that is available… or whether their existence does in fact result in less available quality reviews (”credentialed” or not)… and if this is the case at the moment, is this something that’s temporary or not…

P.P.S. Jon, I agree that too much information to sort through can be a problem (I took a quick look at your article) : rating by those who have already read the stuff seems to be a promising solution (but it needs to be more than just a popularity rating a la Digg — I think Fabrice Florin’s idea is on the right track and can be applied to a lot more things) D.

Jon - if your idea was different enough (and for the better) it may still be worth writing your version of Digg (Digg’s system doesn’t appear to have much for IP protection — I mean there seem to be so many copycats and I’m not aware of legal challenges by Digg….) D.

Seth: Jon said: “My time would probably have been better invested in April 2005 had I written Digg then” — this only makes sense if the code was a significant ingredient in the success… (unless Jon could also get the audience) D.

No comments: