Re: [syndication] Automatically Transforming Blog or HTML Content into XML

["Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@ideaspace.net>]

> absolutely true.  :)  our paper is very clear about the methodology we're
> using - the statistical numbers must be interpreted in line with the
> methods being used.

Do you have a publish date?

> i'd hazard a guess that the # of blogger blogs is substantially more than
> 57% of what's out there, but maybe not the 80% we're getting as a result.
> again, it depends entirely on what you call a blog, and that's a shifty
> question in itself.  the reified answers that most people are willing to
> provide will not suffice for research purposes.  :)

Again, "out there" is a vague concept.  That they 'exist' is one thing.  That
they provide content that has value, over time, to a measurable audience, would
be a MUCH more useful number.  I'm not sure I'd argue that any one tool is
dominant at this point in time.  Nor would I go without trending migrations from
one tool to another.  I've seen quite a range of transition away from tools like
Blogger and Radio (mainly to MoveableType).  But I'm sure the accuracy of my
sampling as it exists thus far is crude, at best.

So beyond what "you'd call a blog" I'd wonder if the REAL question isn't "does
it provide anything worthwhile"?  This is like asking "what kind of grass grows
best in a minefield?"

I just don't see that from the current range of content that there's enough data
to distill anything even closely resembling "an answer".   Sure, one could posit
any number of clever positions but this is why I quoted Twain.

> > As we build out larger lists of feeds we stand the chance of building
> > out larger lists that can be cross-referenced.  Likewise, as more
> > content comes online the users will demand more effective ways to refine
> > the list of what's presented to them.  But at this stage of the game
> > there's frankly TOO LITTLE content online to start thinking about using
> > exclusionary filters.
>
> i'm very interested in ways that this piece of the game might develop.
>
> it is pretty interesting that you say there's "too little content";
> what're your criteria for "enough content" to start filtering in earnest?

Consider that we've a world population of over 5 billion.  Contrast that with
the extant number of weblogs cited thus far (arguably hardly more than a
million).  I'd say we have a way to go here before we start thinking there's
'enough' content online.

My caution against filtering comes from observing the biased behaviors that
usually accompany it.  The risk being that filtering is applied by "peoples in
authority" for the "good of the people".  Consider bigotry, racism, religion,
xenophobia, class warfare, nationalism and the like.  At this point the number
of voices participating in the overall delivery of content does not strike me as
being anywhere near large enough to justify investing efforts into excluding
things.  Basically, the existing number of content providers doesn't speak for a
wide enough percentage of the public to start thinking that it's anything near
approaching accurate enough to justify filtering.  But then again, those that
would provide or control the filters would certainly argue against such an idea.
Fortunately the public outnumbers them.

-Bill Kearney