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

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

> > 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 think this is a Really Good Question - a lot of the content that's out
> there is pretty fecal.  i'm not so sure, though, that throwing away
> content that you don't think is 'worthwhile' is really a good way to
> determine what the *form* should be.  there's an implied value judgment
> there that makes me a little queasy.

Rightly so.   This is a slipperly slope I've assiduously tried to avoid with
Syndic8.  Getting into making editorial judgements when all you're after is
something technical is a huge mistake.  As in, trying to filter out "crap"
because of limited machine resources is asking for trouble.  More often than not
the 'crap' producers will notice their being excluded, will raise a hue and cry
and waste the remaining human resources you possess.  Better to toss them all
into one heap and let the consumers fend for themselves.  At least until a
/really/ wide range of content can be seen as being found FIRST and THEN
offering the choice to filter or not.

> > which is why I quoted Twain.
> hehehehheheheh

Good, glad you caught the humor, sarcastic as it is.

> i guess we're at 1/5000th, then.  you're right, that's not a real huge
> percentage when compared to world population.  i'm not sure that that's
> what the basis of comparison should be, but it certainly does clamp down
> on what the domain/range of interest might be - might be more interesting
> to only think about it in comparison to the number of people who're LIKELY
> to produce content on their own.  i think there's certainly a large group
> of people who would never, ever, ever produce content for fun, even if the
> tools are free, 100% available, etc etc etc.  :)

Yes, that's a different argument however.  I probably jumped the gun on your
initial argument.  My rabid opposition was based on the impression that this is
yet another paper that attempts to twist statistics into making one product or
technology look bad.  Thus branching out into larger sets of numbers was my
attempt to devalue numbers I'd seen as being less than useful to what I'd
consider a worthwhile agenda.   As in, why carp about low RSS adoption numbers
when the overall numbers are skewed so low as to be useless.  It only makes RSS
'look bad' and here's where Twain's quote starts kicking in...

> > 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.
>
> all great evils, yes.

And ones I see quite regularly as themes in discussions with those that would
seek to enable only 'select' portions of what they'd consider the 'viable'
population of content producers.  Sort of like only selling the printing press
to those of a given mindset.  (Twisting Liebling's quote of "Freedom of the
press is guaranteed only to those who own one").

> > 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.
>
> oh, now i'm starting to follow.

Right, and efforts to cast one technology over another based on statistical
analysis of the current user population seems to support arguments that don't
lead to wider implementations.  But then I'm probably being overly paranoid
here.

> on the one hand there's the possibility of producing FILTERS that exclude
> content.  that's a bad idea, as you say.  on the other hand, though,
> there's room to create tools that allow users to collect and manage lists
> of resources that they LIKE - inclusive content rather than exclusive.

Or how about 'anti-metadata' that filters based on knowing what you DISagree
with?  As in, search out all comments made by user 'X' and dump them into my
'full of shit but intriguing in a watch a car crash sort of way'.  Simple
exclusion filters would have a rather tough time.  Or extend that out along
social network structures, find me things that group X says are bogus, mainly
because I think group X is a pack of drooling idiots and I generally find
following what they dislike to be of the sort of think I know to be correct.
Not just collaborative filtering based on like-minded agreements here...

> i'm really enjoying this conversation - good to get to hash through some
> of this .....

Likewise,  thanks!

-Bill Kearney