Oh sure, Scott -- I tell you you're wrong and I'm an idiot, but Umair says you're wrong and you change your mind just like that. :)
grumpysecretary
· 3 years ago
The blessing for me is that I'm utterly insignificant, so I don't really care about what anyone else says or thinks. It's freedom brother!
As for the matter at hand, the only practical solution I see is that I need to get me me a "content posse!". Help me track down the content I've got to have and dismiss the rest.
What good are all those people at myspace, tribe.net, yahoo 360 etc...if they don't help me find content? Help me find the things I need? If all they want is to be near me? To have their pic on my friends list! That feeds my ego for a wee bit, but in the end, I need more.
I need a micro network that brings "value" to my life. I need a "trusted content posse" At least until I get a sexy computer voice like Capt. Kirk had. *smile*
met
· 3 years ago
Did Godin call for a 'blogging restraint' ? He was just predicting the future. He's just doing what he does - finding patterns.
Hey Mathew, I told him he was wrong too! There's plenty of "I told you so" to go around.
Seth Finkelstein
· 3 years ago
It's *possible* that both you and Umar are misunderstanding Seth Godin. Though it's hard to say, since I think Godin may be not have expressed his point well. That is, it's not clear if Godin meant one thing but didn't express it well, or if I'm misreading him.
He *may* have meant, bluntly: There's a lot of writers out there competing for a finite pool of attention. Overall, the winner for that attention, in general, won't be *you*. Don't even bother trying, it's futile. The very best you can hope to do, in general, is to be prominent in a niche. That's a better idea than wasting your time chasing after the same punditry that others (likely far better positioned that you) are chasing.
The problem is, as a marking person, he is constrained from saying this so directly :-).
Scott Karp
· 3 years ago
met, what's the difference if Seth "called" for "restraint" or predicted that restrained would win:
Blogs with restraint, selectivity, cogency and brevity (okay, that's a long way of saying "making every word count") will use attention more efficiently and ought to win.
He may very well be describing qualities of "winning" content, but I still think he's wrong about his problem analysis and why this type of content will win.
SethF, you never fail to impress me with your ability to wind your way back to the same "futility" theme, regardless of the topic.
Mathew, what can I tell you? We all wish we could be more like Umair.
seth godin
· 3 years ago
I wasn't calling for restraint. I was indeed pointing out that if you, as a micro-publisher, want to build an audience of people who count on you, look to you, expect that you will act as a filter for them... if you want to be that source, then blogging all the time might not be the long-term way to get there.
The front page of the Times, the front page of Digg, the front page of your blog... that's a filtered space. The difference is that the Times can't make there's "bigger" and you, the blogger, can. In the short run, that'll get more hits. My question was, is that the way to be the filter winner in the long run?
Seth Finkelstein
· 3 years ago
Now, now, Scott. Just like it's said there are only a handful of basic plots in literature, blogging-about-blogging has only a very few things which are said about it (e.g. 1) It's great for the winners 2) It's not so great for everyone else 3) WE NEED BETTER TOOLS! (see this post!), etc. - note this list is illustrative, not exhaustive).
I think some repetition comes from the people saying plot-1 not taking into account the people saying plot-2, and the chorus of plot-3 responses.
Umar saying "The whole point is that attention is no longer a commons;", (whatever in the world that means) is missing that attention is, to a good approximation, a finite resource, which is what I think Godin is using as part of his argument. Umar is going astray with one connotation of the word "commons", in part because I believe Godin isn't expressing his presumed point well. And I see this easily because I'm particularly concerned with the difficulties of the distribution of that limited resource, hence I think that's valid here.
Mark Devlin
· 3 years ago
But a blog can’t “win†in Media 2.0 by being a “destination†for readers any more than an Old Media company can win by making its website the ultimate destination.
Can you expalin how this matches with your recent post where you said that Blogs are destinations?
soobrosa
· 3 years ago
that's why we called ourselves f!lter till we realized that myspace has a publication with the same name.
i really think that the wisdom of crowds do not work everytime, the tyranny of the majority can be lethal
sbw
· 3 years ago
Regarding filters, I wrote Newspapers in 2010 in 1990 -- winning a free trip to Las Vegas:
... Local newspapers would have died had it not been for the emergence of the copyrighted filter. A computer-programmed filter extracts selected text and graphics from the information stream based upon subject, author, keyword, source, destination, date, or other blend of characteristics. The automated filter is necessary because more information than can be easily assimilated by the reader is shoveled down the fiber-optic cables and the satellite sideband feeds attached to the home communications computer system. Prior to the filter, people would dip into the rushing torrents of information with limited means to winnow it down or extract it efficiently.
People subscribe to a filter they trust. I may prefer the British magazine, the Economist's filter over the Time or Newsweek filter because of their point of view or because I trust their judgment. I subscribe to the Associated Press filter and the local newspaper filter. Changing keywords modifies the basic filter to reflect personal preferences.
The newspaper still uses editors. As a human filter they provide a good defense against the possibility a brittle, automated filter could insulate a subscriber from too much. ...
All Comments
As for the matter at hand, the only practical solution I see is that I need to get me me a "content posse!". Help me track down the content I've got to have and dismiss the rest.
What good are all those people at myspace, tribe.net, yahoo 360 etc...if they don't help me find content? Help me find the things I need? If all they want is to be near me? To have their pic on my friends list! That feeds my ego for a wee bit, but in the end, I need more.
I need a micro network that brings "value" to my life. I need a "trusted content posse" At least until I get a sexy computer voice like Capt. Kirk had. *smile*
He's just doing what he does - finding patterns.
Check out this post
He *may* have meant, bluntly: There's a lot of writers out there competing for a finite pool of attention. Overall, the winner for that attention, in general, won't be *you*. Don't even bother trying, it's futile. The very best you can hope to do, in general, is to be prominent in a niche. That's a better idea than wasting your time chasing after the same punditry that others (likely far better positioned that you) are chasing.
The problem is, as a marking person, he is constrained from saying this so directly :-).
He may very well be describing qualities of "winning" content, but I still think he's wrong about his problem analysis and why this type of content will win.
SethF, you never fail to impress me with your ability to wind your way back to the same "futility" theme, regardless of the topic.
Mathew, what can I tell you? We all wish we could be more like Umair.
The front page of the Times, the front page of Digg, the front page of your blog... that's a filtered space. The difference is that the Times can't make there's "bigger" and you, the blogger, can. In the short run, that'll get more hits. My question was, is that the way to be the filter winner in the long run?
I think some repetition comes from the people saying plot-1 not taking into account the people saying plot-2, and the chorus of plot-3 responses.
Umar saying "The whole point is that attention is no longer a commons;", (whatever in the world that means) is missing that attention is, to a good approximation, a finite resource, which is what I think Godin is using as part of his argument. Umar is going astray with one connotation of the word "commons", in part because I believe Godin isn't expressing his presumed point well. And I see this easily because I'm particularly concerned with the difficulties of the distribution of that limited resource, hence I think that's valid here.
Can you expalin how this matches with your recent post where you said that Blogs are destinations?
i really think that the wisdom of crowds do not work everytime, the tyranny of the majority can be lethal