161–170 of 531 posts
I absolutely loved del.icio.us back in the day and I would love to use it again. No other method of bookmarking/collecting sites worked for me as well as del.icio.us. And I have never found the right alternative.
I was only thinking of it last night when reading the Deja News discussion -- so many useful services that got acquired and ceased (Wunderlist, Skitch and many more)
This is old school weird web! For those who did not experience it, del.icio.us was a bookmarking service, and one of the first to have "tags", but also had a sense of fresh discovery. You can bookmark and tag your sites. But you can also browse the bookmarks and tags of people you know, and people they know, getting deeper, freed from algorithmic manipulation. Like Wikipedia, but you start at you.
At some point I started searching directly in del.icio.us over google because it would give me higher quality results. I guess someone bookmarking a site was proof enough it was useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can at least draw a line from Delicious to Reddit. Digg was originally modelled on the "popular" section of Delicious, an example of building a product out of a feature. Then Reddit saw a huge boost from the eventual Digg community exodus, after a time when Digg itself was the cultural nerve centre.
I was wondering if anyone was going to point this out. I can remember digg being bigger than everything besides maybe stumbleupon for a short while when it came to bookmarking sites.I never would have imagined reddit being what it is now.
Hmm next what, people will abandon Facebook and flock back to thematic PHPBB forums? (I honestly can't wait!)
Delicious was for a time at the cultural nerve center of the web, and I think had the potential to be something like a twitter or a reddit if stewarded correctly. I like to think there was an alternate reality where Yahoo didn't run itself into the ground, and took its properties: delicious, flickr, tumblr, its massive userbase across fantasy sports, groups, news, messenger, geocities and answers, its email service,…
One difference in the fate of Yahoo vis a vis Google, is that Yahoo didn't spy on its users and exploit the knowledge gained from spying to make gazillions from advertising. Take from that what you will. Google made money, and then Facebook learned how to make money by trumping Google - by harvesting the "digital surplus" of its users to power an advertising juggernaut. The rise of advertising everywhere, and the los…
This may come as a shock to some, but it's quite logical when you think about it.
With print advertising, it makes sense. You pay for the space you take up. How do you calculate that? Well, at minimum, the cost of a classified ad for similar space, plus additional fees for processing, graphics, and color.
Online, advertising pricing really doesn't make much sense. The space you have is freely available, there are no printing costs, no special processing requirements, and the readers aren't even likely to be local, unlike the limited distribution networks of most newspapers. It should come as no surprise that online advertising revenue for newspapers is nowhere near its peak of print advertising revenue [1]. Even when a newspaper stops printing and can cut out all the expenses that come with it, there simply isn't enough money to support their existing levels of operation.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/this-is...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Newsletters are the new RSS. Different protocol, but simpler for non-technical users and a viable business model. Some recent apps (Stoop and HEY) make the reading experience more like traditional RSS readers too.
adding rss feeds to (say) google reader doesn't require technical expertise. email newsletters require your email address, which is obviously prone to abuse and spam. newsletters aren't the new rss, but rather an arguably inferior replacement.
The fact someone took the time to understand why they should care about Google Reader, set it up, and regularly used it does require some technical interest/ability. That's why most internet users didn't know what RSS was even at the peak of the blogging and RSS revolution circa 2005, whereas today (or even back then), everyone intuitively understands newsletters.
I'm not saying they're better for everyone, frankly they are far worse for regular readers in my view, but they're the clearest successor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard to tell without context, but that first example could easily be a positive: not only is extending grace to employees ethically a good thing to do, but it can also lead to increased productivity in the long run. Of course, if the employee was completely MIA for an extended period of time and no effort was made to contact them, that's neither ethical nor productive.
What kind of increase in productivity does just not showing up provide? People should be able to take sick days, personal days, mental health days, but disappearing should have raised concern from team members to see if that person is OK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
adding rss feeds to (say) google reader doesn't require technical expertise. email newsletters require your email address, which is obviously prone to abuse and spam. newsletters aren't the new rss, but rather an arguably inferior replacement.
ah, but newsletters allow you to serve adverts, which is really why RSS "died".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One difference in the fate of Yahoo vis a vis Google, is that Yahoo didn't spy on its users and exploit the knowledge gained from spying to make gazillions from advertising. Take from that what you will. Google made money, and then Facebook learned how to make money by trumping Google - by harvesting the "digital surplus" of its users to power an advertising juggernaut. The rise of advertising everywhere, and the los…
You left out the worst of them: Twitter. Slot-machine of the internet. rage, outrage, xenophobia, name-calling, name-dropping, celebrity, manufactured 140 chars at a time. It's a culture killer.
For me I avoid Twitter and ignore all news media(minus some local news).
I'm shocked by the number of people calling a website founded in 2003 as "old school". That was 3 years after the dot-com bust!