Re: The constraint to widespread adoption of syndication

Mark Fletcher wrote:

>
>  
>
>I completely agree about client aggregators leaving a lot to be desired. 
>That's why I created http://www.bloglines.com (just had to get the plug 
>in there). ;-)
>
>
>  
>
>>Many content producers are not going syndicate their content with RSS, 
>>necho, etc. until the clients are in more widespread use.  There just 
>>isn't the business case with current volumes.  I feel aggregators must 
>>be integrated into corporate email clients (like MS Outlook) for 
>>widespread adoption at work, and into common mail readers like outlook 
>>express, mozilla, etc. at home.  Sharpreader, syndirella, newsmonster , 
>>etc. are not headed for the mainstream, because they have 
>>yet-another-interface that behaves almost as good as a mail/nntp reader. 
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>Here's where I disagree with you. I don't want an aggregator in my mail 
>reader. The spam/information overload problem with email is so great 
>right now, the last thing I want is more things arriving in my inbox. 
>I'd probably accidently delete half the feed items mistaking them for 
>spam.
>
I agree that having aggregated content in the inbox would be a 
nuiscance.  Integrating into the mail reader and its folder structure 
does not rely on aggregated content being sent to the inbox.  
Newsgator/outlook works well because the aggregated content is off on 
the side, in another folder other than my inbox.  I have an aggregated 
folder where all the feeds are archived.  I simply click on the 
aggregated folder a couple times a day and see whats new.  I mark the 
stuff read I don't want to see, and view the items of interest.  Outlook 
allows me to configure as a single pane, two pane, or three pane view, 
sort or group by anything I want.

> I'm not claiming 'death of email, footage at 11'. Yet. Also, and 
>people may disagree with me, I think if aggregators become widely 
>adopted, that the vast majority of users will not be active bloggers, 
>mirroring the behavior of the Internet population at large. The 
>aggregator will be a 'one-way/read-only' portal of information. That's 
>different than email, with its iterative, read/write nature.
>
Well, I see an aggregator a subset of na email or usenet client as 
opposed to "different";  the user doesn't have (or cannot) to respond to 
the items they get.  In fact, a particular advantage of email 
integration is the ease in which an interesting rss item can be 
forwarded via email.

>
>Personally, I think there are a couple of other issues hampering 
>aggregator adoption (if anything is hampering it, and I'm not sure). One 
>is terminology. You say news feed, and I might think USENET. You say 
>news aggregator, and as a normal user I might have no idea what you're 
>talking about. And RSS is probably a meaningless acronym for most 
>people. So terminology is confusing. Second is education. I bet the vast 
>majority of people who could benefit from using an aggregator have no 
>idea that they exist and don't fathom how they operate.
>
Thats right, the majority don't, and they won't because the clients are 
not good enough. 

>
>The education part, at least, I think is pretty normal for a new 
>technology and will just take some time to work out. The terminology 
>part, however, I think will take a little work (and it's not a skill I'm 
>blessed with).
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mark
>--
>Mark Fletcher
>Bloglines
>http://www.bloglines.com
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
----
Doug Ransom
House for sale http://ransom.dyndns.ws/house



 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/