RE: [syndication] Sneak Preview: my.info

["Per Kreipke" <per@onclave.com>]

Aaron,

I'm going to agree with Leigh and try to use his terms (plus) below: authors
write the content, sources disseminate it, aggregators combine/gather
sources, consumers consume/display aggregated content, users read the
content.

> No, indeed, sources are certainly valuable and that's why they
> are included with the information on my.info.
> However, I care about the fact that my
> information is coming from the New York Times, not that it's
> coming from the New York Times website.
> The New York Times is just an entity that places a
> "stamp" on the work of its writers (yes, they do do editing and such, but
> let's leave that aside for now). That stamp has particular value
> to you, but what's important is the stamp -- not that you're receiving
your
> news from a specific newspaper or website.

Yes, the 'stamp' of the author and the source is important, but so is that
of the aggregator. For example, if an aggregator [my.info :-)] isn't
reliable and trustworthy and unbiased (and ignoring the value-add of each
aggregator), why should I use it instead of the source itself? [reiterating
a similar concern of Leigh's].

Suppose the aggregator can't handle the traffic and has no revenue to pay
for more servers [like many aggregators :-)]. Suppose they can't pay for the
content they're aggregating and they steal the feeds instead (tech reasons
it can't happen are hogwash). Suppose their main investors are from the
Church of Scientology and they pull all articles from their feeds that slam
'Battlefield Earth' and anything about John Travolta :-). Or suppose that
Big Tobacco is an investor, or more likely, Philip Morris via Nabisco via
Oreo cookies? All of a sudden we don't hear about the tobacco suits and I
can't join a class action because I never knew about it. I know that
iSyndicate and moreover are aggregators with revenue needs. Are they above
following suggestions from their investors or clients regarding their
content? I'm sure they are. But there are probably other that aren't. And
these are the 'sources' (aggregators) you're talking about. [so shoot me,
I'm a little cynical :-)]

In addition, I have -no- idea what the editorial policy at Excite or Yahoo
or Lycos or Disney or pick-your-portal is regarding purchased feeds. They're
not sources, nor aggregators, they're the consumer and could also filter the
feeds any way they like. Excite not reporting that they are clamping down on
the upstream bandwidth of their users? Or that they were blocked by NASA
because it's the hacker network of choice? It'll never happen. Not even to
protect the stock price? Never! Right.

I know that's not who you're positioning my.info against, but it further
illustrates the point: [to acknowledge Leigh's clarification] _I_ think the
middlemen do matter.

In fact, I see value in a eTrust (Trust-e?) type of service for aggregation
as well as personal privacy (hmmm, business plan anyone?). A simple
test-compare once an hour of the same Associated Press feed rendered in
Excite, Yahoo and Lycos for example. Just to make sure everybody is honest.
I'm sure that the aggregators have something written into the contracts
about modifying their feeds but maybe they weren't able to push such a
clause over on a Yahoo. [hey! just read Leigh's new thread, right on!]

So, how should aggregators behave? see Leigh's new thread....

More on RDF next.

Per.

P.s. "Who watches the Watchmen?"