Re: Re: Channel 3475 - Please advise

["Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com>]

> Subject: Re: Re: Channel 3475 - Please advise
>
> Devil's advocate -
>
> As RSS, aggregation, etc. gets more popular, finding channels won't
> be done by going to directories, hotlists, etc. Instead, people will
> find RSS files that they're interested in the same way they find out
> about other content which appeals to them; through friends, e-mail,
> Web sites they visit, etc.
>
> After all, why set up an entire new infrastructure for finding
> content, just because that content takes a different form (Web pages
> vs. RSS feeds)? Right now it might be appealing because there are
> relatively few channels, so people have to hunt for them. If there's
> a channel for every content source on the Internet, having a master
> ratings engine/hotlist/etc might be a job for somebody like Yahoo,
> but why make it part of RSS itself?

The problem I see with categorization is people lie.  How many search engines
have gotten polluted with crap because the authors put bogus keywords all over
the place.  Remember the that search engine TV commercial with the old guys?

However, what if categorization was limited?  What if a channel could only
have a few categorization keys?   This leads to all sorts of infighting about
what's a category, who defines them, what about other languages, etc.

But the point about not starting a whole other infrastructure is important.
Stop and think a second as to how RSS isn't any different than NNTP (usenet)
feeds.  Putting everything but the kitchen sink into an RSS item turns it back
into a news article, doesn't it?

The idea of a news aggregator is valuable.  I'm just not sure it needs to be
ramped up into this feature-laden monster that seems to be evolving in RSS
1.x.

Just my 2 cents, it's early and I've had no coffee.

-Bill Kearney