<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" 
      xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/what_is_the_dat.php" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/atom.xml" />
  <id>tag:,2009:/1/tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4365-</id>
  <updated></updated>
  <title>Comments for What Is The Data Matrix? Machines and Humans Coexist</title>
  
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.23-en</generator>
  <entry>
    <id>tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4365</id>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/what_is_the_dat.php" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=4365" title="What Is The Data Matrix? Machines and Humans Coexist" />
    <published>2005-02-19T05:48:20Z</published>
    <updated>2007-12-16T23:15:40Z</updated>
    <title>What Is The Data Matrix? Machines and Humans Coexist</title>
    <summary>Andrew
Nachison from The Media Centre raises some interesting issues regarding RSS content
aggregation. He boils it down to these 3 questions...</summary>
    <author>
      <name>Richard MacManus</name>
      <uri>http://www.readwriteweb.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <category term="Two Way Web" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.readwriteweb.com/">
      <![CDATA[<p><a href="http://mediacenter.blogs.com/morph/2005/02/beyond_winners_.html">Andrew
Nachison from The Media Centre</a> raises some interesting issues regarding RSS content
aggregation. He boils it down to these 3 questions:</p>

<h2>1. Machines vs. humans? [in regards to aggregation]</h2>

<p>I agree with Andrew's conclusion: "This isn't an &ldquo;either/or&rdquo; theory but a
&ldquo;both/and&rdquo; reality." P.S. also check out <a href="http://www.mediacenter.org/content/4804.cfm">The Media Center Matrix</a>. <a
href="http://blog.topix.net/archives/000066.html">Rich Skrenta from Topix.net</a> has a
similar view: "For comprehensiveness, algorithmic techniques will have to come into play.
People-powered systems just don't scale to the long tail."</p>

<p>I too think there's a middle ground to machine and human/social aggregation. Currently
I think we're probably nearing the peak of human/social feed aggregation, in percentage
terms. What I mean by that is that the average blogger/reader probably subscribes to
80-90% human feeds and 10-20% machine feeds - and most of the latter would be egofeeds
from the likes of PubSub, Technorati, Feedster (sometimes egofeeds of <a
href="http://susanmernit.blogspot.com/2005/02/subscribing-to-egofeeds.html">other
people</a> :-). So topic and tag RSS feeds are at a very early stage of adoption -
companies like <a href="http://www.pubsub.com/">PubSub</a>, <a
href="http://findory.com/">Findory</a> and <a href="http://www.topix.net/">Topix</a> are
leading the way.</p>

<p>From now on in, machine aggregation can really only increase its percentage of <a
href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/attention.xml">attention</a> - while human feeds will
decrease. But don't worry, because it's not a zero sum game. Aggregation as a market will
continue to increase at a great rate. Even though the ratio of human-to-machine feeds
will <a href="http://napsterization.org/stories/archives/000400.html">even up</a> in the
coming years, the whole pie will grow significantly.</p>

<h2>2. Who profits from the exploding digital datastream?</h2>

<p><a href="http://mediacenter.blogs.com/morph/2005/02/beyond_winners_.html">Andrew
says</a> that "traditional media companies" have in the past "derived enormous profit"
from controlling information. But fragmenting audience is quickly moving that control to
content aggregators - he specifically cites Google and Yahoo.</p>

<p>The search and aggregation companies are set to profit. And provided a click-through
is still required to access full content, niche publishers should also profit too.</p>

<p>One thing to watch is the <a
href="http://calacanis.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000293032225/">brewing controversy</a>
(or <i>browsting</i> controversy in that case!) over full-content aggregation, which some
companies are already attempting to profit from. I wonder also about <a
href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/002656.php">excerpted content aggregation</a>,
or remixes of content - because the boundaries will surely be pushed in those areas
too.</p>

<h2>3. Who controls the datastream itself?</h2>

<p>Andrew doesn't write much about number 3, so I'll take a punt at it. The control of
content is in one sense moving very definitely towards the consumer, or reader (neither
term seems to fit in this age of the read/write web!). This is something I've been <a
href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/002402.php">exploring</a> <a
href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/002626.php">over</a> the past months and which
continues to fascinate me. RSS Aggregators and topic/tag feeds are two technologies that
in a very real sense give power back to the user. <i>I</i> choose (by subscribing) what
content flows into my Aggregator. <i>I</i> choose which of a million niche topics to
track by RSS.</p>

<p>However as Andrew points out in his post, Google and Yahoo - and apps like Bloglines -
are the main tools now for accessing the datastream. Their influence over the datastream
is increasingly important - you can see evidence of this in Google's <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4227967.stm">highly profitable</a> advertising business.</p>]]>
      
    </content>
  </entry>

</feed>