<?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/reddit_future_of_social_news.php" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/atom.xml" />
  <id>tag:,2009:/1/tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-</id>
  <updated>2009-10-30T13:51:46Z</updated>
  <title>Comments for How Reddit is Flirting With The Future of Social News</title>
  
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.23-en</generator>
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718</id>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.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=6718" title="How Reddit is Flirting With The Future of Social News" />
    <published>2008-07-07T20:00:00Z</published>
    <updated>2008-07-08T11:30:01Z</updated>
    <title>How Reddit is Flirting With The Future of Social News</title>
    <summary>In the competitive social news market, Digg has gotten a lot of attention for its recommendation engine and Mixx continues to release new features (it has launched communities and an API recently). However it seems like Reddit is not getting the attention it deserves. Its open source initiative was well received, but there are other...</summary>
    <author>
      <name>Muhammad Saleem</name>
      
    </author>
    
    <category term="Analysis" />
    
    <category term="New Media" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.readwriteweb.com/">
      <![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/reddit.jpg" />In the competitive social news market, <a href="http://www.digg.com">Digg</a> has gotten a lot of attention for its <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/digg_recommendation_engine_exclusive.php">recommendation engine</a> and <a href="http://www.mixx.com">Mixx</a> continues to release new features (it has launched <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/mixx_wants_you_to_built_a_comm.php">communities</a> and an <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/mixx_launches_innovative_api_c.php">API</a> recently). However it seems like <a href="http://www.reddit.com">Reddit</a> is not getting the attention it deserves. Its <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_open_source.php">open source initiative</a> was well received, but there are other interesting aspects to Reddit. </p>

<p>Here's a look at why the idea of a social news site front page that is newspaper-like and presents information in reverse chronological presentation <strong><em>has to change</em></strong> - and how Reddit is flirting with the answer.</p>]]>
      <![CDATA[<p>Let's firstly review the current state of content promotion on social news sites. The best site to use as an example of why the current system may be failing us, is Digg. This is because not only is Digg the biggest and most active social news sites, it's the site that has most rigidly stuck with the current formula. Also by looking at Digg we can see what unique problems other sites are going to have when they try to scale their platform to meet the demands of their ever growing communities. </p>

<h2>The Social Hodgepodge </h2>

<p>Almost all social news sites that exist today have a nearly-identical foundation. People submit, vote, and comment on stories, the ones that are the most active, get promoted to the site's front-page. This process repeats itself and newer stories get promoted to the site's front page and older ones get pushed down. Over time old stories get pushed deeper and deeper in to the archives and newer stories (presumably more timely and relevant) replace them. The most popular sites that follow this as a basic formula are Digg, Propeller, Reddit, Mixx, and even the social bookmarking site Del.icio.us. </p>

<p>This kind of a system is great if you have a small and homogenous community. For example, this worked great on Digg about 2 years ago when the site was one-tenth the size and focused heavily on technology. As these sites grow, the problems with this kind of a system become apparent. First, as communities grow , more gets submitted to the social news sites, and secondly, the content being submitted gets more and more diverse. A single, all-important front page, as you will just see, doesn't scale well, and doesn't function well under a diverse community. </p>

<p>When the front page is the part of the news site that has all the new and fresh content, that is the part of the news site that gets the most traffic, that is where all the content producers want to be, and that is the place everyone links to. But there is only so much content you can feature on this page. </p>

<p>Even if you assume that one article is promoted every 5 minutes and there are a total of 15 slots on a news site's front page. That means that at any given time, the oldest story on the front page will be no older than 1 hours and 25 minutes old. Sounds about accurate, the Digg home page as of this writing shows the oldest story, the 15th one to be 1 hour and 36 minutes old. This also means that at this rate, and assuming that stories are promoted at a constant pace, only 288 stories will be promoted to the front page per day. These stories are divided over 60 different subcategories and three types of media (text, pictures, and videos). </p>

<p><img src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/reddit_future/Picture-d.png" width="610" /></p>

<p>Furthermore, based on the current front page a story gets 1 hour and 25 minutes on the front page before it is deemed practically irrelevant. The amount of people that go to the second page after the front page are about 30% of overall front page traffic, and in comparison an insignificant number of people go from the second to the third page. What this means is that if a story is not viewed by someone within the first 75 minutes, 2 in 3 readers wont see it, and if no one sees the story in the first 3 hours, almost no one will see the story. Of course some people will check it out from the Digg RSS feed, but compared to the power of the site, that is insignificant. </p>

<p>At the same time however, there is an exponentially greater amount of content created everyday and much faster than older content is deemed expired or irrelevant. </p>

<p>So the problem, basically is that there is more viable content created everyday than can be shown and would actually be seen by a large number of people on the site (based on the current front page). And the content that does make it through, isn't on the front page nearly long enough to make a significant impact. On average, 300 stories a day get about 1 hour and 25 minutes to get the bulk of attention, after which they are gone from human eyes forever. </p>

<h2>The Newspaper That Works</h2>

<p>The answer to the problem is quite simple. In fact the right answer has been around for quite a while and it's called StumbleUpon. StumbleUpon has pages akin to the traditional social news sites' front pages, but for a majority of the users, StumbleUpon is not a destination site. You install a browser toolbar, select your preferences, and you never have to visit the actual site ever again (unless you want to change settings or post to your blog). The toolbar sends you directly to pages that match your preferences and your voting habits. The more you use it, the better the pages you get. </p>

<p>At the same time, however, there is no time-stamp on articles that are submitted to StumbleUpon. You may be shown an article from 5 minutes ago, or an article from 5 years ago - just depends on if it matches your (and your friends') preferences and voting habits. This ensures that every piece of content submitted to the site will get a shot at being judged by the community and that there is no limit to how much exposure something can get. In the process, StumbleUpon has also certainly diminished potential information cascades based on what seems like social proof (e.g. people vote on some stories simply because they already have votes, but you can beg, borrow, and pay for those initial votes), and they have also reduced blind voting because StumbleUpon sends you to a website before you vote on it.  </p>

<p>The problem with this system, however, is that because it works so efficiently, and because the user experience is so genuine, intuitive, and non-intrusive, only a fraction of the community using the toolbar ever has to interact with StumbleUpon as a destination site. Therefore, it is very hard to monetize the system based on current (ad based) business models. Even though StumbleUpon has a business model that seems to be working, it's doubtful that (superior as it is) the site can be more profitable than Digg. At $0.05 per visitor, StumbleUpon asks for $50 CPM. Even for the best monetized blogs that traffic isn't worth the cost. </p>

<h2>The Newspaper That Will Have To Suffice</h2>

<p>From a business perspective, the idea of a monetized destination site, at least in the current Web 2.0 economy, seems to be the right answer, so let's go with that. They can't copy StumbleUpon so that's out. They don't want to move away from a destination-site business model so an off-site mechanism is also out. What if, we crossbred the two ideas? </p>

<p>For example, Reddit already has a StumbleUpon-like toolbar. The only difference is that this toolbar only allows shows up when you visit the Reddit front page and then click an external link from there. And the toolbar only allows you to vote on the story. If you want to do anything else, back to the Reddit front page you go. </p>

<p><img src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/reddit_future/Picture-c.png" width="610" /></p>

<p>Reddit already has a 'recommended' page so we can effectively emulate the StumbleUpon experience by using a combination of the recommendations and the toolbar, we only need to make sure that all users use the toolbar rather than voting directly from the Reddit submission page. Perhaps move voting completely to the toolbar while maintaining story rankings on the front page? The only part we're left with is the 24-hour restriction. </p>

<p>For that we can use an interesting new feature that Reddit recently implemented. If you go to the front page, you'll see a module at the top that rotates between some of the stories from the upcoming section, allowing you to vote on them directly from the front page (the most heavily trafficked section of the site. </p>

<p><img src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/reddit_future/Picture-a.png" width="610" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/reddit_future/Picture-b.png" width="610" /></p>

<p>What if we rethink the previous two features and reuse the module so it shows 5 random recommendations for you (regardless of upcoming or promoted, just based on your preferences and whether you've already read them or not? That way, the module can cycle between old and new, promoted and still in the queue, and you don't have to worry about missing any good stories on your favorite social newspaper. As for the final problem of scaling with diversity, Reddit solved this problem a few months ago when they introduced normalization to their front page through their unique use of subreddits. </p>

<p>The future of content consumption on the social web is entirely based in personalized recommendations, and this re-conceptualization of Reddit creates a better environment for fighting information cascades and blind voting, and ensures that you will see the content most relevant to you regardless of votes or time-stamps. Recommended stories are only removed once you have either read them or discarded them and content has an infinite lifespan. By integrating the model into a destination site, it also remains an easily monetizable venture. </p>

<p><font style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><script type="text/javascript">digg_url = 'http://digg.com/tech_news/How_Reddit_is_Flirting_With_The_Future_of_Social_News';digg_bgcolor = '#ffffff';digg_skin = 'normal';</script><script src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type="text/javascript"></script></font>Reddit has all the pieces to the puzzle, they just haven't figured out how to fit them together.</p>

<p><em>This is a guest post by <a href="http://muhammadsaleem.com/">Muhammad Saleem</a>, a social media consultant and a top-ranked community member on multiple social news sites. You can <a href="http://twitter.com/msaleem">follow Muhammad on Twitter</a>.</em></p>]]>
    </content>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:59778</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c59778" />
    <title>Comment from Juliette on 2008-07-07</title>
    <author>
        <name>Juliette</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>I work as online activist for an NGO, and of course, part of my job is to follow quite a few social media like these. I must say reddit is my least favourite. I find it hard to read and hard to understand. Digg is a good tool to know what's hot, but isn't user-friendly anymore - a "simple user" now doesn't have the power to put an interesting story in the front page, and if your story doesn't get noticed by a big poster, you're screwed no mater how good it is. I'm just discovering mixx, but I like what I see so far. More than the new recommandation engine on digg, you can find stories fitting your profile. However, they give too much importance to karma - again, like on digg, it starts to be all about who you know and who mixxes your story rather than really how good it is. <br />
I use StumbleUpon for an entirely different purpose - finding initiatives or cool activism ideas I hadn't thought about or slipped my raddar. <br />
Social media just isn't really social anymore, since when you use for what it should be used (giving a heads-up to other users about cool content), it doesn't work, while what shouldn't be there (blatent self promotion) is more and more prominent.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-07T21:04:39Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:59788</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c59788" />
    <title>Comment from Sean Mulholland on 2008-07-07</title>
    <author>
        <name>Sean Mulholland</name>
        <uri>http://www.seanmulholland.com/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.seanmulholland.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>The StumbleUpon / $50 CPM math is flawed unless you assume a 100% clickthrough rate, and for 100% clickthrough rate on your average banner some advertisers would pay many times that amount :-)  It's not right for general traffic driving, but then again what advertising is?  Unless you have some sort of conversion or brand objective then advertising is not for you.</p>

<p>As for the Reddit praise I'm right there with you.  I tried to get into Digg.  I really did.  But it was just OK most of the time.</p>

<p>Reddit and its sub-reddit feature is great.  I can hit the frontpage, click down into specific topics, even filter to exclude certain topics.  The developers are also super-responsive, probably due to the bare-bones architecture (i.e. changes are so easy to make, it's easy to respond quickly).</p>

<p>Like any community there is a certain degree of implicit groupthink going on.  I consider myself very left-leaning but Reddit can just go way over the top sometimes...</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-07T22:47:52Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:59792</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c59792" />
    <title>Comment from Sean Mulholland on 2008-07-07</title>
    <author>
        <name>Sean Mulholland</name>
        <uri>http://www.seanmulholland.com/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.seanmulholland.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Sorry for the double comment but I just wanted to add, a decent click-cost on AdWords might be $0.50 CPC, so 1000 visitors would cost an advertiser $500 with Google.  In some industries CPCs of $2-5 were acceptable, which is $2000-$5000 for those same 1000 visitors.</p>

<p>Put in that perspective StumbleUpon is dirt cheap.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-07T22:51:05Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:59809</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c59809" />
    <title>Comment from Jimmy Dean on 2008-07-07</title>
    <author>
        <name>Jimmy Dean</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>Its all good, Google will take over the world!<br />
www.FireMe.To/udi</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-08T00:21:55Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:59814</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c59814" />
    <title>Comment from John Koetsier on 2008-07-07</title>
    <author>
        <name>John Koetsier</name>
        <uri>http://sparkplug9.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://sparkplug9.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>Please fix:</p>

<p>When you have a name linked, visitor's assumption is that the link is to the site associated with that name. Example: Reddit, in the first paragraph.</p>

<p>When you instead hijack that expectation and take users to your own website's tag page for Reddit, you're losing credibility and goodwill in order to eek out one more pageview from your readers.</p>

<p>Uncool, unprofessional, and in the long-run, unprofitable.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-08T01:25:24Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:59820</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c59820" />
    <title>Comment from lolllerz on 2008-07-07</title>
    <author>
        <name>lolllerz</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>those who can't teach</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-08T02:29:12Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:59821</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c59821" />
    <title>Comment from Dan Walsh on 2008-07-07</title>
    <author>
        <name>Dan Walsh</name>
        <uri>http://www.kwoff.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.kwoff.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>Thanks Muhammad, Well covered. </p>

<p>We started as a unique 'Australian' social news site about 6 months ago. You can find us at <a href="http://www.kwoff.com.au/" rel="nofollow">kwoff.com.au</a></p>

<p>We've been aware of these issues and we continue to adapt the way we present items to ensure people visiting at different ends of the day can 'grasp' the days submissions.</p>

<p>We build on the Pligg engine and present <i>upcoming</i> and <i>popular</i> news via two columns on the front page. Our 'gravity' rating means an item can reappear at the number one position long after submission as long as its receiving enough attention.</p>

<p>We also wipe the <i>popular</i> field at midnight, so that each day it starts afresh. It helps define a 'cycle' of news, which some social news users shun, but our users seem to like.</p>

<p>These are working well for us as a small, 'culturally geographic' site. I wonder if some of these could work for the mega social news sites also?</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-08T02:40:16Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:59856</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c59856" />
    <title>Comment from quirkyalone on 2008-07-08</title>
    <author>
        <name>quirkyalone</name>
        <uri>http://quirkyalone.blogspot.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://quirkyalone.blogspot.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>IMHO, the quality of reddit went terribly downhill in the last year. Am I the only one noticing this? It became mess. </p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-08T10:29:53Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:59867</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c59867" />
    <title>Comment from Tristan Bethe on 2008-07-08</title>
    <author>
        <name>Tristan Bethe</name>
        <uri>http://www.imageafter.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.imageafter.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>Good read. However i am not sure if stumble is the ideal solution? for pure content consumption it perhaps is. But what i miss is the 'collective' experience. I like my content personalized to be sure but i also like place where i can see what others like and others see.</p>

<p> The digg upcoming beta is a nice middle ground i get a selection of content supposedly tailored for my taste and the front page which is the collective part. And so far i find better content at the homepage them what is supposed to be selected  for my tastes.</p>

<p>It is comparable with television. The technology is here that i can select only the programs i want to watch but i still enjoy talking with friends and colleagues about the show of last night. Similar for social sites: 'hey did you see that crazy movie on digg just about...' </p>

<p>For me at least that shared part an important feature of the social experience.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-08T14:32:11Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:59875</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c59875" />
    <title>Comment from rdomanski on 2008-07-08</title>
    <author>
        <name>rdomanski</name>
        <uri>http://thenerfherder.blogspot.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thenerfherder.blogspot.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>So unless I'm mistaken, your proposal is that social-media sites ought to take a lesson from StumbleUpon and start personalizing the news;  essentially, to have the websites' front-pages only display "recommended" news stories that are based on what their algorithms "think" its users will like.</p>

<p>I find this proposal to be extremely problematic, and even frightening.</p>

<p>Of course, everyone wants to only read the type of news that they're most interested in. If some people only want to read the Sports Section, that's fine, it's their choice. But if social-media sites discard voting-based systems and instead start personalizing the news based on what their algorithms predict the user would enjoy, it would be like letting a computer decide for you which magazine subscriptions you want mailed to your house each month. But wouldn't you rather make the choice yourself?</p>

<p><a href="http://thenerfherder.blogspot.com/2008/07/reddit-and-tyranny-of-algorithms-in.html" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://thenerfherder.blogspot.com/2008/07/reddit-and-tyranny-of-algorithms-in.html" rel="nofollow">http://thenerfherder.blogspot.com/2008/07/reddit-and-tyranny-of-algorithms-in.html</a></a></p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-08T16:06:14Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:59886</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c59886" />
    <title>Comment from Steve Olson on 2008-07-08</title>
    <author>
        <name>Steve Olson</name>
        <uri>http://www.steve-olson.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.steve-olson.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>Reddit is by far my favorite social news aggregator for reasons I explained in <a href="http://www.steve-olson.com/one-huge-reason-reddit-is-better-than-digg/" rel="nofollow">this post.</a></p>

<p>StumbleUpon is a close second and Digg a distant third.</p>

<p>The problem I see with Digg is less and less controversial information is making the front page. The bury button gets people banned and wipes out differing opinions. I don't think Digg will be the leader in Social News in the long run. A least not in its current form.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-08T17:18:25Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:59905</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c59905" />
    <title>Comment from The Newsmax Blogger on 2008-07-08</title>
    <author>
        <name>The Newsmax Blogger</name>
        <uri>http://newsmaxblogger.blogspot.com/2008/07/master-plan.html</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://newsmaxblogger.blogspot.com/2008/07/master-plan.html">
        <![CDATA[<p>Hello!</p>

<p>I'm looking to build up traffic to my blog. If you're interested in exchanging links; please leave your Blog Name and URL and I will be glad to add you. I write about anything worth writing about. Drop a comment at: <a href="http://newsmaxblogger.blogspot.com/2008/07/master-plan.html" rel="nofollow">http://newsmaxblogger.blogspot.com/2008/07/master-plan.html</a> </p>

<p>Thanks so much!</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-08T19:13:48Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:60266</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c60266" />
    <title>Comment from Joe on 2008-07-11</title>
    <author>
        <name>Joe</name>
        <uri>http://www.medlawplus.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.medlawplus.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>I'm a big reddit fan but I think you short-changed them on one simple but important feature.  Digg sucks because a gillion people are spamming the site making it hard to get heard above the clutter.  Reddit is stripped down and clean (ala google ascetic) but the key was unlocking the categories giving the users control over creating new ones.  There are hundreds of user created posting categories.  Users subscribe to them something like the old newgroups and this allows smaller communities of users to group around categories all without any input from reddit mods.  Very slick.  For example, I created a category called "spiritual but not religious" one month ago: <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/spiritual/" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/spiritual/</a> .  It has 122 subscribers and I've done zero promotion.  I predict it hits critical mass of 1000 subscribers before the one year anniversary.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-11T16:42:37Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:60289</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c60289" />
    <title>Comment from sunny beach on 2008-07-11</title>
    <author>
        <name>sunny beach</name>
        <uri>http://sunnybeachrealestate.net</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://sunnybeachrealestate.net">
        <![CDATA[<p>An interesting comparision - It has Stumble at the lead of Social interaction mediums<br />
I am a Digger before I Reddit - I like the Karma over here much better!</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-11T22:26:42Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:62458</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c62458" />
    <title>Comment from MiamiWebDesigner on 2008-08-01</title>
    <author>
        <name>MiamiWebDesigner</name>
        <uri>http://www.pervasivepersuasion.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.pervasivepersuasion.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>Web 2.0 Is Like Pornography</p>

<p>Like so many tech articles posted since Tim O'Reilly coined the term in 2004, this one references "Web 2.0" as if it were something tangible--or at least a concept with clear, concise definition.  It is not.  In 2006, Web founder Sir Tim Berners-Lee sagely observed that "nobody knows what it means":</p>

<p><a href="http://tinyurl.com/y6ewzy" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/y6ewzy</a></p>

<p>And now in 2008, the most honest thing we can say is that "Web 2.0" means whatever the techno-marketeer (ab)using it wants it to mean.  Otherwise, why would intelligent people like Isaac O'Bannon still be writing articles asking "What is Web 2.0?":</p>

<p><a href="http://tinyurl.com/5solok" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/5solok</a></p>

<p>And, why would McKinsey's just-released best-of-breed report entitled "Building the Web 2.0 Enterprise" ...</p>

<p><a href="http://tinyurl.com/6sxls7" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/6sxls7</a></p>

<p>... include no attempt at defining the term other than to list the "Web 2.0 Tools" that comprise or enable it?  And even there, the chief ingredient is identified only as "Web Services", adding more mystery to the mix as one ethereal term is offered up to explain another.</p>

<p>As originated in an Onstartups.com website design posting that no longer exists...</p>

<p><a href="http://tinyurl.com/57a2u4" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/57a2u4</a></p>

<p>... "Web 2.0" is like pornography:  Nobody has defined it, but you know it when you see it.</p>

<p>Bruce Arnold, Web Designer, Miami Florida<br />
<a href="http://www.PervasivePersuasion.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.PervasivePersuasion.com</a><br />
</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-08-01T12:20:42Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718-comment:62817</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6718" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/reddit_future_of_social_news.php#c62817" />
    <title>Comment from Spyko on 2008-08-05</title>
    <author>
        <name>Spyko</name>
        <uri>http://www.spyko.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.spyko.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>I personally like digg better.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-08-05T08:53:44Z</published>
  </entry>

</feed>