I've been trying to figure out a way to do a daily Web 2.0 update with links - without being, you know... one of those blogs that just links to other blogs. What I'm looking for is something in-between del.icio.us and a 'real' post.
My 'Web 2.0 News' posts from 1-2 weeks ago were a bit too long and time-intensive to write. So what I'm looking for is something akin to what Zeldman does, e.g. Linkos. The freshmaker.
He has the ingredients of what I want to do:
1) Witty post title
2) 5 original-ish links, 1 with a quote and 4 with one-line Zeldman comments.
He gets extra marks for a fresh take on an old story (dogs playing poker) and being a bit arty in his comments ("Project d’art").
Steve Gillmor describes the kind of thing I'm looking for as a "post-del.icio.us fraglet style" (although he may've been high when he wrote that... I'm kidding).
So anyway, I'd be grateful for your advice...
a) A daily Web 2.0 News/links update, in the Zeldman style.
b) A straight daily dump of Web 2.0 news/links - a la my Saturday morning effort.
c) An individual post for each story/link (which really would be like everybody else and it'd probably result in 4-5 short posts per day... I'm not keen on this option).
d) Forget the links dude, just stick to your knitting - long posts with original analysis and writing.
e) Another option??
Please be so kind as to leave a comment :-)
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
I like the IA behind Joshua Porter's site:
http://www.bokardo.com/
He separates Notes and Posts. Posts are mostly original content and longer in length. Notes are quick commentary, which are updated more often. Then, at the bottom he has some delicious links.
That way you aren't limited to trying to fit all of your content under a singular structure.
You could even offer unique RSS feeds for each type of content.
Posted by: Brady Joslin | April 26, 2005 5:01 PMYes I like Josh's structure too. But in this case what I'm thinking of is specifically Web 2.0 news/links, more-so than notes as Josh uses.
Posted by: Richard MacManus | April 26, 2005 5:08 PMI like option "a" -- especially with a consistent title scheme.
RSS was the death of my cult-of-personality web experience. With 100+ new items in the reader every half hour, it's a question of time management. R/W Web consistently delivers on information, matching the reputation with a branded round-up would be cause for pause in the daily deluge of feeds.
Posted by: Rus | April 26, 2005 5:25 PMe)
I want links in context. I don't care if it is only a one-paragraph post, but I really want enough information to ascertain if _I_ will consider the link worth clicking or not. A quotation of the one useful piece of information on the page that the link links to doesn't tell me if there's anything else on that page that I'd want to read or not. I'm not asking for a synopsis per se, I don't think, but maybe I am.
Here's what I'd like and would think would be worthwhile: one paragraph, where likely every other word is a link, and where the paragraph reads alone as some sort of brief statement of trends, but where the link text "invites" us to click for more information.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really want (c), and that the only paragraph in (b) that began to approach what I wanted was the only one with multiple links. Even (a) has its issues for me - I guess what I'm asking for is that you do a "mini-analysis" in which you write a one-paragraph description of the trend that you noticed, and then link words in there to relevant links as best as you see fit. Then you can have your long-form posts be elaborations of the mini-analyses that you liked the most and/or meta-analyses of your mini-analyses.
Does this make any sense at all?
Even if it is a post that began as a collection of links, I want to read it as a piece of your writing, not as just a collection of links+commentary. But that might just be me.
Posted by: Andrew | April 27, 2005 1:16 AMSorry to be the first to say it, but I like c. I would prefer a mix of c and d.
With respect to c... One of the knacks of blogging is to provide links to interesting stuff going on elsewhere, with a good balance between conciseness and context.
Is this "like everybody else"? Yes and no. No because you do it better than anybody else when it comes to Web 2.0.
Posted by: Andrew W | April 27, 2005 1:57 AMThis might turn off some of your blog readers that might want something from your own writings only, but to me, this seems like a good way to maximize two of the central themes of web 2.0: remix, and social networks. It's basically done by kind of turning your blog into a semi-wiki.
You jot down maybe like 5 links that have something in common and you even have something to write which encompasses stuff from all of the 5 links but you don't actually write anything down after the links. then you go, "what do you think?"
that'll allow your readers come into some kind of quiz competition, writing what they think about the 5 links and have them trackback at your blog post or write really long comments.
of course, you should be one of the contest candidates as well. I do believe that now you have sufficiently large reader base (your feedburner stat says way over 1000!) to try something like that. Even 3 or 4 trackback posts will bring in more thoughts about web 2.0 than anyone might've imagined.
Just a thought :)
(I remember long ago you wrote on the topic of portal vs. blog-site or something like that. this might be a good opportunity to experiment on making your blog site into a portal, now that readwriteweb.com already functions as an information hub to the whole notion of web 2.0)
Posted by: twdanny | April 27, 2005 2:40 AMHi Richard, I like the long posts mostly, but do have a lot of interest in your 'option a'. Perhaps you could separate the feeds for them so that people that wanted it all could get it, but those that just was the in-depth posts only get them? Either way, don't drop the knitting.
Posted by: Joseph Lindsay | April 27, 2005 8:04 AMThanks everyone for your great feedback. Some comments...
Here's a round-up of 'voting' so far:
a) Zeldman-style daily roundup --> 2 votes
b) link dump --> none
c) individual post for each story/link --> 1 vote
d) stick to knitting --> none
e) other --> 2 ("mini-analysis"; wiki concept)
People also seemed to like the idea of multiple RSS feeds. However I'd like to keep it all under the 1 'brand' (so to speak), and for now that means the 1 RSS feed. Maybe once RSS Aggregators have evolved to the point where they can handle remix and multiple RSS feeds, that'll be the time to categorize my RSS feed.
OK to address individual comments:
Russ --> thanks for the kind words and yes the "branded round-up" concept is what I'm looking for.
Andrew Chen --> "links in context", I agree. Only I don't know that'll I'll have time for too many links (that was the problem with my first 'Web 2.0 News' attempt)... I do like your "mini-analysis" concept.
Andrew Watson --> thanks for your kind words :-) I am looking for that "good balance between conciseness and context" - plus the mini-analysis that Andrew Chen refered to.
Danny --> semi-wiki. Very interesting idea, but I suspect I don't have enough 'active' readers to pull that off. By that I mean: although my blog is relatively well-read now, I'm not the kind of blog that attracts heaps of commenters (like Robert Scoble for instance). Believe me I'd love to try the 'portal' concept, but I really can't see it working here.
Joe --> thanks, I won't drop the knitting :-)
Posted by: Richard MacManus | April 27, 2005 10:44 AMMy vote is for option A. Sometimes I'm less interested in reading articles and just looking for new sites to visit.
Posted by: Clay Smith | May 1, 2005 4:23 PM