In 2005, tech.memeorandum mostly tracked blogs. In 2010, Techmeme tracks all types of media web sites. Everything from news wires, newspapers, professional blogs, corporate blogs and personal blogs. That's been a natural evolution, as blogs have become more like newspapers and magazines - and vice versa. What's been more surprising is Techmeme's shift from full automation to a mix of algorithms and human curation. In this interview with Techmeme founder Gabe Rivera, we talk about these and other changes over the past 5 years.

GR: We're six in total. Same staff as last November.

RWW: Back when you started, there weren't very many products where a person could discover the latest news from blogs and media web sites. Nowadays there's Google News, Twitter, Facebook, Google Reader, et al. How do you position Techmeme now in terms of the increased competition?

GR: For sure, the world has changed, and as you point out, there are more places to find collections of news links other than Techmeme. But some of those same changes favor a site like Techmeme even more. Following even a modest set of users on Twitter, for instance, you're overwhelmed with tweets and links after spending just a few hours away from your stream. There's really no substitute for a news synopsis that shows you what's most important at the top.

RWW: Back in 2005 I mused that "mainstream news media organizations will be beating a path to Gabe's door to either invest in it or license the software." Has any of that happened or come close to happening?

GR: It didn't play out quite like that. We've received overtures from most of the larger tech companies over the years, but media companies have approached us mainly about distribution deals, and only a couple of companies at that. I'd say this this is understandable though: we haven't demonstrated that what we've accomplished at Techmeme can be done over lots of verticals and localities.

Tech.memeorandum, October 2005 (via Internet Archive)

RWW: The biggest change in the product over the years seems to be that it's moved from being entirely automated to being a mix of automated and manual editing. Can you tell us how the mix works in practice, and what benefits you've seen from that.

GR: Philosophically, I believe human editing plus automation have always been and will always be needed for top-notch aggregation. Pure automation sufficed for a few years for us, and got us to the point where we could hire more editors. But until editors arrived, Techmeme would often make questionable choices - like spotlighting too many redundant stories, keeping obsolete stories on the page, and overemphasizing odd topics only introspective bloggers care about. Also, obviously significant stories would often take much too long to appear.

In the age of Twitter and hyper competitive news bloggers, even a 15 minute delay on big news is inexcusable. Our editing helps on all these fronts: we can block the automation from posting stuff to the site, and instantly post stuff if need be.

Techmeme, September 2010

RWW: Is your new product model, mix of automated and manual editing, scalable? I guess that companies like Demand Media show that such a model can be scaled (not that I'm comparing your company to theirs in other ways). But I'm curious to know your thoughts.

GR: I believe it's scalable, at least for major news topics. New news vertical can start out with just one human editor, so we only need revenue to support one person. But it isn't scalable to hundreds or thousands of news topics. An aggregator on, say, mountain bikes probably wouldn't be all that good (due to a dearth of content and linking) - meaning it wouldn't attract readers that could support an editor.

RWW: Finally, what's next for Techmeme and its sister sites?

GR: More ways for tweets to show up on Techmeme. And hopefully more verticals.

Photo credit: Frank Gruber

Rating Items to Train the App

The first thing you'll notice when launching the app is that it features multi-colored news items just like the internet site. However, on the iPhone, these items don't automatically scroll as they do online - you scroll through them with your finger...and frankly, we prefer interacting with the content this way, if we have to be honest.

OhPan on the Web

OhPan on the iPhone

The individual news items feature the same "star" and "lightning bolt" buttons which are key to the recommendation system. On the iPhone, the buttons are even colored (the star is green, the lightning bolt is red), so it's even more obvious which one means "like" and "dislike." We wonder what they have against the traditional checkmark and "x" though? Oh well.

Logging In: Where's my Facebook Connect?

When you log into the app, it automatically creates an account for you so you don't have to go through a set up process to starting using it. That's a nice feature but we would have at least liked the option to log in via Facebook Connect or Gmail, like their web site offers.

Instead, if you want to create an account of your own, you can click on "Setup" at the top and fill in your info under "Ohpan Account." Unfortunately, this feature didn't work for us - buttons didn't respond in some cases and when they did (after clicking "New Account" for example and filling in name and email - twice, ugh, they want you to confirm it) the info didn't seem to be saved. Trying the "Log in with Existing Account" was also disappointing. Because we had always used Facebook Connect to login online and that was not an option on the iPhone, all our previous ratings with which we had already trained the app were no longer available - we had to start from scratch.

Localization Could be Better

The localization features of the app have potential, but are not ready for primetime yet, mainly because of the odd selection of locales. We could understand if the app only offered major metropolitan areas (NYC, LA, San Francisco, etc.) to start with, but their list of cities/locales to choose from is downright bizarre. NYC and LA are present, but other areas include Arizona, Baltimore, Buffalo, Calgary, Canada, Carolina (which one?), UK, Vancouver, Washington (State or D.C.?), Toronto, and a few others. We're still scratching our heads to figure out how they came up with that list. We're hoping that it's just a work in progress - the app is, after all, only days old. Perhaps the list will be updated as new versions are released.

There's also a setting that allows you to send your location to Ohpan, which is confusing since it doesn't seem to do anything. Do they want you to pick from a list of places or do they want to geo-locate you? It's unclear what this setting is for at the moment.

Communities are Cool and Quirky

Still, even with the annoying and broken login and localization features, we enjoyed using the app once we delved into the "Communities" feature under "Views." This lets you pick a more specific topic (Tech News, Sports, Entertainment, etc.) and view and rate the items within that one area. Again, there are some bizarre choices made here. Some of the topics include things like "Spaceship Earth," "Change of Course," "Party," and more...not your typical fare and not really self-explanatory. But in a way, it was kind of fun exploring these non-traditional categories, each of which you can filter by "latest," "today," "this week," or "All Stars."

You can also choose to view "Charts" from within the "Views" area which show you the top publishers, images, and items of today, this week, and all-time.

Of course, you can ignore this area altogether if you wish and just scroll through the stream on the main screen of the app where all the different type of content is mixed together, ready for your rating. When you find an article you want to read in more detail, clicking the "Source" button opens up the full webpage within the app. When you're done, click "Stream" to return to the list.

You can also forward the article via email or publish it to Twitter ("Publish Item to Twitter"). Another button simply reads "Publish Item." We pushed it and maybe something happened, but we have no idea where it went. We never gave the app any of our social networking credentials, so what was it doing?

Conclusion: Needs Work, but We're Keeping Our Eye on It

In the end, we felt like we were playing around with an unfinished application, but one that could be great. We wish the developers had taken more time to fix bugs, complete the features, and add finesse to the UI before launching. These days, people are going to judge the app in its current state, somewhat poorly, and then move on. There are so many apps in the App Store, our screens are getting full. If it doesn't work well from the get-go, it could easily be deleted from our phones within days if not hours.

Still, the idea of news stream based on your own preferences is one that's innovative and unique and would be a great alternative to an RSS reader for those of us who are tired of being reminded how many unread news items we have. For that feature alone, we'll keep our eye on this app and hope that over time we'll see improvements.

OhPan is available now in the iTunes App Store for $1.99.

So why even bother covering yet another Techmeme wannabe? Because competition is important. Techmeme may do a great job, but innovation can still be found elsewhere.

So who's the new contender? It's a site called TechNews.AM, "your morning dose of tech news." Given that tag line, it's clear they know just who their target demographic is: the geeks who start their day, coffee in hand, browsing through the latest stories from across the blogosphere.

Before you get too judgmental about the site's shortcomings, take note of their other tag line: "SSSH, NOT EVEN IN ALPHA YET." In other words, what we see now may not be the final product. Your complaints and feature requests could still be resolved by the time it goes gold.

The Layout

The first thing you'll notice about the site is that its structure is very different from that of Techmeme. Instead of headlines and "echoing" links, each article is its own headline and standalone post. The posts are sorted into two main columns: "Popular Today," which seems to look back on the past 24 hours, and "Upcoming," which features the breaking stories, all of which are time-stamped for freshness. In a sidebar, the popular stories and topics (tags) of the week are featured as well.

The thing that's most appealing about TechNews.AM's layout, though, is the sub-categories across the top which feature tech blogosphere niches like gadgets, marketing, mobile, search engines, social media, UX, web development, startups, jobs, management, and opinion. This is a pretty accurate reflection of precisely the kinds of categories we already have set up in Google Reader, so it looks like TechNews.AM could almost function as an alternative to RSS, at least for the more casual news consumer if not for the pro bloggers hunting for stories. It's also going to appeal to people who are generally only interested in tracking one or two niches, as each sub-page tracks the headlines, the popular tags, and the most read stories of the day and the week.

More of an Aggregator than Memetracker

Beyond that, there isn't much more to this news portal just yet. It's clear that it currently functions more as an aggregator than a memetracker, so Techmeme may have nothing to worry about. The sources for the news at TechNews.AM also seem limited to the top blogs you would expect and the site doesn't appear capable of highlighting the serendipitous B-List and C-List blogs that occasionally break news on Techmeme.

TechNews.AM is powered by memeriver, a social media strategy and web development agency that also runs a similar site called queensspeech. That "sister site," if you will, features gay news, views, and opinion and may hint towards where TechNews.AM is headed in terms of features and structure. (Note: queensspeech may be NSFW depending, as language is uncensored).

As it stands now, we don't see TechNews.AM killing Techmeme by any means, but we like its clean layout and sub-categories for tracking niche tech news. That said, we're not sure if it will become a daily read of ours unless they add in more sources.

Blogging is open to anyone. You do not need to be trained as a journalist, nor do you need a job that pays you to blog. But many bloggers have created media businesses that employ people, cover the news on a regular basis, and sell advertising. They have created newspapers without the paper. Which turns out to be a fairly good business, with overheads low enough to make a reasonable profit.

However, the imperatives that come with running a real business tend to shift bloggers from the classic blog mode to something else. This has generated a lot of anguish among blog veterans who worry that blogging is "losing its soul." Journalists, on the other hand, face a starker, more existential threat as newspapers close shop.

So neither bloggers nor journalists are happy today.

But my optimistic nature inclines me to the view that some new model will emerge that makes for a fulfilling and reasonably well-compensated career.

Blogging Compared to Journalism

Blogging seems wonderful compared to traditional journalism: anybody can do it; the style is informal, fun, and personal; no editor has control of your voice; you're not tied to a fixed schedule; and you encounter incredible diversity.

But now that many bloggers have morphed into small-media business owners, they are starting to feel pressure to follow a schedule and cover key news stories. This is a world that a traditionally trained journalist can recognize.

But there is a fundamental difference. Bloggers are passionate experts first and journalists second. Somebody who blogs about technology could not credibly switch to politics, and vice versa. The journalism profession is adept at taking somebody from a story on a bank robbery and allocating them to a political sex scandal. Their professional skills enable journalists to be switch-hitters.

This difference is generally advantageous to bloggers. Training somebody in the basics of journalism is easier than creating passionate expertise in a subject.

However, this is where the blog media business is in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Don't Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater

We don't need print or TV to deliver news. Throw out the bathwater.

But the baby is cute. Let's keep the baby. Let's keep all the good things about journalism, the things that inspired me as a kid and that have inspired countless journalists:

1. A really strong desire to find the truth, wherever it may lurk;
2. An assumption that everyone knows more than you, and that your job is to find, cultivate, question, and listen to your sources, and then come to a view;
3. An inclination not to take anything at face value, because everyone has a point of view, and those points of view are usually driven by self-interest;
4. A resolve not to let commercial interests (in other words, advertisers) influence your search for the truth.

I don't know if this is taught in journalism school. It is a personal point of view. I hope that is okay. I did declare up front that this was a personal opinion piece.

Begone, You Self-Interested Tech Cynics

I have always been in the technology business. I like writing about the technology business because I find it fascinating and there are a lot of really smart people to talk to. But techies can spout the most self-interested baloney when it comes to content. The Web 2.0 vision of user-generated content is millions of passionate experts creating content that really clever algorithms deliver to audiences. The people who create those really clever algorithms become rich beyond the dreams of avarice while throwing a few crumbs to the content creators. Don't try paying a mortgage with AdSense or other CPC-affiliate revenue deals.

To a techie, "content" is just something to throw in a software system. Content creators don't talk about "content." They talk about their art or craft. Journalism is a form of art, albeit closer to craft than art. To a techie, art is just content. Which is more important, code or art? If you had to choose between a world without computers or a world without art, which would you choose?

But let's not get carried away with this. Journalism is still just a job.

Would Citizen Journalists Have Exposed Watergate?

Yes, they would have.

We don't need to protect journalism with public money or grants. The greater social good will be delivered by thousands of people on the ground reporting what is happening. That massive flow will be analyzed and edited ("curated") by a small number of experts who are motivated and trained to uncover the truth.

It won't be perfect. But the current system isn't perfect either. It is fair to say, though, that scumbags won't rest any easier. They will still be exposed.

Sacrifices will be made. One cannot imagine foreign bureaus surviving in anything close to their current form. Instead of having a few stringers on a loose contract, media firms will have a standardized deal that applies to anyone who covers fast-breaking news. That way, whoever is on the spot becomes a "just-in-time stringer."

Is that better or worse than what we have now? It's worse for the people working today in foreign bureaus on good salaries. But mostly, it's just different.

Online Revenue Models for Quality Need to Evolve

The newspaper business was fantastically profitable in its heyday. So it has the potential to pay a lot of journalists and editors reasonably well. The online business would likely pay less and employ fewer people because the overall revenue would be lower.

Will there be enough revenue to pay for "quality" journalism. Nobody can really define "quality" journalism. It is a bit like a judge who says, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

We can recognize "low-quality" journalism when we see it, and, boy, is there a lot of it online! The free-for-all nature of the Web is bound to produce a lot of junk. The question is, will it let the good stuff float to the top?

Why Pay $2.50 to Buy a Copy of the Financial Times?

Business people pay for quality content. The Financial Times costs $2.50 on newsstands and $99 for an annual subscription. The ROI is massive. Can you imagine a CEO making a bad decision because she neglected to read an article that would have saved her from the mistake?

Even the lowest-paid executive wastes more than $99 a year by not optimizing his cell phone bill.

I repeat: business people pay for news-driven content. If you doubt this, try prying a Bloomberg Terminal, which costs $2,000 per month, from a financial trader!

Consumers don't pay for news-driven content. Consumers pay for entertainment. Reading the news in the form of a newspaper was entertainment, a relaxing thing to do at the end of the day. People will still pay for entertainment. Just don't confuse that with the news business.

Monetizing Quality Online Is Harder

The Financial Times has been the savviest newspaper at balancing free and paid. It has a shot at getting it right because it has a business readership for whom time is money.

But the fundamental reality is that news, and everything that follows from news (opinion, analysis, insight), has to be primarily monetized by advertising; subscription revenue is the icing on the cake. Not much dispute on that score.

The problem is, how do you get an ROI from the additional investment in quality?

In a subscription-based business, that ROI is simple. If The Economist ever compromised its incredibly high standards, I would cancel the subscription I have had for decades. They would have then lost another good-quality advertiser.

But online, the correlation between quality and revenue is weaker. There is some correlation: a site focused on senior managers gets a higher CPM than a site targeting students.

But because the audience for a website is not measured in any way like an audience for, say, a controlled-circulation magazine is measured, there is a large element of faith that the "right" people (i.e. influential people with big budgets) are reading. That need for faith leads to a discount.

Until we as an industry can do a better job at monetizing quality, at correlating quality with revenue, the sensible business decision is simply to go after page views, any page views. This leads to the "aggregator bait" posts (Digg bait, Techmeme bait, Google bait, etc.) that we all deplore. Plenty among us really want to produce quality and have faith that the technology and business models will evolve to the point that quality journalism will be a rewarding profession to pursue.

Blogs and personal websites are only responsible for a very small 1.5% of all traffic.

There is also a lot of traffic that is directly shared between news sites. Outbound traffic from other news sites accounts for just as many visits as traffic from search engines (21.6%).

According to Hitwise, the Drudge Report is the largest single source of visitors to news and media sites. Google News (1.5%), CNN.com (1.4%) and Yahoo! News (0.8%) also drive relatively large amounts of traffic, but it is interesting that no single site really holds anything close to a monopoly here.

The Associated Press and the traditional newspaper business are obviously under a lot of stress right now (and in many ways, Craigslist is the real culprit here - not Google News and portals), but a large part of traffic to news sites is driven by portal sites. We can't blame the AP for trying to protect its intellectual property rights, but, as Google's Eric Schmidt described it, "these are ultimately consumer businesses and if you piss off enough of them, you will not have any more."

Image credit: Flickr user Matt Callow