I know I give Google it’s (fair) ration of crap from day to day, regardless of those of you who feel I’m a Google apologist. Well, you can’t win both sides of that argument, all you can do is be honest to what comes to mind. Right?
And when I read this from Paul, I have to say, I quite agree.
Still searching for a name, John?
Way back Dec 2003 you said:
Funny how am idea gathers momentum. As I was penning my Implications of RSS For Business column for 2.0 (awaiting publication in dead tree form in three weeks), Scott Rosenberg was writing a pean as well, published in Salon this morning. He suggests we need a name for what RSS represents, just as the Web became the mainstream’s understanding of HTML, we need a name for RSS. He reminds us we’ve been here before (remember Push? I was a reluctant contributor to this 1996 article, which began as an email thread in the Wired offices…)
In any case, I agree with Scott, we need a name. All the businesses in this space are still in the pre-market phase. RSS allows us to connect more efficiently, to grok information as we like it, when we like it – but what do we call it? I like to say my reader and blogs/news sources is my personal ecology – is there an idea in there somewhere? In any case, it’s exciting to see the idea start to take popular flight. Watch for the NYT treatment soon.
Writing biased, sensational posts seems like a fad that just refuses to go away. Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for biased opinions, but when they have no legs to stand on, they make fools out of people who write them.