<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Aggregating people</title>
	<atom:link href="http://philwilson.org/blog/2008/04/aggregating-people/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://philwilson.org/blog/2008/04/aggregating-people</link>
	<description>a geek commodity</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:42:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Mison</title>
		<link>http://philwilson.org/blog/2008/04/aggregating-people/comment-page-1#comment-1288</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Mison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 14:11:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://philwilson.org/blog/2008/04/aggregating-people#comment-1288</guid>
		<description>I posted something somewhat similar to this to one of my blogs, &lt;a href=&quot;http://blech.vox.com/library/post/aggregating-some-definitions.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;defining aggregation&lt;/a&gt; as &quot;vertical&quot; and &quot;horizontal&quot;, but your &quot;person-centric&quot; and &quot;data-centric&quot; are much better terms.

As you noted in your &lt;a href=&quot;http://philwilson.org/blog/2008/05/context-matters&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;post today about context&lt;/a&gt;, there seems to be a growing consensus that a combination of firehoses, as seen on Friendfeed, isn&#039;t going to work for most people without a lot of filtering, but what doesn&#039;t exist yet is any real idea how to do that. Phil Gyford&#039;s offhand comment that we need secretaries may not be so far from the truth- that this might be a problem that&#039;s not easily tackled by dumb computers.

On the other hand, I suspect the adoption of such sites by the alpha geeks who either know how to deal with, or don&#039;t care about, information overload isn&#039;t helping encourage the providers to deal with it. I&#039;d hate to think we&#039;ll slip into a situation where sites like Friendfeed go mainstream without having to confront filtering, ranking and so on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I posted something somewhat similar to this to one of my blogs, <a href="http://blech.vox.com/library/post/aggregating-some-definitions.html" rel="nofollow" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/blech.vox.com/library/post/aggregating-some-definitions.html?referer=');">defining aggregation</a> as &#8220;vertical&#8221; and &#8220;horizontal&#8221;, but your &#8220;person-centric&#8221; and &#8220;data-centric&#8221; are much better terms.</p>
<p>As you noted in your <a href="http://philwilson.org/blog/2008/05/context-matters" rel="nofollow">post today about context</a>, there seems to be a growing consensus that a combination of firehoses, as seen on Friendfeed, isn&#8217;t going to work for most people without a lot of filtering, but what doesn&#8217;t exist yet is any real idea how to do that. Phil Gyford&#8217;s offhand comment that we need secretaries may not be so far from the truth- that this might be a problem that&#8217;s not easily tackled by dumb computers.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I suspect the adoption of such sites by the alpha geeks who either know how to deal with, or don&#8217;t care about, information overload isn&#8217;t helping encourage the providers to deal with it. I&#8217;d hate to think we&#8217;ll slip into a situation where sites like Friendfeed go mainstream without having to confront filtering, ranking and so on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Rhyley</title>
		<link>http://philwilson.org/blog/2008/04/aggregating-people/comment-page-1#comment-1287</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Rhyley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:57:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://philwilson.org/blog/2008/04/aggregating-people#comment-1287</guid>
		<description>&gt; boil the ocean (get everyone to sign up to friendfeed)

The killer feature, for me, of frindfeed was the ability to create &#039;imaginary friends&#039;. A person you wish to follow need not have an account in order for you to view their content in the friendfeed service. You, for instance, have &lt;a href=&quot;http://friendfeed.com/users/a60f56e0-ee41-11dc-a88d-003048343a40&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a friendfeed&lt;/a&gt; that I created.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; boil the ocean (get everyone to sign up to friendfeed)</p>
<p>The killer feature, for me, of frindfeed was the ability to create &#8216;imaginary friends&#8217;. A person you wish to follow need not have an account in order for you to view their content in the friendfeed service. You, for instance, have <a href="http://friendfeed.com/users/a60f56e0-ee41-11dc-a88d-003048343a40" rel="nofollow" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/friendfeed.com/users/a60f56e0-ee41-11dc-a88d-003048343a40?referer=');">a friendfeed</a> that I created.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

