2010: A Year of Blogging, Curating, and Sharing Tech News

It was exactly a year back that I wrote about A Year of Change and New Beginnings, sharing my professional background and how the road looked ahead. At the time, I didn’t know that the photo I used for that post would turn out to be so apt for the year 2010. It has been an incredible ride!

Blogging at Skeptic Geek

In 2010, I wrote a total of 52 blog posts, meeting my target of a post per week. There have been many occasions where I faced writer’s block and felt stuck, but managed to push myself.

Except on rare occasions, I do not cover breaking news on this blog, preferring to share insights, opinion, and analysis. The recently created Facebook Page has just over 160 fans at present. I am happy that there are over 1000 RSS Subscribers to this blog, compared to about a 100 a year ago!

Also, I am grateful to the leading tech blogs who’ve linked to my posts (including TechCrunch, ReadWriteWeb, GigaOm, TheNextWeb, and Mashable) as well as the countless individual bloggers who’ve been kind to do the same.

Top Posts in 2010 (Page Views)

  1. Googler’s Take on Social Networking Reveals Chinks in Facebook’s Armor (15,657)
  2. EveryDNS.net Terminates Wikileaks.org DNS Services (9,676)
  3. Is Windows Live Delivering What Google Buzz Promised? (7,138)
  4. Get Buzz with RSS, feed to Facebook/Twitter (3,871)
  5. Google Buzz + Reader + Twitter + Facebook = Noise (2,566)
  6. The Evolution from Numbers to Relevance (2,508)
  7. Mapping Startups & Services Filtering For Relevance In A Matrix (1,505)
  8. Google Already Has An Invisible Like Button For Google Me (1,405)
  9. Optimize Google & Google Reader for Widescreen in Chrome (1,195)
  10. How I Live and Breathe Google Reader (1,118)

Curating at Techmeme

I have been privileged to spend the whole year working full-time as an Editor at Techmeme. The team of Editors is great to work with and there is so much I keep learning from Gabe.

This job also brings me in touch with many of the top tech bloggers, who continue to amaze me with their speed and sheer prolific output of posts they write. This is an amazing community of hard-working folks who dedicate themselves to breaking tech news and I am happy to be part of it.

Sharing on Google Reader and Twitter

In March, I described how I use Google Reader. At the time, about a 100 people followed my shares. Today, over 700 people follow my shares on Google Reader, and I am grateful to all of them.

Google Reader Sharing Stats

In July, I described how I use Twitter. The increased number of followers, list memberships, and Klout Score isn’t that important to me, as is the increased engagement I have continuously witnessed on Twitter. The most important metric for a curator is how many people actually click the links I tweet? Compare these stats from July 2010:

To these in 6 months, in Dec 2010:

Bitly Stats Dec 2010

Gratitude and Wishes!

As I have shared above, this has been an exceptionally exciting and productive year. None of this would have been possible without your continued support, encouragement, and feedback. Some express their appreciation publicly, others do it privately. I am sincerely humbled and grateful for all the feedback that comes my way.

DSCN7036

I hope you too have had a great year, and here’s wishing you Happy Holidays and a Great New Year 2011!

Tagged with:
 

Introducing Editor’s Picks

As all readers of this blog know, I share interesting tech news and opinion both on Twitter and Google Reader. There are a few limitations involved with both:

  • Twitter is real-time and many shares on Twitter are easily missed. I am increasingly seeing people scan my Twitter profile to find older shares.
  • Not everyone uses Google Reader.
  • There are times when I want to draw attention to a specific part of the post, or make a comment about it.
  • Many people often find too many Google Reader shares in their feed and simply “Mark as Read” all of them. The truth is, not all shares are equal.
  • Many articles from around the web do not support RSS, and can’t be shared in Reader.
  • Finally, I would like to build a digital archive of my shares, without being too dependent on Google.

Hence, I have decided to start an experiment: Presenting Editor’s Picks.

Editor’s Picks will

  • Focus on articles that have a longer shelf-life than everyday tech news
  • Feature lesser number of shares
  • May be a good source for those who use Instapaper
  • Feature the “must read” kind of articles

I considered using automated tools to post my shares on this blog, either on a daily or weekly basis, but preferred to keep shares distinct from my own blog posts.

I am already using Posterous for sharing Cool Infographics, so am now using Tumblr for these curated shares.

You can, of course, subscribe to Editor’s Picks via RSS here.

Do let me know if you have any suggestions or feedback. Thank you for your support!

Tagged with:
 

Role of Curation in the Attention Economy

Chris Brogan wrote about Attention as a Currency about a month back in the backdrop of how he never liked FriendFeed and how Google Buzz is noisy. While Brogan focused on how one should focus on budgeting one’s own attention, I want to take the concept forward in the context of social media sharing.

Attention as Currency

Key points from Brogan’s post:

  • Attention is the baseline currency and it is finite
  • Reputation and Trust are higher-level instruments of the baseline attention currency
  • You should set up an Attention Budget
  • You should not get sucked into Buzz/Twitter/Facebook

(It is heartening to see a social media celebrity cautioning against getting sucked into the most popular social media tools out there, but how many social media enthusiasts are paying attention?)

The ‘You Scratch My Back & I’ll Scratch Yours’ Formula

When I once thanked an online friend for sharing one of my posts, the response took me by surprise: “It’s alright. You’ve shared some of my stuff before”.

Yes, I was a newcomer to social media.

Social Media today is largely driven by numbers and continues to play the followers game. An entire crop of millions of social media marketers has been harvested using the “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” fertilizer. What this means is, if you share my post, I’ll share yours. The principle is that you need to give in order to get in return. All this ‘give and take’ is partly what has caused the noise in social media.

Because of this formula, the situation has now devolved to:

  • Digging stories blindly just because your friend ‘subbed’ them on Digg
  • Retweeting those who retweet you, irrespective of what is being tweeted
  • And so on, in various other networks in various other forms

Essentially, social media networks have become places where sharing is more about sucking up to people and their social circle, rather than truly endorsing content. And as networks, social circles and sharing grows on the one hand, quality of content being shared deteriorates more and more on the other.

Sharing is Asking for Attention

When you share something on any network, you are telling your social circle – “Look at this, this is something I think you will find interesting.” In essence, you are asking for attention from your followers. Your followers distribute whatever attention currency they have budgeted for you among the things you share.

The attention each item receives depends on the total number of items you share. If you overdo it, you are reducing the value of each shared item. If you don’t share much, you aren’t really participating in the social network, reducing your baseline value.

The Flaw in the Formula

What the formula doesn’t take into account is that by blindly and indiscriminately increasing one’s ‘give and take’ in social media, one is decreasing the relevance of one’s shares to one’s followers. By ‘giving back’ to certain people, you’re at the same time ‘taking away’ from your other followers.

When the relevancy of your shares decrease, your reputation and trust declines. Social media tools might indicate you have a large number of followers, your ‘influence’ is ranked highly in terms of numbers, and you become popular as a friendly person. But your followers may not be clicking on the links you tweet or buying the products or services you recommend.

Curation Increases Reputation

Curation is such a buzzword these days, that some have gone so far as to dub every act of social media sharing as ‘curation’ – from Foursquare check-ins to Blippy purchases, to Yelp reviews. I consider some of these examples as annotations or adding meta data to a crowdsourced database. Considering each act of social media sharing as an act of curation is like considering all sex to be an act of love.

The one way I’ve seen true reputation and influence increase on the social web is when one’s shares are relevant to followers. This necessitates a brutal and ruthless evaluation. Is this content relevant to my followers? Irrespective of which influencer wrote it, irrespective of which ‘guru’ endorsed it, the relevance question is of prime consideration in deciding whether I endorse, share and propagate it to my followers.

Curation is budgeting the attention of your followers.

By reviewing the content and evaluating its relevance to your followers in any network, you are valuing the attention of your network. Personally, I prefer valuing this currency of my followers than playing the numbers game.

Tagged with:
 

Google Buzz + Reader + Twitter + Facebook = Noise

I’m having a hard time deciding whom to follow on which network with duplicate shares everywhere. The problem is compounded further by folks who auto-share from one network to another. There is no value in following people who share the same thing on Reader, Buzz, Twitter, Facebook, and so on. Duplication simply amplifies noise and reduces signal.

This is a real problem with social media today. Everyone wants maximum likes, shares, retweets on each and every thing they share. Their hope, understandably, is that each morsel they throw into social media becomes a feast on which everyone will drool.

Well, count me out. If someone is auto-feeding the same thing on all networks, it doesn’t add any value to me to follow them on all networks. Especially if they are not engaging in conversation where their content is landing.

I have written before about why I do not use auto-tweeting tools like Reader2Twitter, because I take as much effort as possible to attribute my sources. If you are using such tools, it makes sense to auto-tweet to a different Twitter account, like some folks do. This gives your followers the choice whether to follow you on Reader or Twitter.

Enter Buzz and FriendFeed and Facebook. Each of these is capable of pulling items from multiple sources for each person. FriendFeed can further be imported into Facebook and Buzz. This is not just aggregation, it is super-aggregation or aggregation-squared. This amplifies signals to such enormous proportions that all this noise is deafening.

Each of my shares on Twitter, Reader, and Facebook are hand-picked and manual. It takes extra effort but I believe it adds value to those who follow me. I am happy not being a social media superstar with thousands of followers if even a single person likes a single share of mine in a day. My value is not in the number of retweets, number of likes, etc., but in the feedback I get from even a single @reply or comment.

Neither of the companies behind each of these social networks are working with each other to design better filters for all of us. Each simply wants us to use them exclusively. There lies the problem. We hop on to each new social network bandwagon, immediately discover tools that allow us to auto-share and auto-propagate our shared content down stream, up stream, cross stream, life stream, etc., ultimately drowning our followers in the flood.

I am skeptic this problem will go away soon. As a curator, this is a challenge. The only way I see to successfully filter the signal out of this noise is to be brutal in curating sources. Auto-sharers, auto-tweeters, auto-feeders, or whatever these tools are called, will be the first on my radar as likely candidates to be unfollowed.

As a follower, I am a human. When you auto-share, you’re not a human on that network, you turn into a bot. Bots are what we call spam.

Tagged with:
 

Switch to our mobile site