I can already see that there is a new flame war related to some new buzz words brewing on the horizon. It seems that some sites (like mine, much of the time) curates interesting things I have found online (for your amusement, and to allow me to keep track of these things…). As you might see, I am making absolutely no money on this…but some do.
You see, there are some sites which create a lot of content (and make plenty of money from it, fair and square), and they would like to ensure that they continue to make money. There are some aggregation (curation) sites which re=present or re-write this content, and in most cases feed these larger sites with readers who might not have seen the content otherwise (this is what I try to do…).
And then there are some large content aggregation sites which basically take content with little or no attribution, and often quote articles far out of context (this is mostly in the political arena).
As you can see from these (linked and quoted) articles below, there are some fighting words being bandied about, sit back, and get a good seat…
Like it or not, aggregation is part of the future of media
http://gigaom.com/2011/07/13/like-it-or-not-aggregation-is-part-of-the-future-of-media
When is it aggregation and when is it curation?
It seems as though when we like it we call it “curation,” and when we don’t like it we call it “aggregation.” Either way, it’s become a crucial part of the online media ecosystem, whether it’s a headline aggregator like Techmeme, or a broader aggregator like Google News, or sites that pull together the major news stories of the week and try to make sense of them. All of those things have value — but how much value? And does the value that is produced accrue to the reader, or to the original publisher? In ideal cases it would be both, but unfortunately that isn’t always the case.
At the bottom of much of the criticism about The Huffington Post and other aggregators is the business model that most online publishing is based on, which consists of collecting as many pageviews and unique visitors as possible. Its critics complain that this is what drives the HuffPo to do such clumsy aggregation — but it’s the same yardstick they use when they complain about how little traffic the aggregated piece sends them.
In the end, the online media business is about attention: how to get it, how to keep it, and how to maintain it over time — and it isn’t a sprint, but a marathon. Worrying about every place that posts a summary of your content without permission is a mug’s game. If a poorly aggregated, hastily rewritten version of your content can compete with what you do, and offer more (or even as much) value to the reader over the long term, then you have a lot bigger problems than just The Huffington Post.
Let’s call rewriters “rewriters,” not “aggregators.” Also: why Techmeme is wonderful.
http://gaberivera.tumblr.com/post/7564131893/lets-call-rewriters-rewriters-not-aggregators
Something bothered me about Simon Dumenco’s piece about Huffington Post yesterday. Not the substance of his column, which was valid and well-argued, nor the favorable comparison to Techmeme, which was, well, favorable to Techmeme.
What irked me was the reminder that “aggregator” is a rather broad-brush term that paints systematic news-rewriters like the Huffington Post (who bury links) as cousins to snippet-quoting sites like Techmeme and Mediagazer (which link prominently). Dumenco’s piece, whose subtitle begins with “The Blog Queen Defends Her Aggregation Practices” also cites Bill Keller’s famous column from earlier this year, entitled “All the Aggregation That’s Fit to Aggregate”, which goes as far as coyly utilizing the term “aggregate” repeatedly as a euphemism for “steal”.
Since all “aggregators” are now tainted by association, I’m wondering if we should start using a different term to describe what we do at Techmeme. Something more specific, like “headline aggregator”? Or “link curator”? Meanwhile, can we all just call the rewriters “rewriters”? Aggregation is not the essence of what they do.
On a different note, allow me to stress that Dumenco’s crediting Techmeme as fair and generous with referrals is seen as a very welcome gesture from this corner, as it echoes what Frédéric Filloux wrote last September. In fact, it presents me a good opportunity to promote and expand on this idea, framing Techmeme as the antithesis to all that is sketchy and sucky about news on the internet. The following table summarizes my thoughts succinctly:
In closing, if you find yourself writing about Techmeme, it would be best if you could link prominently to this post. Or just paraphrase, or copy and paste at will, with or without attribution. It’s all fine with me.
