Ok, some agree that the "AS-IS" model for the F-Goog works kinda ok? (I for one find the "leave it be" approach to be suffice for my RSS digestion) - Yet - others want a more focused approach, like Dale - "If i ask for Coldfusion, serve it too me".
Now Robin has indicated that there is a multitude of ways in which we could technically make all this happen, latest being the Bayesian algorithms - which does sound quite interesting.
So here's the thing... Geoff makes a change as per Robins posts, what happens? - I dare say, he could quite easily alienate a large portion of the F-Goog population in one hit. He could ignore it? but now that Dale's come out and stated that he finds it off-topic too much ( my blog is guilty at times ) others may flock to his banner and agree - more negatives.
So Geoff will now need to choose the lesser of both evils? or he could simply steal a page or two out of Digg.com.
Why not simply allow folks to click on a feature under each thread in the "free-for-all" category that allows the community, the very people who focus their attention on F-Goog to promote certain feeds into certain categories of global choice. This will allow the wider population of F-Goog to determine what is context and what is noise.
Sometimes, the power of the end-user is enough. Never forget your consumers as they are your eyes, ears, voice and mind :)
On 8/18/06, Robin Hilliard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 18/08/2006, at 8:31 AM, Geoff Bowers wrote:
> 2) its not computationally trivial to work out what is a good and not
> so good post
Just FYI Chip Temm has an interesting comment on our blog about using
Bayesian algorithms (often used in spam filters) to automatically
categorise content - here is a link to the article he wrote in CFDJ
about this a while back:
http://au.sys-con.com/read/154232.htm
To make this work we need a large sample of posts in various
categories. To this end I wrote a CF script this evening that
visited the 468 feeds aggregated by the Goog and built a distinct
list of dc:subject tag values on the feed items (see my blog comment
for the list).
I figure that if we can map the various subjects used on these blogs
for CF, Flash, Flex etc (there typically seem to be about 4-8
variations for each product) to products we should be able to visit
the original articles, and assign each to the correct sample (CF,
Flash, Trash etc) based on the subjects allocated by the author at
post time. With this data (basically a word frequency table) we
should be able to look at any article or web page and with some
modest number crunching get a pretty good indication of how relevant
it would be to a particular product. It will be fun to see if it
works anyway...
______________
Robin Hilliard
On 18/08/2006, at 8:31 AM, Geoff Bowers wrote:
>
> Dale et al,
>
> Dale Fraser wrote:
>> I recently dropped all my favourite feeds in Google and put in
>> Fullasagoog
>> Coldfusion Blend instead.
>>
>> Wow, am I disappointed. I'm not sure what's going on, but I'm
>> wasting my
>> time here. I think someone at Fullasagoog should do something
>> about it.
>> Here's the current top 9 Coldfusion Blend Entries
>
> First thing to say is generally I agree. I'm not a great fan of "off
> topic" posts myself but they clearly don't annoy me as much as they
> annoy some.
>
> There needs to be a bit of a reality check:
> 1) anecdotally -- about an equal proportion of people *want* to see
> non-technical posts from CF insiders. They feel it humanises the
> community and so on.
> 2) its not computationally trivial to work out what is a good and not
> so good post
> 3) not everyone has a category that is relevant -- if i only take CF
> posts from a blogger do I miss the posts they might have on JS, Flash,
> Flex, SQL etc? Many bloggers have many technical interests. CF
> itself
> has many satellite subjects that should be of interest to CF
> developers.
>
> I have plans for the next generation Goog to provide some degree of
> social interaction to widen the scope for users to be editors and hone
> the relevance of posts. I also have a variety of ideas on how to do
> this computationally.
>
> There are some 500 hand picked blogs on Fullasagoog. And a waiting
> list of about half that. I review each blog before adding it. I even
> remove some blogs I find to be reliably bad. This is a very
> subjective
> and time consuming process. Bloggers tools change, their posting
> habits change, there are a multitude of human variables associated
> with
> maintaining a good feed.
>
> I will endeavour to find more time to address the concerns you have
> raised. But in the end, Fullasagoog is not cash flow positive and is
> heavily subsidised by Daemon [1]. It's a bit of a hobby that was
> built
> to scatch an itch of *mine* several years ago and at the moment I've
> got some sort of St. Vitus dance going on trying to reach all the
> other
> itches.
>
> -- geoff
> http://www.fullasagoog.com/
>
> [1]: http://www.daemon.com.au/
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.mossyblog.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
- [cfaussie] Re: Fullasagoog a waste of time. Scott Barnes
- [cfaussie] Re: Fullasagoog a waste of time. darryl lyons
- [cfaussie] Re: Fullasagoog a waste of time. Scott Barnes
