Comments on: Is User Generated Content A Good Idea?

By: David G

David G — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:56:02 +0000

I’m thinking a lot lately about filters vs windows into content-generating networks. I think filters are not the solution – to work, filters need to a) see everything and b) screen perfectly. Both are impossible and expensive to maintain.

If you rather ignore all of the network except for a few choice “windows” into it, network effects will dictate that all relevant, quality content eventually passes by your windows.

Case in point; a year ago, I was “reading” 100+ bloggers, now I read only 4 and I’m far better informed. The most popular bloggers claim they stop reading other blogs – that’s because their audience has become a super-efficient window into the net.

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:22:36 +0000

And what if there were many people who were acting as “filters” that kept economies from developing? Thereby causing enormous financial loss?

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:20:28 +0000

But what is the architecture of the strange loop?

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:18:21 +0000

I think you might be in serious error! From Escher, Godel and Bach, the symbolic representation may be not quite be isomorphic in its representation. Quoting from Robert Starbird Dorney, The Professional Practice of Environmental Management, “Given the transformation of industrial economics by the combination of the microchip and biotechnology, it is important to speculate on the effects such transformation in information processing and genetic manipulation may have on the natural resources and landscape ecology of the globe. Some likely results are….Increased simplification of genetic diversity through breeding programs and loss of genetic diversity due to extinctions.”

Dorney was one of the finest professional environmental managers in NOrth America whose spouse grew up in Louisville…so there is link back to Louisville.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 04:35:26 +0000

Both good comments. I think the future of user generated content is to combine the two ideas. It’s a filtering problem not a talent problem, and the previous filtering mechanisms were primarily who you knew and how much you could self-promote. So the key to a good UGC site might be spending lots of time on the filtering mechanisms.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:14:58 +0000

Clearly, then you haven’t seen this:
http://www.milinkito.com/los80.php

Tons of Youtube links to old 80’s music videos. Sheer brilliance .

On a more serious note, it seems to me that having a subscription fee would be a good way to go – not a huge one, but even a small subscription fee will weed out a lot of the junk. Yes, you will lose out on some talent, but at the end of the day, my guess is that you’re dealing with a filtering problem, not a lack of talent problem.

By: David G

David G — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 23:05:37 +0000

Points well taken.

Don’t make the mistake of putting acclaimed creators into a non-human “box” though; they are merely talented humans BUT the ‘old way’ also required that they be major self-promoters and on top of that extremely lucky for their stuff to even see the light of day. Have we missed out genius? Definitely!

What has changed is that the artificial barriers to popularity have been removed – that is progress and it will have a marked improvement in quality of creative works because the gene pool is now so much bigger.

Attention scarcity as content explodes is a challenge all media consumers will face – and there-in lies the importance & the wealth of networks.