http://www.backinskinnyjeans.com/2006/09/how_to_explain_.html
Wow! What a great way to finish up my resource reviews: the Oprah way! This article provided a wonderful perspective on how RSS is perceived and interpreted in popular culture. Posted September 21st, 2006 by Stephanie Quilao, this article describes what RSS is, why you want to use it, and how to set up an RSS reader.
What's most interesting about this post is the language with which she describes technology. After reading scholarly journal articles, studies and blogs of technology experts, the terminology Quillao used to describe digital tools was slightly humorous, but very interesting and revealing of a population's relationship with technology.
First, she explains that RSS in "Oprah speak" means "Ready for Some Stories." She also describes different Internet browsers and feeders as different "flavors of the same thing...the flavors are only important if you want to get techie." The post goes to include many more of these Oprah translations, and the end of the post there are 50 comments, all of them praising Quillao for her simple, easy-to-understand explanation of RSS feeds. Here are just a few "Now I know how to explain this to my dad :)!, This is such a terrific and simple explanation of RSS...thanks. Every time someone stares blankly at me when I use the term, I now know where to send them!, I'm not sure why it has taken years for someone to explain RSS in simple terms. Thank you for "The Oprah Way."
I know this resource is a bit dated, but I think that being in the Library and Information Field, dominated by technology, we forget about populations of non-users. Especially in relation to working in the public library sector, a librarian must be aware of a user's technological knowledge base and cater to that level in order to be properly provide effective service to the public. We must be creative and intuitive teachers.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Resource Review #7: What An RSS Feed Reveals About Its Subscriber
Circulation Management; Nov2008, Vol. 23 Issue 9, p11-11.
This article interested me because it is written from a marketing perspective, authored by Bill Flitter, the CEO of Pheedo, a company that "creates new kinds of profit driven advertising services through distributed content, like RSS, for our publishers and advertisers."
Flitter's column is promoting the usefulness of looking at people's RSS feeds to determine their interests, therefore a worthwhile activity for advertisers. Flitter claims that RSS feed subscribers have an emotional connection to the content they receive because they have made a decision to follow a particular website, showing trust and devotion. Flitter points out that by looking at users RSS feeds, you aren't only detecting user behavior, you're getting to know that user.
He explains, "And if you take a look at where things are going with the subscription model-especially with RSS-it's really about context. I know what you're going to do tomorrow because I know you're going to open your feed. I know you're going to click on X numbers of articles and then I know what those articles are going to be. So I can paint a much deeper picture of you. And it's a deeper layer of commitment than even behavioral targeting is doing today."
I chose this to comment on this article because in my research I've come across a fair amount of information regarding RSS in a marketing light. For me, it was another reminder to the growing force of digital capitalism. Last year, in my class on the Digital Divide, one of many things I learned was that with the introduction of any new technology, it is the only the product of the society it was created in, and that it will come to exhibit those characteristics inherent in the culture. So, we see that in our culture of consumerism and profit, the Internet is slowly becoming saturated with advertisements and shopping. RSS is just another avenue to provide and conduct these activities. Boohoo.
This article interested me because it is written from a marketing perspective, authored by Bill Flitter, the CEO of Pheedo, a company that "creates new kinds of profit driven advertising services through distributed content, like RSS, for our publishers and advertisers."
Flitter's column is promoting the usefulness of looking at people's RSS feeds to determine their interests, therefore a worthwhile activity for advertisers. Flitter claims that RSS feed subscribers have an emotional connection to the content they receive because they have made a decision to follow a particular website, showing trust and devotion. Flitter points out that by looking at users RSS feeds, you aren't only detecting user behavior, you're getting to know that user.
He explains, "And if you take a look at where things are going with the subscription model-especially with RSS-it's really about context. I know what you're going to do tomorrow because I know you're going to open your feed. I know you're going to click on X numbers of articles and then I know what those articles are going to be. So I can paint a much deeper picture of you. And it's a deeper layer of commitment than even behavioral targeting is doing today."
I chose this to comment on this article because in my research I've come across a fair amount of information regarding RSS in a marketing light. For me, it was another reminder to the growing force of digital capitalism. Last year, in my class on the Digital Divide, one of many things I learned was that with the introduction of any new technology, it is the only the product of the society it was created in, and that it will come to exhibit those characteristics inherent in the culture. So, we see that in our culture of consumerism and profit, the Internet is slowly becoming saturated with advertisements and shopping. RSS is just another avenue to provide and conduct these activities. Boohoo.
Resource Review #6: International News and Problems with the News Media’s RSS Feeds
http://www.icmpa.umd.edu/pages/studies/rss_study_details/study_conclusions.htmlhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
I had bookmarked this resource back in October, but forgot about it until recently, when I had the chance to take a look at it again. I'm very glad, because I found it to be quite insightful.
Posted on the website of the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda, a study done at the University of Maryland researching how well news outlets use RSS to share their news. It was interesting to find out that the study actually came to fruition in a roundabout way. The researchers were originally trying to study the quality of information being produced about the Middle East. In order to keep abreast of this news, they started to subscribe to RSS feeds from a number of different news sources. In doing this, they soon discovered the discrepancies between RSS feeds in their content and delivery. They had a different study on their hands.
Hence, they started new research evaluating RSS feeds from "19 of the top global news online sites to see which ones gave the users of their RSS feeds the same number of stories, the same range of news sources, in as timely a fashion as could be gotten if those users went to the individual website." They measured the sites on Reliability: Do RSS search results match website's search results?, Inclusiveness: Does RSS offer non-staff & archived stories (if also come through website search)?, Key info: Does RSS give headline/summary, date, time, reporter?, and Timeliness: Are RSS stories as timely as those from website search?
The team came to a couple of general conclusions at the end the study. Firstly, they discovered that RSS is largely inefficient at providing quality new stories that someone subscribed to a feed is interested in. They suggest that if a RSS subscriber wants specific information on a subject from the 19 news outlets studied, they will still have to click to the actual source's website. This was because, for the most part, there are many differences between what difference news outlets are willing to share through their RSS feeds. Some sources only share content created by their staff, while others also share content created by others such as the Associated Press, even if that content is available on their website.
The study also found that subscribers have no idea if they are getting the news that actually interests them. Some news outlets only put out a certain number of feeds a day, some only put out their breaking news stories while other only put out secondary stories. The users are not aware of what they are (or aren't) getting without going to the original website.
A final note acknowledged that RSS feeds need to include when a story was written, who wrote it, and from where. This information is useful to users in deciding if a particular news story is worth clicking to go into.
With RSS feeds often being totted as a great way to keep up on news and current events, this study took a step back and shed light on the number of ways that RSS fails to provide the comprehensive alerts that a subscriber may be looking for. There are many reasons why one would just as well end up visiting individual websites for their information needs.
Overall, a great study and great critique on the shortcomings of RSS in delivering news.
I had bookmarked this resource back in October, but forgot about it until recently, when I had the chance to take a look at it again. I'm very glad, because I found it to be quite insightful.
Posted on the website of the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda, a study done at the University of Maryland researching how well news outlets use RSS to share their news. It was interesting to find out that the study actually came to fruition in a roundabout way. The researchers were originally trying to study the quality of information being produced about the Middle East. In order to keep abreast of this news, they started to subscribe to RSS feeds from a number of different news sources. In doing this, they soon discovered the discrepancies between RSS feeds in their content and delivery. They had a different study on their hands.
Hence, they started new research evaluating RSS feeds from "19 of the top global news online sites to see which ones gave the users of their RSS feeds the same number of stories, the same range of news sources, in as timely a fashion as could be gotten if those users went to the individual website." They measured the sites on Reliability: Do RSS search results match website's search results?, Inclusiveness: Does RSS offer non-staff & archived stories (if also come through website search)?, Key info: Does RSS give headline/summary, date, time, reporter?, and Timeliness: Are RSS stories as timely as those from website search?
The team came to a couple of general conclusions at the end the study. Firstly, they discovered that RSS is largely inefficient at providing quality new stories that someone subscribed to a feed is interested in. They suggest that if a RSS subscriber wants specific information on a subject from the 19 news outlets studied, they will still have to click to the actual source's website. This was because, for the most part, there are many differences between what difference news outlets are willing to share through their RSS feeds. Some sources only share content created by their staff, while others also share content created by others such as the Associated Press, even if that content is available on their website.
The study also found that subscribers have no idea if they are getting the news that actually interests them. Some news outlets only put out a certain number of feeds a day, some only put out their breaking news stories while other only put out secondary stories. The users are not aware of what they are (or aren't) getting without going to the original website.
A final note acknowledged that RSS feeds need to include when a story was written, who wrote it, and from where. This information is useful to users in deciding if a particular news story is worth clicking to go into.
With RSS feeds often being totted as a great way to keep up on news and current events, this study took a step back and shed light on the number of ways that RSS fails to provide the comprehensive alerts that a subscriber may be looking for. There are many reasons why one would just as well end up visiting individual websites for their information needs.
Overall, a great study and great critique on the shortcomings of RSS in delivering news.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Resource Review #5 - RSS: Use, Lose, or Abuse?
Manafy, M. RSS: Use, Lose, or Abuse?. EContent v. 29 no. 8 (October 2006) p. 6.
This was a very interesting article because it discussed a topic related to RSS feeds that I had not previously acknowledged or heard much about in my research thus far.
The author, Michelle Manafy, writing for EContent Magazine, takes on the challenge of asking difficult questions concerning the legalities of RSS generated content and the problems facing publishers that want to use RSS feeds. For example, she draws attention to the fact that many corporations are using RSS to import content related to their business on their websites. Therefore, cashing in on content created by other people. Conversely, what are the rules if a regular person wanted to publish RSS feeds from various sources on her/his own website?
Well, Manafy poses this question to some of her colleagues out in the on-line community. The responses she received were varied and inconclusive. One response reads, "RSS headlines are a clear example of 'content wanting to be free,' to paraphrase the great Yuri Rubinsky," says Bob Doyle. He believes that RSS feeds are created to be published elsewhere, therefore their nature is free.
Fred Meeker of Banner & Witcoff suggests that concerning RSS, we should pay more attention to implied license, instead of focusing on copyright and fair use issues. He argues that because RSS is created to be distributed, silence or lack of objection functions as the agreement between content creators and publishers.
Then, on the opposite side of the coin weighs in Peter Strand, partner of the law firm Holland & Knight, who believes that RSS is just as covered by copyright law as other short publications, such as headlines.
Manafy effectively points out their are many uncertainties regarding the nature of RSS content and the ways in which they are published. Ultimately , she calls for thoughtfulness and action in regard to the myriad of legalities surrounding RSS generated content with her article.
This was a very interesting article because it discussed a topic related to RSS feeds that I had not previously acknowledged or heard much about in my research thus far.
The author, Michelle Manafy, writing for EContent Magazine, takes on the challenge of asking difficult questions concerning the legalities of RSS generated content and the problems facing publishers that want to use RSS feeds. For example, she draws attention to the fact that many corporations are using RSS to import content related to their business on their websites. Therefore, cashing in on content created by other people. Conversely, what are the rules if a regular person wanted to publish RSS feeds from various sources on her/his own website?
Well, Manafy poses this question to some of her colleagues out in the on-line community. The responses she received were varied and inconclusive. One response reads, "RSS headlines are a clear example of 'content wanting to be free,' to paraphrase the great Yuri Rubinsky," says Bob Doyle. He believes that RSS feeds are created to be published elsewhere, therefore their nature is free.
Fred Meeker of Banner & Witcoff suggests that concerning RSS, we should pay more attention to implied license, instead of focusing on copyright and fair use issues. He argues that because RSS is created to be distributed, silence or lack of objection functions as the agreement between content creators and publishers.
Then, on the opposite side of the coin weighs in Peter Strand, partner of the law firm Holland & Knight, who believes that RSS is just as covered by copyright law as other short publications, such as headlines.
Manafy effectively points out their are many uncertainties regarding the nature of RSS content and the ways in which they are published. Ultimately , she calls for thoughtfulness and action in regard to the myriad of legalities surrounding RSS generated content with her article.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)