The CitySearch Lesson Applies
Posted by Nathan in Ramblings, tags: Economist, Simple, USHI have been explaining this to people for years. It is really a simple concept especially to a scientist. We call it the impact factor; a measure of import the research published in a particular carries. There is one massive difference between scientific research and “net 2.0″ style commenting fever. You can see it in sites like CitySearch. To be blunt, if you listen to the reviews of people there you are a fool. Zagat is much closer to peer-review, it is the real deal.
The problem is that you have no real reference point by which to judge a review. How do I know a negative post is not the nearby competition? Or a good post isn’t a paid employee? I don’t and therefore I ignore them.
This carries over to all kinds of sites. Why do I care what you think of 200$ sunglasses? If I am an idiot enough to spend 200$ on glasses, I am only after the rating of one guy: me.
Put another way: have you seen the cesspool of myspace? That is the “public”. Do you really want them to pick your reading list? This is about Jim Lehrer vs. Fox News, sparkling wine vs. Krug, Quartz vs. Tourbillon, Naugahyde vs. Leather, etc…
I wonder when all this will stop? It shows no sign of abating. Take social bookmarks sites, I have little to no idea the population pushing things to the top. For all I know it could be News Corp and 10,000 interns. I think I will stick with taking what The Economist, NYTimes, Washington Post, and Slashdot rate as newsworthy.
Entries (RSS)