Myth correction: TechMeme not seeded by me

The EirePreneur blog corrected a myth: that TechMeme was seeded solely by me. That isn't true. The original list was heavily influenced by my reading list, Gabe told me, but that original list now has changed so much that only about 4% of the blogs I was reading are part of the current list. (And I'm only reading 100 blogs right now, cause I don't have time to read the 800 I was reading).

6 thoughts on “Myth correction: TechMeme not seeded by me

  1. /pd: if it’s of no value to you, why worry about the sourcing process?

    Now I do understand why some would appreciate published criteria for inclusion, and regret that the mysteriousness leads to some frustration (largely for bloggers that want to get linked).

    But I disagree that I “should” publish criteria. Should Robert have to publish criteria for inclusion in his personal subscriptions?

  2. /pd: if it’s of no value to you, why worry about the sourcing process?

    Now I do understand why some would appreciate published criteria for inclusion, and regret that the mysteriousness leads to some frustration (largely for bloggers that want to get linked).

    But I disagree that I “should” publish criteria. Should Robert have to publish criteria for inclusion in his personal subscriptions?

  3. Thanks Robert.

    Some more mythbusting details: Early on in the search for more sources, I built a quick tool specifically to plow through your feed list, find new blogs, mechanically check for some other qualifying features, and then, if they passed a manual inspection, add them to the seed list. Having done so, I found the tool nifty enough to work well on other huge feed lists, like Susan Mernit’s media-heavy subscriptions.

    I’d say the intersections between your feeds and the original seed list was substantial (double-digit percentages), but the proportion of feeds added specifically through the above process wasn’t huge (maybe single digit percentage), because many of your subscriptions were well-known sites added PRIOR to the Scoble-sweep, and others didn’t pass snuff. The facts are probably similar with respect to Susan’s feeds.

  4. Thanks Robert.

    Some more mythbusting details: Early on in the search for more sources, I built a quick tool specifically to plow through your feed list, find new blogs, mechanically check for some other qualifying features, and then, if they passed a manual inspection, add them to the seed list. Having done so, I found the tool nifty enough to work well on other huge feed lists, like Susan Mernit’s media-heavy subscriptions.

    I’d say the intersections between your feeds and the original seed list was substantial (double-digit percentages), but the proportion of feeds added specifically through the above process wasn’t huge (maybe single digit percentage), because many of your subscriptions were well-known sites added PRIOR to the Scoble-sweep, and others didn’t pass snuff. The facts are probably similar with respect to Susan’s feeds.

  5. but Gabe, shjould also publishe the criteria on how a feed makes it to the list. I think that manaul additions is the process that Gabe has implemented based on trued up values /algo’s on other sites like technorati etc..

    I am still unsure what his process /methods are.. however, I have found that it has just become one big hollow echo chamber ..

  6. but Gabe, shjould also publishe the criteria on how a feed makes it to the list. I think that manaul additions is the process that Gabe has implemented based on trued up values /algo’s on other sites like technorati etc..

    I am still unsure what his process /methods are.. however, I have found that it has just become one big hollow echo chamber ..

Comments are closed.