Feed. Reader. Aggregator. Syndication.
All common words for distilling the teragigs of data on the web down into a simple manageable chunk of infomeat. Take the top x-number of headlines [a] from some source [b] under some category [c], and dump into your XML-friendly aggregator with a simple copy and paste. Your reader then outputs the headers - and if you like, a preview of the body content - and it's up to you to sift through header by header by header, to determine what to click and delve into further.
I personally use Netvibes, which I love. I have a bunch of tabs, indicating categories of content, such as "News", "Tech & Games", and "Video". With over 50 sources, including 3 email accounts, it's certainly overwhelming, but I'm not drowning. (The water level is just above my upper lip, occassionally splashing the nostrils, causing periodic OCD breakouts of "Must read everything!".) Included in my dozens of sources is a shiny diamond: blogs.com.
Run by Six Apart, makers of Movable Type (my blog software of choice, including this one), Blogs.com doesn't automatically aggregate news. It organizes blog content by a current news topic (presidential debate results, economic news, a celebrity wedding), and manually weaves it all together through it's own individual blog post.
So: I crack open Netvibes, which shows the new post by blogs.com, "Indecision 2008: Debate 2". As a responsible citizen, the election interests me (greatly), so I click the link and load the post, which starts:
These days, with tons of compelling news flying around the blogosphere six ways from Sunday, it's great to have a singular source that isn't.
All common words for distilling the teragigs of data on the web down into a simple manageable chunk of infomeat. Take the top x-number of headlines [a] from some source [b] under some category [c], and dump into your XML-friendly aggregator with a simple copy and paste. Your reader then outputs the headers - and if you like, a preview of the body content - and it's up to you to sift through header by header by header, to determine what to click and delve into further.
I personally use Netvibes, which I love. I have a bunch of tabs, indicating categories of content, such as "News", "Tech & Games", and "Video". With over 50 sources, including 3 email accounts, it's certainly overwhelming, but I'm not drowning. (The water level is just above my upper lip, occassionally splashing the nostrils, causing periodic OCD breakouts of "Must read everything!".) Included in my dozens of sources is a shiny diamond: blogs.com.
Run by Six Apart, makers of Movable Type (my blog software of choice, including this one), Blogs.com doesn't automatically aggregate news. It organizes blog content by a current news topic (presidential debate results, economic news, a celebrity wedding), and manually weaves it all together through it's own individual blog post.
So: I crack open Netvibes, which shows the new post by blogs.com, "Indecision 2008: Debate 2". As a responsible citizen, the election interests me (greatly), so I click the link and load the post, which starts:
In their second debate, McCain and Obama finally got down to specifics on health care, but WebMD's expert says both were misleading while WSJ's Health Blog notes the distinction the candidates made between health care being a "right" or a "responsibility." McCain's surprise proposal to buy up bad mortgages has some of his supporters "scratching their heads" (via Politico), but WSJ's PoliticalPerceptions blog notes that nothing in Debate 2 happened "to change the shape of the race." For gotcha moments...Wherever blogs.com references a site, they link to it, and periodically cite it inline. In effect, blogs.com takes news - fluid by nature, but fragmented by online syndication - and reconstructs it into a more qualitative weave of multiple sources. The site also puts together themed lists and groups, like Top 10 Blogs to Stalk Socialites (neither me or my blog made the lsit).
These days, with tons of compelling news flying around the blogosphere six ways from Sunday, it's great to have a singular source that isn't.
