

Aggregation Gone Too Far: Calling Out BoingBoing and Those Like Them - tenpoundhammer
http://www.tenpoundhammer.com/2012/01/aggregation-gone-too-far-calling-out.html

======
joebadmo
Wow. Talk about thick irony.

The "original post" is an excerpt from a book. Which is itelf a collection -
an aggregation, if you'll allow - of letters, essays, hymns, sermons, and
prayers.

And the content is reproduced more or less wholesale at each level of
distribution. So, why is BoingBoing's reproduction more wrong than any other?

Not that I particularly like BoingBoing; I don't actually read it very often.
But this issue does point to an interesting notion: that not all of the value
is in the content. Some of the value is in the context.

In other words, any single piece of content is not particularly valuable. A
site like Letters of Note or BoingBoing has to provide a continuous stream of
content, or a credible promise of interesting content in the future to offer a
real value proposition. And the monetization strategy is in line with this,
because even an anomalously large number of hits on a single piece of content
isn't a significant revenue stream; you have to create an engaging brand
(which is a promise) to create a stream of revenue.

~~~
tenpoundhammer
I think you brought up several interesting points,but to answer the first
question, So, why is BoingBoing's reproduction more wrong than any other?

BoingBoing's re-posting does not provide additional value and in fact reduces
value. The additional value that Letters of Note provides is in finding the
content in the real world, digitizing, and including necessary references so
that all possible context is included.

BoingBoing did the opposite, they added no new value and reduced value by
removing context and citations.

I agree with the continuous stream being a part of the total value, but on a
per article basis they provided no additional value to this piece. I don't
argue that aggregation is bad, I agree the manner in which it took place.

~~~
joebadmo
Hey, thanks for the reasonable reply. I think this is an important discussion
to have.

If you follow the links all the way through, they end at a gutenberg project
book. It's already digitized. They did provide a source of evidence for the
veracity of the letter, which is great. (I'll note here that BB, in an update,
also points to evidence in a Snopes message board thread.)

I don't think I explained what I meant by 'context' very well, though. I meant
that Letters of Note provides value not by any individual letter, but by
providing a stream of letters. That's its value prop. It means it's easier for
anyone interested in the particular kind of content it's aggregating to get
that content, by following Letters of Note.

BoingBoing's context/stream is different, a lot less specific about its
topicality, but provides a similar kind of value: it aggregates things that
its readers will find interesting. Its context is 'interesting things.' And
not only does it point to the specific piece of content, but, by linking, it
also points to Letters of Note, another context/stream that its readers might
find interesting.

I more or less agree with you that it'd be more polite of BB to link more
prominently and include less of the content in its post, but I think they do
enough that anyone who is interested enough in that piece of content will
follow the link to see more.

~~~
tenpoundhammer
I am a reasonable person.

I disagree with your final statement, I think that BB posts far too many of
the details for anyone to want to click through. I also think they present in
a way that says there is not more content to be seen.

------
benologist
Unfortunately what Boing Boing are doing is pretty much the standard for pro
blogging now. Even more unfortunately many of them enjoy significant traction
on sites like Reddit/HN/Digg/etc.

