Fairvue weblog awards

[francis]

More blogs than you can shake a stick at (http://www.fairvue.com/?feature=awards2004), some of them probably good.

Additionally, what does anyone think of the design of that linked page? I like the top bit (which looks good at 1024 but doesn't at 800), but it goes rapidly downhill after that.

[Tom]

I still can't work up any enthusiasm for bloging but Ken&Anny say they have become such an important journalistic form that they are going commercial. Here is an example (http://www.hatch.org/blog/2003/06/26/going_commercial.php)and a comment re Adsense on blogs.

[James]

I agree with Tom, I cannot get excited about Weblogs and don't think I ever will. I can't think of anything more boring.

I think their use on the Bentley School kids' pages is a good idea though as we have a specific aim in mind - to encourage the children to get used to computers, write effectively, and let their parents know what they are up to at school.

[David]

I tend to agree. I'm not sure exactly what the attraction is. I guess that since there are 1000's of blogs out there, there must be at least a handful that might be worth reading. The question is: with an increasing amount of information out there on the web and in print, how do we decide what is worth reading and what is not. We have a finite amount of time and therefore a limit to the data we can consume. We already have a post from James today extolling the virtues of the Sunday Times and we have had discussions in the past about paper magazines and webzines.

Just how much information is healthy or, more to the point, how much is essential.

[francis]

Heh - check out the amount of RSS feeds linked in the feeds and feedster links in this previous post (http://www.websitearchitecture.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=201).

I stand by my original question: "how much news is too much news?"

[David]

Originally posted by francis@Mar 16 2004, 11:00 pm
I stand by my original question: "how much news is too much news?"
How long is a piece of string? Or, more accurately, how much time does an individual have to consume news and what priority do they give to it?

We have the perfect example on this forum. Some of us are very active and obviously consider it a high priority even though our time is limited. Some of us are barely active at all, either because we consider it to be low priority or because we have little time (or both).

My view of news consumption is that the law of diminishing returns comes into play. There is a balance to be struck, beyond which, news consumption is no longer beneficial (i.e. a waste of time).