<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The wisdom of crowds is lacking</title>
	<atom:link href="http://aaronmentele.com/2007/01/10/the-wisdom-of-crowds/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://aaronmentele.com/2007/01/10/the-wisdom-of-crowds/</link>
	<description>personal blog of Aaron Mentele, web developer and partner at Electric Pulp</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 04:22:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron Mentele</title>
		<link>http://aaronmentele.com/2007/01/10/the-wisdom-of-crowds/comment-page-1/#comment-7886</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Mentele</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:32:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://charisma18.com/2007/01/10/the-wisdom-of-crowds/#comment-7886</guid>
		<description>I almost included the sharing option in google reader - I followed Scoble&#039;s shared items for a while and could see an aggregation being valuable.  I still think it&#039;s too easy to share or vote up an article&#039;s relevance though.  Google search is certainly more relevant - if only it would add age of content into the equation.  I like the idea of blending search relevance and &#039;blogosphere&#039; relevance and bookmarking relevance and a few other &#039;relevances&#039; together with personal preferences - the stuff that would pour out would taste a lot better.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I almost included the sharing option in google reader &#8211; I followed Scoble&#8217;s shared items for a while and could see an aggregation being valuable.  I still think it&#8217;s too easy to share or vote up an article&#8217;s relevance though.  Google search is certainly more relevant &#8211; if only it would add age of content into the equation.  I like the idea of blending search relevance and &#8216;blogosphere&#8217; relevance and bookmarking relevance and a few other &#8216;relevances&#8217; together with personal preferences &#8211; the stuff that would pour out would taste a lot better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Garrick Van Buren</title>
		<link>http://aaronmentele.com/2007/01/10/the-wisdom-of-crowds/comment-page-1/#comment-7885</link>
		<dc:creator>Garrick Van Buren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:24:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://charisma18.com/2007/01/10/the-wisdom-of-crowds/#comment-7885</guid>
		<description>Aaron - Digg is a poor example of the &#039;wisdom of crowds&#039; phenomenon - because of it&#039;s transparency. To harness WoC, there&#039;s a required independence among the actors and an inability to communicate between one another.

Google is a closer example. Though not perfect as I mention in &lt;a href=&quot;http://garrickvanburen.com/archive/digg-dumb-deep-down&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my post on the subject&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aaron &#8211; Digg is a poor example of the &#8216;wisdom of crowds&#8217; phenomenon &#8211; because of it&#8217;s transparency. To harness WoC, there&#8217;s a required independence among the actors and an inability to communicate between one another.</p>
<p>Google is a closer example. Though not perfect as I mention in <a href="http://garrickvanburen.com/archive/digg-dumb-deep-down" rel="nofollow">my post on the subject</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

