Comments on: TimesPeople: Nice, but not enough

By: wim permana

wim permana — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:46:16 +0000

“Why? Because the service contains exactly what it says on the tin: TimesPeople, and only TimesPeople. In other words, it’s for people who just read the New York Times, and all they really care about is what other people who read the New York Times care about.”

Dear Mr. Ingram, I think what NYT had done so far is better than anybody else. At least, they have something which utilize their own material or craftsmanship. And this is better than nothing …

By: wim permana

wim permana — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:46:16 +0000

“Why? Because the service contains exactly what it says on the tin: TimesPeople, and only TimesPeople. In other words, itâ€™s for people who just read the New York Times, and all they really care about is what other people who read the New York Times care about.”

Dear Mr. Ingram, I think what NYT had done so far is better than anybody else. At least, they have something which utilize their own material or craftsmanship. And this is better than nothing …

By: mathewi

mathewi — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:50:06 +0000

That's a fair point, Bill — and I think it's great that they are
letting people's recommendations flow out through RSS. And I don't
think they should become another social aggregator. But I think they
need to think more about how to be two-way instead of just one way.

By: Silly Billy

Silly Billy — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:40:19 +0000

It seems to me that the Times isn't interested in becoming another social aggregator. They aren't facebook…that's not their job. I'd argue that they've nicely (via rss) set up a way for the real social aggregator's (facebook, google reader, friendfeed etc) to consume the TimesPeople data. I'd like it if more sites would output their data to be used in things like facebook. What's more interesting to see in your facebook news feed, “So-and-so recommended this New York Times article” or “So-and-so poked you.” ?

By: mathewi

mathewi — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:39:06 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Michael — it wasn't intended as a criticism.
I just thought it was interesting. And your description of why it was
done that way makes perfect sense.