Charles on… anything that comes along

I’ve previously commented on how aggregating isn’t as good as browsing (though I should mention that it’s a lot faster, in a world where we always seem to want to skim the surface). Now glassdog’s “What’s Wrong With: Feed Readers” goes into more detail about how things could be. I agree with him, though less angrily:

Why can’t I rank feeds or categories higher than others? Why can’t I rate items and let the cumulative ratings over time determine feed rankings? Why isn’t there some statistical combination of each of the above to put what I’m actually going to care about at the top of the list and the discussions about which syndication protocol is best at the bottom? Why isn’t there an archive, to throw useful-but-read items somewhere other than the to-do list and trash?.

And plenty more food for feed thoughts.

These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
• Netimperative: what's wrong with government telling us about technology (12 February 2005; score: 46.12%)
• Browsers vs aggregators: why browsing's better (25 August 2004; score: 45.82%)
• Unintended consequenceRSS (9 September 2004; score: 43.31%)