Pages

Friday, June 24, 2011

The Scoop.it saga continues

Scoop.it I hadn't planned to write any more about Scoop.it for a while because I feel I've said enough for now, but I was involved in some interesting discussions yesterday that are worth recording.

First on the question of "do I need this"? Maybe not. If you don't feel you have a burning desire to share items with others, or if Tumblr or Posterous are working well for you, you probably don't need Scoop.it.

@psychemedia complained about having to click through layers to get to original content, which is true, but also the point of Scoop.it (interesting scoop from Robin Good). Curation inevitably involves the creation of a curation layer, which is also social on Scoop.it if you want it to be. Again, if you don't want to curate, don't use Scoop.it.

Finally, I was thinking about the parallels between Scoop.it and delicious. I also curate on delicious, but primarily I store information there for myself, whereas Scoop.it is outward facing (although it would benefit if the tagging window popped up from the bookmarklet so that tagging is not an afterthought). But I don't overtly share with others on delicious, although I am aware of the social aspect and follow what my network stores avidly (thanks to them all). (My Scoop.it network is becoming increasingly useful as I slowly build it.) Why the difference? Although the last ill-fated Yahoo revision of delicious attempted to add social sharing features, they're just not slick enough to make them automatic. In contrast, the social network integration in Scoop.it has hit the sweetspot, making the rebroadcasting aspect of curation work. That's the difference between curation and simply bookmarking.

What I still haven't figured out is how to use Scoop.it for education, beyond the informal contexts that I'm already using it for. Maybe I should go all Illich and not try.



4 comments:

  1. My (@psychemedia) concern was that rather than sharing links directly, people were sharing links /via scoop.it/, requiring a click through to get to the content being shared (in much the same way that websites such as ComputerWeekly require a click-thru to get past an opening advert page in order gain access to the content page you thought you had just clicked-thru to.)

    If you're intention is to share a link to a curate page, then that's another matter. It just seems to me that the way scoop.it is being used, in part, at them moment is akin to folk saying: look at this link, and then giving you a link to a delicious page where the link they want you to follow is the top link.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a fair point, and if Scoop.it were to disappear (or start charging), access to the curated links would be lost. The problem I have is that Scoop.it is the best system I have yet found, both in terms of my workflow and in terms of response, for this sort of sharing. I wish delicious worked like this, but it just doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was wondering about the difference between delicious and scoop.it. I guess they're both public but the latter is more social. Interesting that you've scoop.it-ed your own blog post on scoop.it. That's taking it a bit far I reckon!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scoop.it hasn't replaced delicious for me and it won't, although they overlap in some ways. Scooping my own blog post isn't just vanity, it's because i was writing about Scoop.it and quite a few Scoop.it users who don't read my blog will see it there, thus offering the possibility of discussion.

    ReplyDelete