Steve Gilmor with simultaneous emotion and analysis in an extended cerebral dump. It’s too bad he can’t get a findable URL in the process. Page view model or not Steve, I still come to the site to comment and you have no excuse for not fixing the home page css.
All of my issues with his platform aside, Steve pushes the Attention manifesto forward with a lust for latchkey metrics.
I am looking for the network effects that derive from orchestrating attention signals to accelerate discovery, incent affinity-derived content creation, and indemnify contributed data from pollution by laundering and then merging with formerly clean user-managed data. Whether the attention service has a legal responsibility to handle collected data with the user’s interest in mind is not crucial; how the attention service appears credible to users is.
Put simply, GestureBank was conceived and implemented as a mechanism to insure initial and continued contribution of anonymous data to a user-controlled aggregated pool. Such a data pool survives the most rigorous tests of data flow and integrity. Data queries and services produced by affinity services aligned with GestureBank must not be corrupted by co-mingling with less rigorous attention collection strategies.
I wholey accept this utopian vision but lack the faith in the revolution Gilmor so desperately wants. GestureBank can’t compete as the masses willingly volunteer to contribute to the huge completist metrics from search behind Google’s login, Analytics, and now Feedburner. The Algorithm has an awareness that no Firefox-extension-toolbelt can match. Why would Razorfish pay me for my attention meta-data when Google can sell them a much better picture and with aggregate value like the marketing world has never seen? How could our scrubbed attention information even come close to the spectral view that Google’s meta-data convey’s.
TBC
Commenting is closed for this article.
|