In response to yesterday's post, I received an email from Scott Rafer of Feedster. (He tried to post a comment, but inexplicably, Typepad wouldn't let him. Go figure.) Anyway, here's what Feedster had to say on the Feedster Top 500:
Fluffy -- yup, it feels that way to us. It's an editorial product put out by people in an algorithmic search business. Emphasis on "business" -- "feels bloggy" is what our users really seemed to want from a list, and our users -- in aggregate -- are always right.
Also, we didn't exclude any of Fred's participants to the extent I am aware.
Scott Rafer
I responded to Scott via email, saying, among other things:
What I would love to see, personally, is more complete definition of the criteria used to select the blogs. To go on whether or not something "feels bloggy" is all well and good -- if you provide a clear explanation of what "bloggy" feels like!
The honest truth is that it's great to see a list of "top" blogs that's been compiled with the help of an editor. Sometimes, algorithms don't do the best job, and you need some human intervention. But what we need to see is some methodology here.
Fantastically, Feedster agrees and has opened the matter up for discussion. According to Scott:
Also, we'll be much better off if you guys (and a few thousand of your friends) tell us what "feels bloggy" should mean. How many authors can it have? Can it be part of a site like businessweek? etc.
To communicate back to us in a way that's easy to work into our product management cycle, please either use the wiki at http://www.socialtext.net/topicindex/index.cgi?FeedsterTop500 or the delicious tag FeedsterTop500.
So, go to it. Feedster's asking us to assist in creating an acceptable definition of a blog. Let's oblige. (I mean, heck, it would be rude not to, wouldn't it?)