Read Write Web takes random shots at Profilactic
I met Marshall Kirkpatrick at SXSWi this year. He was a very cool, approachable guy. We had a nice chat during the Frog Design party. And I generally like the stuff he writes.
However, today, he wrote something that just doesn't make a lot of sense. Of course, the fact that it is about Profilactic will make my comments seem like sour grapes; however, I trust anyone reading this can be objective and evaluate the comments from both of us.
Marshall decides to do a "this" vs. "that" post where he discusses services that take two different approaches to the same problem.
He starts off with aggregation and puts FriendFeed head-to-head with Profilactic under a section labeled "Long Tail vs. User Experience." His premise is that FriendFeed has chosen to focus on the user experience by supporting fewer sites than we do and that we're ignoring the user experience by going after the long tail and supporting more.
The problem is that he never connects the dots as to why focusing on fewer sites makes FF a better experience. Nor does he explore why supporting more sites makes the user experience worse.
His argument is that no one really uses services like Muxtape or Toluu, so why support them?
From a resource or efficiency perspective, that would be a valid argument. Why support 177 when most users use the same list of 10-15 sites? I get that.
However, he is arguing that supporting these sites somehow hurts the user experience. If people really don't use those sites, what is the harm in having them in the list? Sure, you have to look past them when you choose your sites, but is it really that big of a deal?
Here's what he said about it:
"What's not to love about Profilactic's support for super-awesome services like music mix sharing service Muxtape and the RSS community Toluu? That's awesome. Except not very many people use those services. In the mean time, I don't want to use Profilactic and neither do most of my friends. I could use it without them but that's not as much fun as using FriendFeed.
It seems to me that Profilactic has sacrificed user experience for long tail support. That's a sacrifice that probably won't serve them well. None the less, we wish them the best."
Of course, in the middle of not really making his point about user experience versus the long tail, Marshall adds the random shot of "In the mean time, I don't want to use Profilactic and neither do most of my friends. I could use it without them but that's not as much fun as using FriendFeed."
OK, so why doesn't he use Profilactic? The name? The user experience? He doesn't say. To me, that's just poorly reasoned and written.
Don't get me wrong, if you want to criticize us, knock yourself out. We can take it. However, back your statements up.
I generally don't like to call people out; however, bloggers with an audience and influence the size of Marshall's should try a little harder than that.
The way it is written now comes off like a Journalism 101 compare-and-contrast assignment gone awry.
And, again, feel free to chalk my comments up to sour grapes...
However, today, he wrote something that just doesn't make a lot of sense. Of course, the fact that it is about Profilactic will make my comments seem like sour grapes; however, I trust anyone reading this can be objective and evaluate the comments from both of us.
Marshall decides to do a "this" vs. "that" post where he discusses services that take two different approaches to the same problem.
He starts off with aggregation and puts FriendFeed head-to-head with Profilactic under a section labeled "Long Tail vs. User Experience." His premise is that FriendFeed has chosen to focus on the user experience by supporting fewer sites than we do and that we're ignoring the user experience by going after the long tail and supporting more.
The problem is that he never connects the dots as to why focusing on fewer sites makes FF a better experience. Nor does he explore why supporting more sites makes the user experience worse.
His argument is that no one really uses services like Muxtape or Toluu, so why support them?
From a resource or efficiency perspective, that would be a valid argument. Why support 177 when most users use the same list of 10-15 sites? I get that.
However, he is arguing that supporting these sites somehow hurts the user experience. If people really don't use those sites, what is the harm in having them in the list? Sure, you have to look past them when you choose your sites, but is it really that big of a deal?
Here's what he said about it:
"What's not to love about Profilactic's support for super-awesome services like music mix sharing service Muxtape and the RSS community Toluu? That's awesome. Except not very many people use those services. In the mean time, I don't want to use Profilactic and neither do most of my friends. I could use it without them but that's not as much fun as using FriendFeed.
It seems to me that Profilactic has sacrificed user experience for long tail support. That's a sacrifice that probably won't serve them well. None the less, we wish them the best."
Of course, in the middle of not really making his point about user experience versus the long tail, Marshall adds the random shot of "In the mean time, I don't want to use Profilactic and neither do most of my friends. I could use it without them but that's not as much fun as using FriendFeed."
OK, so why doesn't he use Profilactic? The name? The user experience? He doesn't say. To me, that's just poorly reasoned and written.
Don't get me wrong, if you want to criticize us, knock yourself out. We can take it. However, back your statements up.
I generally don't like to call people out; however, bloggers with an audience and influence the size of Marshall's should try a little harder than that.
The way it is written now comes off like a Journalism 101 compare-and-contrast assignment gone awry.
And, again, feel free to chalk my comments up to sour grapes...
profilactic
lifestreaming
aggregator
