An Open Letter to Scoop.it
I'm hearing from more and more faculty about Scoop.it -- a "curation site" that they think might help them assemble resources for their students.
And I thought it was a great idea.
But there seems to be one fatal flaw.
Scoop.it (apparently) doesn't monitor its user sites for active content. Yet it assigns topic-based "vanity URLs" that, once taken, are unavailable for others.
So if you have a topic that you want to "curate," you'd better hope that you can find a word related to it that hasn't already been taken by a topic-squatter who's saying nothing about it.
And, no, I really don't want to invest any time in writing under "/fatherhood-as-seen-by-eric".
If these topic pages were active, I'd have no problem with other people "owning" them. And if Scoop.it assigned everything by username (or, at least, "nested" them under a username directory) I'd have no problem, either -- "/fluffybunny12/fatherhood" could maintain a site separate from "/emlarson/fatherhood".
But if you're going to present something as authoritative -- if you're going to assign a URL like "/philosophy" to a particular user -- then, if you want to encourage people to participate, you'd better make sure that there's something there.
How can this be solved?
Simple: Act on the existing TOS:
Just set up a policy/practice that any topic not updated in x-many days (30? 90?) be revoked and "returned to circulation" -- either with the old content intact, or new-and-empty. (Take your pick.) Warn users of pending revocation with a friendly email. Offer longer topic-ownership windows to users as a benefit of paid membership.
This isn't hard. And it would make Scoop.it a much more interesting and viable resource on the internet.
And I thought it was a great idea.
But there seems to be one fatal flaw.
Scoop.it (apparently) doesn't monitor its user sites for active content. Yet it assigns topic-based "vanity URLs" that, once taken, are unavailable for others.
So if you have a topic that you want to "curate," you'd better hope that you can find a word related to it that hasn't already been taken by a topic-squatter who's saying nothing about it.
- "/religion" is taken... and was last updated in early 2011.
- "/philosophy" is taken... and has only one link to one external page -- either a mistake, disinterest, or SPAM.
- "/fatherhood" was grabbed by a woman a couple weeks ago and she hasn't posted anything at all.
And, no, I really don't want to invest any time in writing under "/fatherhood-as-seen-by-eric".
If these topic pages were active, I'd have no problem with other people "owning" them. And if Scoop.it assigned everything by username (or, at least, "nested" them under a username directory) I'd have no problem, either -- "/fluffybunny12/fatherhood" could maintain a site separate from "/emlarson/fatherhood".
But if you're going to present something as authoritative -- if you're going to assign a URL like "/philosophy" to a particular user -- then, if you want to encourage people to participate, you'd better make sure that there's something there.
How can this be solved?
Simple: Act on the existing TOS:
Scoop.it reserves the right to revoke and/or reassign any username and/or topic name in its sole discretion. You understand and agree that Scoop.it reserves the right to change, remove, alter or delete any username and/or topic name, with or without prior notice to you, at any time and for any reason in Scoop.it's sole discretion.
Just set up a policy/practice that any topic not updated in x-many days (30? 90?) be revoked and "returned to circulation" -- either with the old content intact, or new-and-empty. (Take your pick.) Warn users of pending revocation with a friendly email. Offer longer topic-ownership windows to users as a benefit of paid membership.
This isn't hard. And it would make Scoop.it a much more interesting and viable resource on the internet.
Comments