<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: wonder what it would be like if i opened&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://vocal.ly/2009/08/17/wonder-what-it-would-be-like-if-i-opened/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://vocal.ly/2009/08/17/wonder-what-it-would-be-like-if-i-opened/</link>
	<description>the blogging activities of sull</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:30:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: sull</title>
		<link>http://vocal.ly/2009/08/17/wonder-what-it-would-be-like-if-i-opened/comment-page-1/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>sull</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:22:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://vocal.ly/2009/08/17/wonder-what-it-would-be-like-if-i-opened/#comment-13</guid>
		<description>btw, this was also digg.com thinking when they changed their short url system to redirect to digg.com pages instead of to the destination url.  i agreed with digg at the time but they got hammered by some tech blogs for the change.  digg was never a bit.ly, though some wanted to make a direct comparison.  bit.ly, more likely, will end up more like digg if they want to evolve their service in a social way.  

returning to the point.... i suppose my thinking on using vocal.ly as a pass-through domain for sharing links, context and comments is nothing more than a bloggy digg or reddit.  it&#039;s still an interesting idea and possibly a fun way to share this domain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>btw, this was also digg.com thinking when they changed their short url system to redirect to digg.com pages instead of to the destination url.  i agreed with digg at the time but they got hammered by some tech blogs for the change.  digg was never a bit.ly, though some wanted to make a direct comparison.  bit.ly, more likely, will end up more like digg if they want to evolve their service in a social way.  </p>
<p>returning to the point&#8230;. i suppose my thinking on using vocal.ly as a pass-through domain for sharing links, context and comments is nothing more than a bloggy digg or reddit.  it&#8217;s still an interesting idea and possibly a fun way to share this domain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sull</title>
		<link>http://vocal.ly/2009/08/17/wonder-what-it-would-be-like-if-i-opened/comment-page-1/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>sull</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:07:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://vocal.ly/2009/08/17/wonder-what-it-would-be-like-if-i-opened/#comment-11</guid>
		<description>just read - &quot;Why I Don’t Use Twitter&quot; - http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/17/why-i-dont-use-twitter/ - 

this excerpt relates to this post about making vocal.ly a pass-through service for sharing links so context can be added, discussion can be had and actual urls can be seen instead of blindly following links.



&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;But the tweet can have a link in it, of course, which makes it more versatile — except links are subject to the same value reductions as simple text. Tweeting a link is a lot like sending it to your whole address book. If you think everyone you know should see it, it better be worth shouting from the mountaintops. How rare that is! If you like other people finding your content for you, on their schedule, this isn’t a problem, but for me it is. Add in the fact that probably half of tweets are automatically generated, and what we’ve got here is a failure to communicate anything of value.

The natural objection to this is that you choose to follow people, you don’t have it forced upon you. True! I say, then, if someone is so regularly finding content of merit, why don’t they have a blog where the content can be given context, discussion, and perhaps a preview so people aren’t going in blind? I like reading interesting blogs. I don’t want to receive links every time someone find something they think everyone should see. Twitter just adds another layer to the equation — and I don’t like layers.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>just read &#8211; &#8220;Why I Don’t Use Twitter&#8221; &#8211; <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/17/why-i-dont-use-twitter/" rel="nofollow">http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/17/why-i-dont-use-twitter/</a> &#8211; </p>
<p>this excerpt relates to this post about making vocal.ly a pass-through service for sharing links so context can be added, discussion can be had and actual urls can be seen instead of blindly following links.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;But the tweet can have a link in it, of course, which makes it more versatile — except links are subject to the same value reductions as simple text. Tweeting a link is a lot like sending it to your whole address book. If you think everyone you know should see it, it better be worth shouting from the mountaintops. How rare that is! If you like other people finding your content for you, on their schedule, this isn’t a problem, but for me it is. Add in the fact that probably half of tweets are automatically generated, and what we’ve got here is a failure to communicate anything of value.</p>
<p>The natural objection to this is that you choose to follow people, you don’t have it forced upon you. True! I say, then, if someone is so regularly finding content of merit, why don’t they have a blog where the content can be given context, discussion, and perhaps a preview so people aren’t going in blind? I like reading interesting blogs. I don’t want to receive links every time someone find something they think everyone should see. Twitter just adds another layer to the equation — and I don’t like layers.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
