Here is the idea: "The drive for offering ‘more’ is not always the best path.
It does not always create something unique. It does not always better serve a target audience. It does not always differentiate you from the competition. It does not always offer something that can’t be found elsewhere. It does not always solve a problem, or fulfill a desire."
Collecting and regurgitating all of the news that "appear" to be relevant may not be such a great idea after all.
"With unlimited server space and free distribution, the temptation can be too great to share AS MUCH content as possible, with the theory that they are better serving the many sub-niches of their market. In other words, you may often see less curation, and more collection."
I don't know if I'd be so generous to label "collection" this uncontrolled regurgitation of content with little real vetting and verification (let alone curation), but Dan Blank, has an interesting story about curation and collectors that I woud not hesitate to recommend reading.
There are some good insights in it.
One of them rings like this: "...collecting behavior is to collect AS MUCH of something as possible, and not curate or edit their collection at all."
Indeed I see many supposed curators doing exactly this.
Because, as Dan writes correctly "...with unlimited bandwidth and free distribution channels with digital media, it can be sooooo tempting to post more and more content, aimed at more and more target markets.
Plus, the temptation to seem as large as possible, and to give Google as much content as possible to crawl for all of those searches."
But there's a lot more valuable stuff and insight to get by reading in full the original story (even if it was written in 2010).
Insightful. Truthful. 8/10
(Image credit: Robin Good)