5 thoughts on “Some new data & further thoughts on my save & read it later habits”

  1. The fact that the software vendor of your preferred bookmarking tool tells you that you have to look at your experience as a glass half full, not a glass half empty is hardly surprising (I’m not trying to suggest that they’re insincere). My perspective is different.

    You are a prominent publishing and technology executive so there are numerous topics that you MUST remain current on. Half of the topics you don’t even half to think about: you see the headline and you save.

    That you return to only a third of them is no triumph: it’s a sure sign of the pernicious impact of the overload of information we all face today. If you don’t read most of your links there’s a very good chance that you’ll be sitting in a meeting and someone will say “You’ve been following metadata and the NSA, right?” And you’ll answer, “Well, yes, but the headlines only.”

    I dislike linking to my site in a comment, but here we go, my essay on the information explosion redux: http://thefutureofpublishing.com/influences/the-information-explosion-and-its-impact-on-the-future-of-publishing/

    All the filtering software and smart agents are unlikely to resolve this problem any time soon.

    1. Thad

      Thanks for the email and your thoughtful and illuminating comment.

      To make something clear, I have been blessed with ability to read really fast — though not as fast as some with visual memory.

      That said, you are right about me having to read a lot. But to hit save by reading the headline, that is not how I work. If that was the case then i would be saving a lot more than 50 articles a week. On a daily basis I go through nearly 500 sources — so, no, I don’t feel the need to save by the headline. In my stint as a newswire reporter, I used to go through a lot more headlines 🙂

      While I skim over a lot of headlines and many article — as part of the job — but the stuff which goes into Pocket has a pretty good reason why — it is after quick skimming through the content and making a decision about whether it is worth sharing or not. And then re-reading it later to boil down to 7 that are worth sharing.
      The primary use case is — curation and then curating the curation.

      As far as information explosion, that is a different story. For the analysis of the data I have received I think it is tangential –or at least it is tangential to me.

  2. Reblogged this on Censemaking and commented:
    Giga OM founder and prolific reader Om Malik posted a reflection on his reading habits on his blog that got me thinking about the way we consume, rate and appreciate content online. In this post, Malik shares some of the dialogue he has with the CEO of Pocket, a read-it-later service that allows you to save webpages you’re unable or unwilling to read at the moment you find them. It’s a great service and I love using it, but it is a source of guilt — which is what struck me about the exchange. I, like Malik, am also a voracious book buyer. My ‘to-read’ list is enormous and I am constantly feeling behind or wondering whether I have sufficiently caught up or processing what I need. Talking with others, this is shared and clearly Pocket is aware of this. The metric of words saved and read which, in the case of Om was two novels worth per month, is oddly reassuring that all that content consumed in webpages and tweets and such is adding up to something. The bigger issue and quest might be (a la Dr Strangelove): how to stop worrying and love content.

  3. You should try using the Text-to-Speech (TTS) feature in Pocket. I too was feeling like I wasn’t reading enough of my ‘read it later’ list; but after using TTS I not only got ‘caught up’, but actually increased my news consumption. That being said, I’m on an iPhone, so I used an app called reeedo, which does the same thing, but on iOS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.