There needs to be a quick, easy, standard way to denote the difference between “this is something I am clipping from the page I am linking to” and “this is me talking”, and potentially being able to save and display both separately. This goes for you too, del.icio.us.
There needs to be a way to automatically save the referring site that you got the link from. None of this manual (via) crap. If the concept of reblogging only works in a walled garden (Reblog, Tumblr, etc) at least offer some fields so I can enter it myself if I so choose.
Everyone should treat different types of posts differently. Tumblr does a nice job with it’s given set but perhaps its full potential hasn’t been entirely played out in the templates people have made so far, and action streams are a nice first step but it sequesters those feeds into the sidebar. It makes sense that a video post and a photo post and an audio post look different, but why is there only one type of text post? Why is a Tweet handled in the same way as a 2,000-word essay? Where is the book or movie review type? Jason has done this kind of stuff for years, and had to manage entire multiple blogs just to do it. Why can’t I take a feed, create a new post template specifically for it, and plug the feed into it? And if I can, why is it so difficult?
so i’ve only been linkblogging for 4 or 5 years, but i’ve found it good enough to put “this is a clipping” stuff in quotes and “this is me talking” stuff outside of quotes. & i think that any more than the bare minimum of fields makes people less likely to fill out the whole form. but more metadata, more flexibility? i’ve had that kookoo dream too.
Question: does this dream solution exist as a web app, or are you willing to install a plugin?
The problem is that there’s a difference between good and good enough. The interface could save a preference for whether I want it basic or advanced, and all it would take is either a second box (the AND case) or an optional selection for whether it is a clipping or a comment (the OR case).
@dan: Can you explain the difference? (I use del.icio.us by way of a Firefox plugin.)
I think Chryp is the big step in that direction. In Chryp, the different post types/microformats are called feathers. You can see all of them listed here in here (http://chyrp.net/extend/browse/feathers).
It’s funny that none of the major blogging frameworks have made any attempts to adapt the success of Tumblr’s post formats. MT has action streams and WordPress has various hacks via plugins but none offer the same type of customized posting like Tumblr. I think the problem is that these “traditional” blog engines work on a very rigid backend framework. A Tumblr-like framework requires something much more flexible and modular so MT and WP usually purpose custom fields for this.
Why Chryp hasn’t made a bigger deal out of the “feathers” feature is a mystery. There’s already a million fast/light PHP+MySQL frameworks out there so just advertising those aspects isn’t helping anyone. If they could figure out a way to build a modular bookmarklet that can incorporate any and all feathers developed for Chryp, Alex would have a MT/WP/Tumblr-killer on his hands.
yes, there’s definitely a difference between good and good enough. but there’s also “perfect is the enemy of the good” and endless compromise…
so, many people don’t include any notes for most of their bookmarks. perhaps this extra bit of structure would encourage them to include more information. more information is good. structured information is great.
i think adding a second field would be simpler than creating an “advanced” form. preferences get so hairy.
anyway, representing those double-notes in the interface would add some complexity, but it could be done. bigger problem: how would the pre-separation notes be categorized? what about people continuing to write notes that have a mixture of commentary and clipping? perhaps we label the slots “quote” and “comment (or mix of comment and quote)”. that decreases the value of the differentation somewhat.
blah blah blah. it is a good thought-experiment. the other big question is “what is the value of doing that? would it be worth it?” and i have no idea what the answer is but i could talk about it for paragraphs.
Took me a while to remember to come back here to check on my comment (there’s another project in that)… I was just wondering what form you were imagining this idea might take. Mainly, I guess, the question is “would this be something you bring into your existing blog setup, or something which acts on the blog externally?”
Here’s my intuition: there’s a lot of resistance to changing blog platforms, so treat “title + content” as a black box to be injected into, then do the structured magic upstream in a separate app. This might also be a nice long-term solution to the “bad-import-export” problem. (e.g., it’s my data, available for download in some sane format, you’re just getting the output Mr WordPress.)
For what it’s worth, I’m working on an Open Source platform called ShiftSpace that might be a good place to build something like this. And (here’s the pitch) we’re offering small grants for people who propose interesting ideas for apps that build on top of our platform.
You might describe it as a mini-lazyweb contest. Those who are commissioned would get some help with coding and integrating into our platform. (Our API docs are over here). I’d love to see something like this proposed!
I would hope or assume the type of thing I’m hoping for would be built into the systems I already use, since it seems like a rather small change to both their software and my workflow. I’d be wary of this sort of “structured magic” you speak of (particularly if it’s external) because a) it would really have to prove itself before I use it, and b) it couldn’t be something I have to do additionally/separately.
Yeah, that’s fair. Reading your original post, it seems like there are two issues: “why is it so difficult” and making it a “standard way.” I think the first question is more interesting than the second one.
For WordPress the post editor does allow for “custom fields,” but this relies on you defining (and remembering to use) a private microformat of sorts. And to hack your theme’s PHP, which might be more than most users are capable of. Plus the UI for custom fields is kind of lame (below the fold, few affordances).
I still think there’s something to a Greasemonkey-based solution, but I agree that adding another service (even one I run myself) is worse than a freestanding tool. I have an idea for how this might work, but few spare cycles to actually hack on it…