This is a response to Jeff's post. Sorry I'm weighing in so late.
My first thought on this is that maybe its time to ask them. I know that's sort of the point of this discussion but if they're not reading blogs…
Anyway, if I had to make an educated guess, I'd say it's a combination of time and perceived value.
1. Time – Reading anything takes time. I'll concede that finding relevant content and setting up a reader takes about 30 minutes. However, actually making time to read blogs is another story. I skim so much of what I subscribe to these days just because I don't have time to take it all in.
2. Perceived value – The blogosphere used to be filled with people writing about their cats and/or Howard Dean…some people still think it is; they would rather read a newspaper or foxnews.com. Or as Lisa Junker pointed out, focus on more important stuff:
colleagues who already put in long hours and just don't want to think
about work any more when they could be spending time with their
families or on private hobbies or what have you.
They don't know what they can get out of the deal. And those that do are confronted with too many barriers to entry – too much to think about, too many components.
IE7 didn't convert the masses as expected (not by me). I guess we'll have to keep educating people.
Well, i'll start by saying this. I stand corrected. My previous assumption is now very wrong. That being said, bloglines is still our preferred reader.
From the Feedburner (who recently made google reader stats available) blog:
1. My Yahoo 54%
2. Google 21% (Reader + Personalized Homepage)
3. Bloglines 11%
4. Netvibes 9%
5. Live.com 3%
Anybody out there really use netvibes or live.com to read their feeds?
In the March edition of ALA Techsource’s Smart Libraries Newsletter, I just read a little piece by Tom Peters about â€œSearch Wikia.â€ This is a project-apparently announced in late December 2006-sounds like it is going to try and take on Google and other major search engines. The approach:
Wales believes that relevancy-ranking algorithms cannot do as good a job of judging relevance as can a large group of users applying their human discernment and judgment to search results. If a system to harness, analyze, and present the evolving wisdom of the crowd could be developed, relevancy-ranking algorithms could face some stiff competition.
Noted on their website this project is very different from the wiki search project Wikiseek.
What improved value will come of a user generated algorithm vs. the coveted proprietary “PageRank”? Will a user contribute search will be less partial and intrinsically more valuable? While this approach to search is very intriguing, I can’t even begin to imagine what an interface would look like.