Curation Revolution
Follow
Find tag "guillaume"
34.9K views | +43 today
Curation Revolution
Curation is the next web revolution.
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Martin (Marty) Smith
Scoop.it!

Join Scoopit's Lean Content Movement

Join Scoopit's Lean Content Movement | Curation Revolution | Scoop.it
The Lean Content Movement is curation, tools with fast feedback loops and writing less content that does more. Join the Lean Content Movement, here's how.
Martin (Marty) Smith's insight:

Listened to a great interview with Guillaume today on Blog Talk Radio. Guillaume and Scoop.it have created what is tantamount to a new movement - the Lean Content Movement. 

Lean Content is about:

* Writing less, but creating more meaning.
* Using fast feedback loop tools such as Scoop.it.
* Cutting through the clutter with BETTER content.

"Better" in the Lean Content movement is when reader or creator gain insight faster and so realizing the promise of "do more with less".  

more...
Therese Torris's curator insight, February 12, 2013 7:21 AM

I wished it were true that content curation could lead to a more efficient use of content, but I fear I don't. Content marketing rules (a large chunk of) content curation and content creation.

 

Lean content is like zero growth (the economic theory, not the GDP number), a rationale that is not likely to happen because everybody is runnning the loose-loose race for visibility through content. We live in a world of content inflation.

 

That being said, tools are neutral, we the people act foolishly. As a tool, Scoop.it remains one of the best and I am happily part of the Scoop.it movement !

Guillaume Decugis's comment, February 13, 2013 6:38 PM
Hi Therese - The way we see it (and please bear in mind that Lean Content is a concept still being defined), Lean Content is not about "Information diet" or trying to refrain from creating Content. We are definitely in a world of content inflation. So how do we cope with this? Part of the best practices we've seen being done come around faster content creation cycle, leveraged content distribution, content curation, etc... Faster content creation cycle is for instance something Leo from Buffer talked about at our first meetup group here in SF explaining techniques to become better and better at turning out quality content fast. What I call leveraged content distribution is the idea of using guest posting, slideshare or quora to give a bigger distribution to your content than your blog if it's nascent - techniques we used a lot at Scoop.it and that proved efficient for us. So it's not about zero growth (an interesting economic concept that I don't believe in but that's a different discussion ;-) but it's about doing more and better with your content strategy for the limited resources that startups, non-profits or even small teams within bigger organizations have. Makes any sense?
Therese Torris's comment, February 14, 2013 4:42 AM
@gdecugis. Get it. It's more rather about lean content production and distribution processes than about lean content..
Rescooped by Martin (Marty) Smith from Curation & The Future of Publishing
Scoop.it!

Marty's SEO Triptych: New SEO Rules in a Content Marketing World

Marty's SEO Triptych: New SEO Rules in a Content Marketing World | Curation Revolution | Scoop.it
Five years ago, SEO was all the buzz. Today, it has shifted to "content marketing," which aims to create stories humans want to read and engage with. - The above chart is a good summary of this trend.
Via Guillaume Decugis
Martin (Marty) Smith's insight:

After writing this response to Snow's article and Guillaume's response I realized it finishes a group of 3 pieces on SEO:

A. SEO and Data Got A THING Going On.
B. Etropy Is Creating Web 3.0 Under Our Noses
C. Google and Data Got A Thing Going On (Below)

Google and Data Got A Thing Going On
I agree that we've moved close to a more true meritocracy, but I'm not as far as Snow or Guillaume. Google's influence remains very significant in who sees what in search, and search still controls the purse strings.

If Google didn't float their index they would have rapidly become irrelevant. By floating, by removing the absolute TRUTH of the game so well described, the game changed in ways ONLY Google can understand.

Look at the Not Provided numbers now climbing close to 50%. While Google says they made this move based on security it is clear to anyone with a brain that Google's desire is to float more than their index. If you can't find absolute reference in your own Google Analytics then something fundamental has changed.

In fact many things have changed including:

* We live floating on a Sargasso sea now never reaching shore.

* Algorithms and predictive models will rule our future.

* Algorithms and predictive models were always going to rule.

* Google controls LESS and makes MORE.

* Mobile is DISRUPTIVE in the short run.
* The longer the web is alive the more local it becomes.

These last two bullets are the engine of the current discontent. Google's brilliant move to float the index would seem to be a direct response to the chilling amount of User Generated Content (UGC) being created, but, in reality, the float was in the works well before it was clear social would rule.

Floating the index allows control to be harvested by Google and Google alone AND potential ad inventory moved from X to infinity. Now you can see why Not Provided was so necessary. Without the obstruction any website could model the float. The more advanced websites such as Amazon will model the float and continue to create larger and larger continents within the Sargasso sea.

Finally, let's discuss Snow assertions. Yes the world is undeniably more popular and populous. There is MORE and it is being organized, at least to some significant degree, by social signals. The thing you don't get from Snow's graphics is the flocking and emergent behavior of those signals.

Read Bursts by Barabasi and you come away with an understanding that a. we are not as unique as we think and b. we tend to flock or tribe into packs and clusters. What happens when you are playing in a field and it starts to rain? Everyone who was playing runs for cover (flocking behavior in response to specific stimuli).

The web only SEEMS massively random. In fact, for those "psycho-historians" to borrow a term from Isaac Asimov capable of seeing and patterning the BIG DATA being produced the world quickly smooths into patterns.

This is why Amazon has 1.4B pages in Google's index. At that level, many times even CNN.com one of the sites that must have the highest amount of unique content, there is clearly a new game being played. Snow and Guillaume are discussing the cosmetic layer we have influenced with out UGC social signals.

Behind the cosmetic layer there is still flocking behavior-herding traffic into huge divots created by Facebook, Amazon and Twitter. Zuckerberg correctly and foolishly identified the game as a play for infrastructure.

Mobile is disrupting the massive investment in status quo infrastructure by the web's biggest players AND it is eroding margins. Margins ARE ALWAYS slim in the beginning. I remember when Amazon was new they were everywhere, would give you free shipping, wash your car and bring you a pizza for an order. AND Amazon was buying just about at retail for about the first year.

I was a wholesale distributor then (1993 - 1999) and we couldn't figure out what Amazon was doing. What we didn't realize was Amazon wasn't playing the same game we were. Amazon could have cared if they made a dime then. They wanted the NAMES on their FILE. NAMES = POWER. NAMES = MONEY.

Snow and Guillaume are both RIGHT and WRONG. They are right that our rebellious use of social signals has wobbled the web's surface and mobile is creating a wobble in infrastructure. They are wrong because, in the end, the math always wins, the patterns will emerge and scale will harvest the crop.

As we eat we will feel more HEARD and IN CONTROL when in actual fact that feeling may be mostly an illusion. At the infrastructure level what was once 3 players may expand to 8 to 10 as the telcos elbow their way in, but the principle is the same just the players are a tad different.

The good news is the unrelated game for artifice does feel over with Panda. I think of Panda a little like my mom. My mom knew how reluctant I was, as a teenager, to clean my room. She knew the pattern so well she didn't have to actually see the room to know its state. Google's Panda is an algorithmic mom. They have power distributions on every element of your website (including expected UGC). Violate those means and you will be sent to Siberia. Why?

Because the math always wins.

 

more...
No comment yet.