Guillaume De Cugis of responds to Curation thought leader, Robin Good in comment thread: | Content Curation Myths |

Guillaume De Cugis: Hi Robin! I love the fact you can be a fan and yet still give us some constructive criticism: thanks!

I still think we're not trying to confuse people so let me take an example to illustrate what I mean.

If I take it's something that probably took me on average 60'/week or less to do ever since I created it. You might not be into skiing but you'll see I carefully select the videos to match my own vision of the topic, my own editorial line. I do not just filter: I also add my own point of view and use this channel as a way to express my passion for freeride skiing in a subjective and personal way. Is that automatic for me? Absolutely no: I'm not a robot ( But is that easy? Absolutely! Especially compared with the time it would have taken to produce such a media by creating all these videos. Every single one of them requiring days of shooting, risking your life in avalanches and spending $$$ on helicopter etc... This might seem an extreme example but I think it illustrates well the fact we believe leveraging curation to publish a media is simpler.

Another example: I went to a Picasso exhibition a few ago at the de Young museum in SF: wonderful one. Did the curator spend more time preparing it than Picasso did creating the works?


Is this saying that curators have it easy? Absolutely no! Easier doesn't mean it doesn't take any time at all.

Since the beginning, our vision has always been to create a new form of media publishing, different than blogs or micro-blogging that is based on curation in a topic-centric model.

Our message is simple: if you thought it required creation, you should try a different approach as a curator. And we've created a platform that makes it easy in a dedicated user experience.

Then there's I believe a second point you're making: some use as a way to simply aggregate and republish without giving context or even without being selective enough in what they publish. I think we all agree curation is more than that and clearly the platform empowers you to do much more as you and others are awesome examples that we are grateful for.

We think our role as a platform is to create the incentives to develop usage in the right direction. In that respect, we've always encouraged our users to use the platform as an expression format. Whether in our FAQ ( or in our own curation work ( or or in the emails we're sending to our new users, you'll see dozens of examples. We've also been the first to introduce a Score to actually guide users towards giving context and meaning to the content they publish. The score will for instance not reward you for overposting and will look at whether you edit and comment the posts. Is this score perfect? Probably no and I'm sure you'll find counter examples of users having gamed their score just like with any metric or algorithmic system. We'll improve it over time or maybe change it but clearly the intention is here: we want to democratize expression through curation and enable more people to discover and learn what it takes to be a good curator.

That's our ambition: it's noble and risky, yet probably much more useful to the world than selling cocaïne ;-)

December 16, 8:28 AM

To see the original post that drew this response visit the original post:

(Curated by  )

Want Russell Wright's opinion on this matter? Here it is: