martin burns wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 05:08 22/08/00, Daniel J. Cody wrote: > >They're trying to make a site (for people like myself and > >others) for a quick 'one-stop-look' at the sites that audience likes. > > Right, so it's a syndication play, yes? We'd be taking a similar > position to Reuters (except that unlike them, we'd have our own > site too) - distribute our content as headlines to other sites. Yes.. I think my use of the term 'partner' was a bit broad :) > Now to a certain extent that's what slashboxen are about (and > Netscape channels etc); this is a step forward. yes > Question: doesn't this compete with a lot of what /. are doing? > With slashboxen, they're trying to aggregate a lot of content > and be that OS vortal. Or is the /. strategy to move away from > that, and tout OSDN as taking that role? dunno :) you'd have to ask someone at VA about that. .I just know what we want to do, and could give the prover > Next question (and I think you've hinted at the answer): > Why are we doing this? Usually there are 3 reasons for > syndicating your content out: > 1) You get paid for it (eg Reuters) *lol* no > 2) You use it to draw a specific audience back to yourself > (eg Freshmeat) nein > 3) You have a duty to get your content out there pro bono > publica, to reach parts of your audience who may not normally > (get the time to) visit your site (eg BBC News) aye. .djc.