[whatwg] WHATWG on Google+
Nils Dagsson Moskopp
nils at dieweltistgarnichtso.net
Mon Nov 21 07:35:09 PST 2011
"Anne van Kesteren" <annevk at opera.com> schrieb am Mon, 21 Nov 2011
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:54:38 +0100, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
> <nils at dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote:
> > With less sarcasm: What use is this if one already reads the blog?
> Basically, I'm hoping to find out.
I can understand you. I tried out G+ too and found it a both a bad blog
and a bad feedreader in one – this being my personal aesthetic
jugdement, it bears no value regarding the question if it is good to
> I personally had a number of
> useful technical discussions on Google+. Maybe some of those will
> take place on the WHATWG Google+ page.
Excluding those without an account – a price one may or may not be
willing to pay. I like imageboards – even those without objectionable
content –, because the barrier to entry is as low as possible. And no,
this does not necessarily lead to more spam.
Note: I moderate a safe-for-work section at an internet forum I shall
not name. Three conference lectures I know got more than an order of
magnitude more serious comments on the board than anywhere else.
Pictures of penii or mutilated kittens are rare events outside of the
so called “random” section.
> Maybe some people prefer to
> get WHATWG pointers via Google+, just like some prefer to get it via
> Twitter today.
I have no problem with that. We both know why neither one of those
platforms allows users to consume or produce ATOM or RSS feeds, though:
Lock-in. By using such a platform in spite of alternatives, you make it
more valuable. I do not see this as a desirable thing.
> We started with email, branched out to IRC, got forums and wiki, a
> blog, a Twitter account. Each of those has proven successful I think.
At Twitter, I can follow people with a feed reader. G+ does not even
give me that choice. I would appreciate if notable discussions would at
least pop up on the mailing list or the blog – just like you linked to
the IRC logs. There is a pretty real risk of people missing out some.
When I was on G+, I saw quite some people who re-shared something
urging their readers to comment not under the post they made, but on
the linked page, so the discussion did not get fragmented. It was a sad
thing to see.
> Not always to the same people, but I think that is the value. By
> giving people choice in how to participate we make it more easy for
> them to do so.
It's almost as great as the choice we have in audio and video codecs!
(I'm bitter, I know. Blame Apple.)
Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann
More information about the whatwg