Comments

I think that the idea is good, although its inescapable subjectivity will make it better for some rather than all.

It is a bit confusing; and I was somewhat disillusioned after seeing one of the sites listed, in what is supposed to be the best information on the web, containing the following summary posts:

Zak Brown: Sports

1. I hate this blog system: I wrote seriously one of the longest entries I've ever written in here, and I hit publish and there's an error.

2. You know what's real pathetic: I always think about putting something in here, then I think, "Oh, it takes too much time.

3. A couple of things, after I figured out my password to blog, because I haven't done it in so long: That's probably the best headline in journalism history, right there Ace.

4. Still trying to get the hang of this: People say it's just like riding a bike when you get into a habit, but when you get back on a bike, don't you ride it wobbly? I mean, you ain't taking Lance on your first on the bike in a couple of years.

5. Gorilla at the Golden Globes: So we're sitting in the office and the Golden Globes are on the TV in another department.

I wish Halley the best in her new venture. It's nice to see new things come along, and I think that the concept has potential.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 26, 2006 5:15 PM

Tom O'L,
Thanks for adding detail to my post. I wanted to hit the high points and let people judge for themselves. Halley will see your comments, I'm sure, and she'll take what you say into consideration. And, yes, our best wishes to her, too! I forgot to say that.

Posted by cathy at January 26, 2006 5:54 PM

Good idea in principle...I'm a Londoner, and found the "London" content pretty much geared to the casual (er...US) visitor to the city - edited by someone who wallows in phrases such as "...I first visited London when I was eight years old" kind of sets the (bad) tone...I won't revisit the site for a while...see what emerges.

Posted by Mick Coleman at January 27, 2006 4:03 AM

Nice idea. Tried it and it did not contain any results for:
- Hamas
- creative commons
- copyright
- copyleft
- copyfight
- Darwin
-...

I am pretty happy if someone is willing to help filter the junk I get when doing research using search engines, but there is a critical mass below which I am not willing to use a tool.

Posted by alex at January 27, 2006 8:10 AM

Is this the aristocratic version of Seth Godin's Squidoo? Who are the experts? What do they know? The point made by the Londoner makes a valid argument, the Canada page(thats where I'm from) is written by an adoring ex-pat American. The entry is a mere 4 paragraphs. What is the point?

This site should be subtitled: "Umm, err, or, at least, the first 10 sources..."

ATB,

Jay

Posted by Jay GIlmore at January 27, 2006 9:36 AM

Halley:

Excellent concept - especially for those of us with limited time. Yet - I would echo the subjectivity issue commented on previously. Without an established set of criteria that your editors apply Top10 becomes another blog of personal opinion. Absent this criteria I would really want to know about the editors to determine if their views are consistent with what I am looking for when I search. Good luck! It looks like it could be promising.

Posted by walter white at January 27, 2006 12:02 PM

At this time Top 10 is of very, very limited use. Every search term I entered resulted in the same reply--nothing found, but thanks for helping our program learn. There isn't much content there.

And please, tell my why it is a good idea to have employees search the 20+million web sites by hand as stated in the introduction. Tell me in a mission statement or something, don't make me listen to a 48 minute podcast of people at a launch party in order to find out what it is about this that makes it better, different, or even useful.

This is also only a "web 2.0" tool. That is, it searches blogs, wikis, and that kind of site.

Posted by Mike at January 30, 2006 11:24 AM