<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why you never see people complaining about &#8220;knowledge overload&#8221;&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/7000/2010/01/23/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/7000/2010/01/23</link>
	<description>Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:37:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Watkins</title>
		<link>http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/7000/2010/01/23/comment-page-1#comment-443617</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Watkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 03:30:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=7000#comment-443617</guid>
		<description>Well put. Much blog content is more suited to a static source of information, or (even better) a slowly evolving source.

I think a big part of the &quot;blog frequently&quot; idea is that it&#039;s good for SEO... and yet the grand ruler of search rankings is Wikipedia, which is a slowly evolving source of knowledge.

Thank for prompting me to think again about how I blog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well put. Much blog content is more suited to a static source of information, or (even better) a slowly evolving source.</p>
<p>I think a big part of the &#8220;blog frequently&#8221; idea is that it&#8217;s good for SEO&#8230; and yet the grand ruler of search rankings is Wikipedia, which is a slowly evolving source of knowledge.</p>
<p>Thank for prompting me to think again about how I blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zbigniew Lukasiak</title>
		<link>http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/7000/2010/01/23/comment-page-1#comment-421433</link>
		<dc:creator>Zbigniew Lukasiak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:28:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=7000#comment-421433</guid>
		<description>Another complication is that you need to write a lot and get feedback from readers to become any good at it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another complication is that you need to write a lot and get feedback from readers to become any good at it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zbigniew Lukasiak</title>
		<link>http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/7000/2010/01/23/comment-page-1#comment-421361</link>
		<dc:creator>Zbigniew Lukasiak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:34:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=7000#comment-421361</guid>
		<description>I totally agree that we need a new ecology of information with more quality and less quantity.  But this is only the starting point - the important question is why frequent is equal with success online and how this could be changed.  I can see several problems here: to interpret a blog post it is helpful to know about the author so there is a natural tendency to read the same author again and again, a really insightful text requires a lot of effort to read and understand and nobody would do that for some anonymous source, I would speculate that there are also some reasons in our neuronal circuity that rewards more frequent signals than sporadic stronger signals (for positive signals).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I totally agree that we need a new ecology of information with more quality and less quantity.  But this is only the starting point &#8211; the important question is why frequent is equal with success online and how this could be changed.  I can see several problems here: to interpret a blog post it is helpful to know about the author so there is a natural tendency to read the same author again and again, a really insightful text requires a lot of effort to read and understand and nobody would do that for some anonymous source, I would speculate that there are also some reasons in our neuronal circuity that rewards more frequent signals than sporadic stronger signals (for positive signals).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

