Comments on: The importance of publish-subscribe

By: Harsha

Harsha — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:03:24 +0000

The concept of Publish/ subscribe is too good. Taking the example of this Blog itself, anything written with the Tag of Four Pillars interests me and anything about golf or Bologna cheese makes me feel out of place ( No offence meant, i mean i cannot relate to what you are saying). So for me alone, this concept would save a lot of time since this is the case with other blogs also.

Secondly If Blogging had brought down the barriers for Authors to get their work published, in the same vein it has also reduced the barriers for audience who either had to buy over the top priced books or be part of the Elite to listen to the Elite. Blogosphere shall be in the mainstream as it gives/allows us the most democratic learning experience ever which is price less.

By: Prakash

Prakash — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:06:19 +0000

There is also a people angle to why blogging has become mainstream. Till recently, blogging was considered as either a “hobby” or something meant for geeks. The brand image of a blogger was at best someone “cool”. Today blogging has become essential to success in an increasingly networked world, especially in knowledge industries. It opens up new avenues, increases visibility, professional brand and in some case the money you make. Twitter and Facebook are catalysts that have fuelled the process.

By: Clay Spinuzzi

Clay Spinuzzi — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:37:39 +0000

Don’t forget the very large factor of SMS gateways, which have essentially put microblogging terminals in everyone’s pocket. It radically lowers the technical bar when everyone is able to post low-preparation, low-stakes messages from anywhere to Twitter or Facebook. The result is microblogging as ambient status updates rather than messages per se — a very different function.

By: JP

JP — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:55:07 +0000

Dom, I think the primary beneficiary of publish-subscribe is the subscriber, who gets to tune out stuff she doesn’t want to see or hear or read or whatever. That act of tuning in or out is closely coupled with two things: one, a feedback loop that then allows the publisher to tailor that which is published; and two, much more importantly, a mechanism for the subscriber to augment or enrich that which is published.

By: Dominic Sayers

Dominic Sayers — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:47:18 +0000

Share, but not on a broadcast basis.

Share, on a publish-subscribe basis.

Thank you for the link to the definition of pub-sub. How about a definition of broadcast, in order to identify the material differences for the less quick-witted amond us (i.e. me)?

The principal difference I can see is that in pub-sub there is an act of subscription (implying the subscriber is identified) rather than just “tuning in” to a broadcast.

The immediate beneficiary of this difference is the publisher, since he or she then knows their audience.

I don’t think I have this right, since by this definition a blog is an act of broadcast. Help!

By: Christopher Golda

Christopher Golda — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:48:53 +0000

Some great thoughts here — thanks for sharing them. I would add something that I believe makes blogging today radically different than in the past, especially following the introduction of social tools like Facebook, Twitter and FriendFeed.

Today, blogging is about much more than just publishing your thoughts online — it’s about starting and engaging in conversations. So I would argue that not only has blogging eliminated barriers to entry to publishing and become more accessible through the proliferation of feed readers, etc, but more importantly, it has gone from one-way communication to two-way. Social tools allow conversations to fragment very rapidly and efficiently — to find the most appropriate venue(s) to take place. Additionally, these tools have allowed the conversation to take place in real-time. That’s what’s most exciting to me about services like Twitter and FriendFeed.