On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Santi Béjar <santi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> 2008/12/5 Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx>:>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:>> [...]>>>>> But here are the links anyway. The order is rather random.>>>>>> Moreover the _quality_ of those links is very random.>>>> Exactly, I didn't choose them, that's what people have been tagging as>> "git" in delicious.com. I'm subscribed to the RSS feed and saving the>> ones that appear a lot.>>>> In fact I don't like some of them, but that's what the "public" finds>> interesting.>> So I don't see the value of such a list. You can go to delicious and> get it.
Try it. You can't see which ones are new, which are completelyirrelevant. There are duplicates and you can't see the popularity /freshness ratio, or "hotness", never mind the most popular this week.
Apparently some people already found interesting links they haven'tseen before, so at lest there's value for them.
> Another thing that could be great is filtering this list to> those that pass a certain criteria (mainly quality, up to date, ...)> and present it in an attractive way, with summaries, categorized by> type (trick, tutorial, comparison,...), ...
Yes, I'll probably improve the presentation.
-- Felipe Contreras��.n��������+%������w��{.n��������n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�m
