I'm working on a blog article about the increasingly popularity of the buzz words "curation" and "curator" in relation to content creation online. Personally, I struggle with the term and that could be in part because of my background in museums; I have a very specific idea of what a curator is and does and it doesn't mesh with how I understand the online world. The term also seems like a bit of jargon without a lot of meaning behind it.
On the other hand, as a content strategist in Phoenix recently pointed out to me on Twitter (she is @sara_ann_marie), curation implies putting content together to make meaning not just collection; I like this idea.
For those of you who have a couple of spare minutes - any thoughts on what you think about the increased prominence of 'curation' to describe what we do online? Does the word work? Do clients understand it? Is there a better alternative? Is this all just a bunch of marketing jargon that doesn't mean much?
Any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.
> I'm working on a blog article about the increasingly popularity of the buzz > words "curation" and "curator" in relation to content creation online. > Personally, I struggle with the term and that could be in part because of my > background in museums; I have a very specific idea of what a curator is and > does and it doesn't mesh with how I understand the online world. The term > also seems like a bit of jargon without a lot of meaning behind it.
> On the other hand, as a content strategist in Phoenix recently pointed out > to me on Twitter (she is @sara_ann_marie), curation implies putting content > together to make meaning not just collection; I like this idea.
> For those of you who have a couple of spare minutes - any thoughts on what > you think about the increased prominence of 'curation' to describe what we > do online? Does the word work? Do clients understand it? Is there a better > alternative? Is this all just a bunch of marketing jargon that doesn't mean > much?
> Any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
As someone working for an organization (and not an agency), "curation" is a great way to describe the strategic content work we do. Setting priorities for what content a user sees first -- and resetting them almost daily, as new content is created by a multitude of publishers -- is not a one-time effort. Promoting information and adding the context that the organization often forgets are the two main eleements of value we add.
Let me know if you need more info.
Best,
Hilary
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Amy Thibodeau <amy.thibod...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm working on a blog article about the increasingly popularity of the buzz > words "curation" and "curator" in relation to content creation online. > Personally, I struggle with the term and that could be in part because of my > background in museums; I have a very specific idea of what a curator is and > does and it doesn't mesh with how I understand the online world. The term > also seems like a bit of jargon without a lot of meaning behind it.
> On the other hand, as a content strategist in Phoenix recently pointed out > to me on Twitter (she is @sara_ann_marie), curation implies putting content > together to make meaning not just collection; I like this idea.
> For those of you who have a couple of spare minutes - any thoughts on what > you think about the increased prominence of 'curation' to describe what we > do online? Does the word work? Do clients understand it? Is there a better > alternative? Is this all just a bunch of marketing jargon that doesn't mean > much?
> Any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Amy Thibodeau <amy.thibod...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> I'm working on a blog article about the increasingly popularity of the >> buzz words "curation" and "curator" in relation to content creation online. >> Personally, I struggle with the term and that could be in part because of my >> background in museums; I have a very specific idea of what a curator is and >> does and it doesn't mesh with how I understand the online world. The term >> also seems like a bit of jargon without a lot of meaning behind it.
>> On the other hand, as a content strategist in Phoenix recently pointed out >> to me on Twitter (she is @sara_ann_marie), curation implies putting content >> together to make meaning not just collection; I like this idea.
>> For those of you who have a couple of spare minutes - any thoughts on what >> you think about the increased prominence of 'curation' to describe what we >> do online? Does the word work? Do clients understand it? Is there a better >> alternative? Is this all just a bunch of marketing jargon that doesn't mean >> much?
>> Any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Content Strategy" group. >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
I didn't like the term at first for content or design because it reminded me of dead butterflies in glass cases. It seemed static, cold, and not that interactive. However, I'm comfortable with the term now. Compared to aggregation, curation is a fresh, warm human element.
I've used the term with clients, and, with a little explanation, they catch on to it pretty quickly--to my surprise.
Colleen
COLLEEN JONES Principal, Content Science Chair, CHI*Atlanta - Organizer, Atlanta Content Strategy E: jones.l...@gmail.com l coll...@content-science.com T: @leenjones P: 770-296-0121
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Amy Thibodeau <amy.thibod...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm working on a blog article about the increasingly popularity of the buzz > words "curation" and "curator" in relation to content creation online. > Personally, I struggle with the term and that could be in part because of my > background in museums; I have a very specific idea of what a curator is and > does and it doesn't mesh with how I understand the online world. The term > also seems like a bit of jargon without a lot of meaning behind it.
> On the other hand, as a content strategist in Phoenix recently pointed out > to me on Twitter (she is @sara_ann_marie), curation implies putting content > together to make meaning not just collection; I like this idea.
> For those of you who have a couple of spare minutes - any thoughts on what > you think about the increased prominence of 'curation' to describe what we > do online? Does the word work? Do clients understand it? Is there a better > alternative? Is this all just a bunch of marketing jargon that doesn't mean > much?
> Any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
I don't mind the term curation, but I see your point about how its meaning gets somewhat diluted as it moves from the museum to general online context. When I have used it with clients, they have had no issue understanding it. I've used it for marketing content as well as technical support content. Tech support people are usually allergic to jargon, and yet they didn't object to this term, so in my opinion, it's pretty safe to keep working with it.
I think this term is, itself, an alternative to more general terms like relevant, manually selected, and personalized content (not to say that it means the same thing.) We needed a term to describe content that has some editorial thought behind it beyond parametric searches, and implying more than the manual process of compiling content with some editorial though behind it. Curation also implies the order in which the content is presented, beyond automated sequences such as date and relevance. It implies some amount of storytelling, and the skills behind the process to think in terms of storytelling -- i.e., not parametric.
When I worked at IBM (this is from 4-5 years ago), the web editorial board also described some content strategy work as "information brokering". There were, in fact, information brokering job functions in the company. My memory on this is fuzzy, but I believe they were more focused on the intranet at the time, scavenging the far reaches of intranet content (which was not centrally managed) for relevant content that would help people do their jobs, as you might expect. Then (also fuzzy memory), I think the term was carried over to what was needed for the public site, to help make sense of the endless content on ibm.com. I ramble, but hopefully this provides some context to the evolution of this idea of curation.
Best, Ruth
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Amy Thibodeau <amy.thibod...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm working on a blog article about the increasingly popularity of the buzz > words "curation" and "curator" in relation to content creation online. > Personally, I struggle with the term and that could be in part because of my > background in museums; I have a very specific idea of what a curator is and > does and it doesn't mesh with how I understand the online world. The term > also seems like a bit of jargon without a lot of meaning behind it.
> On the other hand, as a content strategist in Phoenix recently pointed out > to me on Twitter (she is @sara_ann_marie), curation implies putting content > together to make meaning not just collection; I like this idea.
> For those of you who have a couple of spare minutes - any thoughts on what > you think about the increased prominence of 'curation' to describe what we > do online? Does the word work? Do clients understand it? Is there a better > alternative? Is this all just a bunch of marketing jargon that doesn't mean > much?
> Any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
I was really turned on to the concept from Erin's article as well. I've always liked the term. It works for me.
In a really great museum exhibit, the curator uses the best content at his/her disposal to tell a vivid, real story. I don't think of the dead butterflies as much as I do the combination of sensory experiences that comes from a carefully chosen and displayed collection of artifacts, written word, imagery, audio and video. When these come together in a museum exhibit to tell a story of a people or time or place it can be pretty compelling. I think the same is true of a website.
I've used that language with clients and it's like a light bulb goes off in their heads. Not everyone will think of curation or museums the same way, so it's important to make your examples real to the people in the organization. I've been able to do this well with higher education clients, particularly the faculty who are often the sources of a lot of great content, but not necessarily the people you want curating it (or even creating it for that matter!)
I get what you're saying. My sister-in-law, who's an architect, has a pet peeve about the term information architect. So far as she's concerned, IA is not architecture because it has nothing to do with buildings or (physical) structures. She feels like using "architecture" in a more figurative sense somehow diminishes her career.
While I understand her point, I think she's wrong: I think information architecture is a fine term. It's a metaphorical extension of some of the ideas behind architecture, true, but that's pretty normal for language, and it doesn't diminish the work of "real" architects. And the term helps explain what the position does to someone who might not have heard it before.
Curation strikes me the same way. Is it the same as museum curation? No. Is it close enough to be a natural analogy? Yes. Does it help clarify for people what that position does? Yes. Approved!
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Amy Thibodeau <amy.thibod...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone,
> I'm working on a blog article about the increasingly popularity of the buzz > words "curation" and "curator" in relation to content creation online. > Personally, I struggle with the term and that could be in part because of my > background in museums; I have a very specific idea of what a curator is and > does and it doesn't mesh with how I understand the online world. The term > also seems like a bit of jargon without a lot of meaning behind it.
> On the other hand, as a content strategist in Phoenix recently pointed out > to me on Twitter (she is @sara_ann_marie), curation implies putting content > together to make meaning not just collection; I like this idea.
> For those of you who have a couple of spare minutes - any thoughts on what > you think about the increased prominence of 'curation' to describe what we > do online? Does the word work? Do clients understand it? Is there a better > alternative? Is this all just a bunch of marketing jargon that doesn't mean > much?
> Any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
Thanks for all the great feedback everyone - you've definitely given me something to think about and I can't say that I disagree with any of the points made. For me there's also a difference between the act of curation (pulling disparate ideas together, making meaning and creating opportunities for experience) and being a Curator (capital 'C'). In my experience in museums, curators (at large institutions) tend to wear one hat and they are often seen as arbitrators of culture and taste and, with a few exceptions, slightly out of touch with the average gallery visitor. It's often the educators and the publishing department that create real meaning and access for a general audience by compiling resources and points of access and engagement. I love museums and think the curatorial role is crucially important; but it tends to happen in a bit of an ivory tower and is driven by the academic interests of the person filling the role, which may not necessarily be what the community wants or needs.
I think that my problem with the term, coloured by my background, is that it can be perceived as too grandiose, old-fashioned, bureaucratic and somewhat alienating. As I read your comments and sift through some of the information in the various links, I am definitely having second thoughts about it as this new appropriation of the term certainly brings with it a wider sense of scope and a responsibility to audience that is quite different to that of a formal curator role in a museum.
Obviously I haven't properly formed my thoughts on this, but I really appreciate all the great points you've made. I'll let you know if and when I come up with anything cohesive on this!
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:19 PM, James Callan <scarequo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Amy:
> I get what you're saying. My sister-in-law, who's an architect, has a > pet peeve about the term information architect. So far as she's > concerned, IA is not architecture because it has nothing to do with > buildings or (physical) structures. She feels like using > "architecture" in a more figurative sense somehow diminishes her > career.
> While I understand her point, I think she's wrong: I think information > architecture is a fine term. It's a metaphorical extension of some of > the ideas behind architecture, true, but that's pretty normal for > language, and it doesn't diminish the work of "real" architects. And > the term helps explain what the position does to someone who might not > have heard it before.
> Curation strikes me the same way. Is it the same as museum curation? > No. Is it close enough to be a natural analogy? Yes. Does it help > clarify for people what that position does? Yes. Approved!
> James
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Amy Thibodeau <amy.thibod...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hello everyone,
> > I'm working on a blog article about the increasingly popularity of the > buzz > > words "curation" and "curator" in relation to content creation online. > > Personally, I struggle with the term and that could be in part because of > my > > background in museums; I have a very specific idea of what a curator is > and > > does and it doesn't mesh with how I understand the online world. The term > > also seems like a bit of jargon without a lot of meaning behind it.
> > On the other hand, as a content strategist in Phoenix recently pointed > out > > to me on Twitter (she is @sara_ann_marie), curation implies putting > content > > together to make meaning not just collection; I like this idea.
> > For those of you who have a couple of spare minutes - any thoughts on > what > > you think about the increased prominence of 'curation' to describe what > we > > do online? Does the word work? Do clients understand it? Is there a > better > > alternative? Is this all just a bunch of marketing jargon that doesn't > mean > > much?
> > Any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Content Strategy" group. > > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> > . > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
To me, curation is a subset of content creation. Certain digital
properties are assembled (in a thoughtful way) from content born and
living elsewhere to present meaning (or a point-of-view). The
Huffington Post is one example—a partially curated news, culture, and
entertainment site. Tumblr is another example—a tool where people can
curate content around a topic of their choosing.
However, I don't think of what I do as a content strategist as
curation. While I might recommend curation as a communication tactic,
more often I'm involved in projects where the content needs to be
developed—written, edited, organized, posted, and/or managed. This
hardly seems like a curatorial activity—it's an editorial process.
Other times I'm involved in identifying content sources—which is
syndication, not curation. If a project involves pulling from multiple
outside sources to assemble a meaningful experience, the word
"curation" would seem to me to work, but it hasn't come up for me in
my client experiences.
Good luck with the article!
Frank Marquardt
frank...@gmail.com
On Jun 15, 11:38 am, Amy Thibodeau <amy.thibod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm working on a blog article about the increasingly popularity of the buzz
> words "curation" and "curator" in relation to content creation online.
> Personally, I struggle with the term and that could be in part because of my
> background in museums; I have a very specific idea of what a curator is and
> does and it doesn't mesh with how I understand the online world. The term
> also seems like a bit of jargon without a lot of meaning behind it.
> On the other hand, as a content strategist in Phoenix recently pointed out
> to me on Twitter (she is @sara_ann_marie), curation implies putting content
> together to make meaning not just collection; I like this idea.
> For those of you who have a couple of spare minutes - any thoughts on what
> you think about the increased prominence of 'curation' to describe what we
> do online? Does the word work? Do clients understand it? Is there a better
> alternative? Is this all just a bunch of marketing jargon that doesn't mean
> much?
> Any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.
Sorry to chime in late on this, but I’m not in the same time zone.
I agree that curation is a really important part of content strategy.
Yes, it can give content meaning and context, which is crucial. But I
use it sparingly for two reasons. First, curation implies 1) that you
have sufficient content to curate and that it’s worth curating in the
first place and 2) your website/organization is mature enough to
handle the concept (what do you mean my web site’s a museum?). This
isn’t the case with all organizations.
Second, the curation label can distance us from the production side of
the equation by raising an artificial wall between content producers,
web designers and content minders. I am always reluctant to use any
vocabulary that makes me relinquish control over the quality of the
content being produced or the web site in which it will appear. Good
curation requires good source content and a good venue. There’s
nothing worse than trying to curate junk in a musty museum that no one
visits. And if curation requires you to rewrite/rework the source
content then it’s not curation (and you’re probably not getting paid
for the value add).
For what it’s worth, with my French-speaking clients, I’m able to get
around the problem by using words like “mise en scčne” and
“orchestration”. They conjure up mental pictures of directing movies/
plays and conducting orchestras. Both clearly lead the creative
process and are in charge of staging and executing the final
production. The literal translation of curator (conservateur) really
doesn’t do the trick.
> I'm working on a blog article about the increasingly popularity of the buzz
> words "curation" and "curator" in relation to content creation online.
> Personally, I struggle with the term and that could be in part because of my
> background in museums; I have a very specific idea of what a curator is and
> does and it doesn't mesh with how I understand the online world. The term
> also seems like a bit of jargon without a lot of meaning behind it.
> On the other hand, as a content strategist in Phoenix recently pointed out
> to me on Twitter (she is @sara_ann_marie), curation implies putting content
> together to make meaning not just collection; I like this idea.
> For those of you who have a couple of spare minutes - any thoughts on what
> you think about the increased prominence of 'curation' to describe what we
> do online? Does the word work? Do clients understand it? Is there a better
> alternative? Is this all just a bunch of marketing jargon that doesn't mean
> much?
> Any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Rich Thompson <richt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Amy,
> Sorry to chime in late on this, but I’m not in the same time zone.
> I agree that curation is a really important part of content strategy. > Yes, it can give content meaning and context, which is crucial. But I > use it sparingly for two reasons. First, curation implies 1) that you > have sufficient content to curate and that it’s worth curating in the > first place and 2) your website/organization is mature enough to > handle the concept (what do you mean my web site’s a museum?). This > isn’t the case with all organizations.
> Second, the curation label can distance us from the production side of > the equation by raising an artificial wall between content producers, > web designers and content minders. I am always reluctant to use any > vocabulary that makes me relinquish control over the quality of the > content being produced or the web site in which it will appear. Good > curation requires good source content and a good venue. There’s > nothing worse than trying to curate junk in a musty museum that no one > visits. And if curation requires you to rewrite/rework the source > content then it’s not curation (and you’re probably not getting paid > for the value add).
> For what it’s worth, with my French-speaking clients, I’m able to get > around the problem by using words like “mise en scčne” and > “orchestration”. They conjure up mental pictures of directing movies/ > plays and conducting orchestras. Both clearly lead the creative > process and are in charge of staging and executing the final > production. The literal translation of curator (conservateur) really > doesn’t do the trick.
> On Jun 15, 8:38 pm, Amy Thibodeau <amy.thibod...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello everyone,
> > I'm working on a blog article about the increasingly popularity of the > buzz > > words "curation" and "curator" in relation to content creation online. > > Personally, I struggle with the term and that could be in part because of > my > > background in museums; I have a very specific idea of what a curator is > and > > does and it doesn't mesh with how I understand the online world. The term > > also seems like a bit of jargon without a lot of meaning behind it.
> > On the other hand, as a content strategist in Phoenix recently pointed > out > > to me on Twitter (she is @sara_ann_marie), curation implies putting > content > > together to make meaning not just collection; I like this idea.
> > For those of you who have a couple of spare minutes - any thoughts on > what > > you think about the increased prominence of 'curation' to describe what > we > > do online? Does the word work? Do clients understand it? Is there a > better > > alternative? Is this all just a bunch of marketing jargon that doesn't > mean > > much?
> > Any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
It seems Mr. Bradshaw has a bit of pent up anger to release, which is understandable, but perhaps his analysis is short-sighted.
Even this watered down meaning of curation is not business as usual. If you look at organizational structures more granularly, you realize that so many still divide web production and publishing from the more traditional curation roles, such as in marketing or customer service organizations. The web departments of large organizations, especially outside of the media and entertainment industry, do not have the subject matter or editorial expertise to curate, let alone select content. They typically are more skilled in writing simple lookup queries to do the selecting for them, based on simplistic dimensions of content.
What I see happening is corporations realizing that users are curating for each other -- not just selecting, but annotating, commenting, contextualizing, and transforming content for each other -- as forms of self-expression. Where does that leave their content assets, whether locked up in their site or free-floating in the ether as raw material for users? Where is their voice? What is the broader meaning of the content they develop? It takes a combination of marketers, communicators, customer relationship interfaces, and web specialists of all kinds to make this work. The transformation isn't in communications or editorial departments continuing to do what they've always done. Clearly, that is not a transformation. The changes are in how they are doing this -- the tools and methods they use, the skills they call upon, the venues where engagement happens, and perhaps most importantly, the changing popular culture in which their stories have to now live. It's a different kind of storytelling, and it's here because of internet technologies and associated behavior patterns.
A quick, shoddy metaphor: Using stone tiles to stylize our homes does not mean we are still in the stone age.
My 2 cents.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Rahel Bailie <rahel.bai...@gmail.com>wrote:
> === > Rahel Anne Bailie, Content Strategist / CM Consultant > Intentional Design Inc. www.intentionaldesign.ca > Content strategies for business impact Tel. 604.837.0034 (PT, GMT -8) > Social apps (skype, twitter, etc): rahelab > LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/rahelannebailie
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Rich Thompson <richt...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Hi Amy,
>> Sorry to chime in late on this, but I’m not in the same time zone.
>> I agree that curation is a really important part of content strategy. >> Yes, it can give content meaning and context, which is crucial. But I >> use it sparingly for two reasons. First, curation implies 1) that you >> have sufficient content to curate and that it’s worth curating in the >> first place and 2) your website/organization is mature enough to >> handle the concept (what do you mean my web site’s a museum?). This >> isn’t the case with all organizations.
>> Second, the curation label can distance us from the production side of >> the equation by raising an artificial wall between content producers, >> web designers and content minders. I am always reluctant to use any >> vocabulary that makes me relinquish control over the quality of the >> content being produced or the web site in which it will appear. Good >> curation requires good source content and a good venue. There’s >> nothing worse than trying to curate junk in a musty museum that no one >> visits. And if curation requires you to rewrite/rework the source >> content then it’s not curation (and you’re probably not getting paid >> for the value add).
>> For what it’s worth, with my French-speaking clients, I’m able to get >> around the problem by using words like “mise en scčne” and >> “orchestration”. They conjure up mental pictures of directing movies/ >> plays and conducting orchestras. Both clearly lead the creative >> process and are in charge of staging and executing the final >> production. The literal translation of curator (conservateur) really >> doesn’t do the trick.
>> On Jun 15, 8:38 pm, Amy Thibodeau <amy.thibod...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hello everyone,
>> > I'm working on a blog article about the increasingly popularity of the >> buzz >> > words "curation" and "curator" in relation to content creation online. >> > Personally, I struggle with the term and that could be in part because >> of my >> > background in museums; I have a very specific idea of what a curator is >> and >> > does and it doesn't mesh with how I understand the online world. The >> term >> > also seems like a bit of jargon without a lot of meaning behind it.
>> > On the other hand, as a content strategist in Phoenix recently pointed >> out >> > to me on Twitter (she is @sara_ann_marie), curation implies putting >> content >> > together to make meaning not just collection; I like this idea.
>> > For those of you who have a couple of spare minutes - any thoughts on >> what >> > you think about the increased prominence of 'curation' to describe what >> we >> > do online? Does the word work? Do clients understand it? Is there a >> better >> > alternative? Is this all just a bunch of marketing jargon that doesn't >> mean >> > much?
>> > Any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Content Strategy" group. >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
I followed a link to this discussion and was happily surprised to have
found such a great and nuanced discussion about curation. The word
certainly seems to be gaining a lot of steam lately, and so I posted
some thoughts about it on my blog.
I discuss curation as it pertains to information and links that we
pass to each other using our social media tools and provide quite a
few links and quotes from other authors on the subject.
The title is "Curation. And ants." (Yes, the insect.) And it's about
turning the firehose of information into a personal drinking
fountain.
> It seems Mr. Bradshaw has a bit of pent up anger to release, which is
> understandable, but perhaps his analysis is short-sighted.
> Even this watered down meaning of curation is not business as usual. If you
> look at organizational structures more granularly, you realize that so many
> still divide web production and publishing from the more traditional
> curation roles, such as in marketing or customer service organizations. The
> web departments of large organizations, especially outside of the media and
> entertainment industry, do not have the subject matter or editorial
> expertise to curate, let alone select content. They typically are more
> skilled in writing simple lookup queries to do the selecting for them, based
> on simplistic dimensions of content.
> What I see happening is corporations realizing that users are curating for
> each other -- not just selecting, but annotating, commenting,
> contextualizing, and transforming content for each other -- as forms of
> self-expression. Where does that leave their content assets, whether locked
> up in their site or free-floating in the ether as raw material for users?
> Where is their voice? What is the broader meaning of the content they
> develop? It takes a combination of marketers, communicators, customer
> relationship interfaces, and web specialists of all kinds to make this work.
> The transformation isn't in communications or editorial departments
> continuing to do what they've always done. Clearly, that is not a
> transformation. The changes are in how they are doing this -- the tools and
> methods they use, the skills they call upon, the venues where engagement
> happens, and perhaps most importantly, the changing popular culture in which
> their stories have to now live. It's a different kind of storytelling, and
> it's here because of internet technologies and associated behavior
> patterns.
> A quick, shoddy metaphor: Using stone tiles to stylize our homes does not
> mean we are still in the stone age.
> My 2 cents.
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Rahel Bailie <rahel.bai...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > Here's an alternative perspective on curation that was published today:
> > ===
> > Rahel Anne Bailie, Content Strategist / CM Consultant
> > Intentional Design Inc.www.intentionaldesign.ca > > Content strategies for business impact Tel. 604.837.0034 (PT, GMT -8)
> > Social apps (skype, twitter, etc): rahelab
> > LinkedIn:www.linkedin.com/in/rahelannebailie
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Rich Thompson <richt...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >> Hi Amy,
> >> Sorry to chime in late on this, but I’m not in the same time zone.
> >> I agree that curation is a really important part of content strategy.
> >> Yes, it can give content meaning and context, which is crucial. But I
> >> use it sparingly for two reasons. First, curation implies 1) that you
> >> have sufficient content to curate and that it’s worth curating in the
> >> first place and 2) your website/organization is mature enough to
> >> handle the concept (what do you mean my web site’s a museum?). This
> >> isn’t the case with all organizations.
> >> Second, the curation label can distance us from the production side of
> >> the equation by raising an artificial wall between content producers,
> >> web designers and content minders. I am always reluctant to use any
> >> vocabulary that makes me relinquish control over the quality of the
> >> content being produced or the web site in which it will appear. Good
> >> curation requires good source content and a good venue. There’s
> >> nothing worse than trying to curate junk in a musty museum that no one
> >> visits. And if curation requires you to rewrite/rework the source
> >> content then it’s not curation (and you’re probably not getting paid
> >> for the value add).
> >> For what it’s worth, with my French-speaking clients, I’m able to get
> >> around the problem by using words like “mise en scčne” and
> >> “orchestration”. They conjure up mental pictures of directing movies/
> >> plays and conducting orchestras. Both clearly lead the creative
> >> process and are in charge of staging and executing the final
> >> production. The literal translation of curator (conservateur) really
> >> doesn’t do the trick.
> >> On Jun 15, 8:38 pm, Amy Thibodeau <amy.thibod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hello everyone,
> >> > I'm working on a blog article about the increasingly popularity of the
> >> buzz
> >> > words "curation" and "curator" in relation to content creation online.
> >> > Personally, I struggle with the term and that could be in part because
> >> of my
> >> > background in museums; I have a very specific idea of what a curator is
> >> and
> >> > does and it doesn't mesh with how I understand the online world. The
> >> term
> >> > also seems like a bit of jargon without a lot of meaning behind it.
> >> > On the other hand, as a content strategist in Phoenix recently pointed
> >> out
> >> > to me on Twitter (she is @sara_ann_marie), curation implies putting
> >> content
> >> > together to make meaning not just collection; I like this idea.
> >> > For those of you who have a couple of spare minutes - any thoughts on
> >> what
> >> > you think about the increased prominence of 'curation' to describe what
> >> we
> >> > do online? Does the word work? Do clients understand it? Is there a
> >> better
> >> > alternative? Is this all just a bunch of marketing jargon that doesn't
> >> mean
> >> > much?
> >> > Any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Content Strategy" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
> >> .
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Content Strategy" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
Hi Amy I did a presentation for STC India in Dec 2009 with my thoughts on content curation. You'll find a link here http://www.stc-india.org/stc-india-annual-conferences/stc-india-2009/ number 31. In case the presentation is not a format you can view, do let me know - I'll mail you a copy. Thanks, Sita
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Amy Thibodeau <amy.thibod...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm working on a blog article about the increasingly popularity of the buzz > words "curation" and "curator" in relation to content creation online. > Personally, I struggle with the term and that could be in part because of my > background in museums; I have a very specific idea of what a curator is and > does and it doesn't mesh with how I understand the online world. The term > also seems like a bit of jargon without a lot of meaning behind it.
> On the other hand, as a content strategist in Phoenix recently pointed out > to me on Twitter (she is @sara_ann_marie), curation implies putting content > together to make meaning not just collection; I like this idea.
> For those of you who have a couple of spare minutes - any thoughts on what > you think about the increased prominence of 'curation' to describe what we > do online? Does the word work? Do clients understand it? Is there a better > alternative? Is this all just a bunch of marketing jargon that doesn't mean > much?
> Any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
This is my first post here though I have been following some of the
discussions with interest. Curation is something close to my heart, so
I couldn't resist adding my two bits. i think museum curation and
content curation have many similarities.
When I heard about content curation for the first time, I associated
it immediately with museum curation. Now, my experience in museum
curation is very nearly zero. Actually it is zero, but I have read
many books that have the word 'curator' and 'museum' in them. I even
watched The Da Vinci Code. I also googled 'roles of a museum
curator' :-)
Here's what I think about museum curation, and how it can inform the
content curator. Its going to be a bit lengthy, so, for my
convenience, I have shortened museum curator to mc and content curator
to cc.
1. An mc is an expert in his field. A good cc needs expertise in his
chosen domain to know the good content from the bad.
2. An mc decides what exhibits to acquire and display to keep his
museum interesting. Similarly a cc needs some quality criteria for
selecting content for publishing.
3. An mc needs to be part investigator to trace the history of
exhibits. And a cc needs to be an expert at using search tools online
to dig up those lost pearls of wisdom.
4. An mc verifies the authenticity of exhibits before displaying them.
A cc must read fully, and be happy with any content he is planning to
publish. Where required a cc must also verify authenticity.
5. An mc has to place and categorise museum exhibits so that visitors
can experience underlying themes. Information Architecture is an
incredibly important function for a cc.
6. An mc is responsible for people having a great time in his museum.
And a content curator is totally responsible for visitor experience on
his website and content delivery channels like email, RSS, Social
Media, etc.. A working knowledge of user experience is desirable.
7. An mc adds notes about historical significance to his exhibits. A
cc needs to add personal comments to almost all the curated content.
8. An mc organises tours, workshops, etc in the museum. A cc can give
site visitors a tour / workshop by packaging curated content into
bundles. For eg: A cc can publish a "Learn Content Curation 101
Workshop" with a collection of links, arranged in a meaningful order.
Add personal summaries / takeaways from each piece of content. Create
a quiz/test to revise the key takeaways, and that's just plain awesome
content curation!
9. An mc has to retire some of the exhibits. A cc needs a good content
archival plan.
10. Sometimes, its important for an mc to bring back an exhibit from
the archives department - for eg: bring back Catholic exhibits if the
Pope is coming to town. Similarly, a cc must keep aware of online
trends and highlight archived content if it is relevant to popular
trends.
11. An mc keeps track of what visitors like, and tries to place those
exhibits strategically. A cc needs to pay attention to site analytics,
and showcase popular content strategically.
12. An mc sometimes writes / lectures about exhibits. A cc also can
write orignial content [I highly recommend it], about the trends in
his domain. The cc is in the unique position of having an industry-
wide perspective. And writing about this adds great value.
13. An mc needs to be well connected so that he is 'in the know' when
a new item of interest is up for acquisition. A cc needs to build
connections too. In the blogosphere. On social media. In his
industry.
Phew!
I am looking foward to your article Amy, and I hope I have been able
to help. Please post a link here.
cheers
Santhan
On Jun 19, 6:49 pm, Sita Bhatt <sita.bh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Amy
> I did a presentation for STC India in Dec 2009 with my thoughts on content
> curation.
> You'll find a link herehttp://www.stc-india.org/stc-india-annual-conferences/stc-india-2009/... > 31.
> In case the presentation is not a format you can view, do let me know - I'll
> mail you a copy.
> Thanks,
> Sita
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Amy Thibodeau <amy.thibod...@gmail.com>wrote:> Hello everyone,
> > I'm working on a blog article about the increasingly popularity of the buzz
> > words "curation" and "curator" in relation to content creation online.
> > Personally, I struggle with the term and that could be in part because of my
> > background in museums; I have a very specific idea of what a curator is and
> > does and it doesn't mesh with how I understand the online world. The term
> > also seems like a bit of jargon without a lot of meaning behind it.
> > On the other hand, as a content strategist in Phoenix recently pointed out
> > to me on Twitter (she is @sara_ann_marie), curation implies putting content
> > together to make meaning not just collection; I like this idea.
> > For those of you who have a couple of spare minutes - any thoughts on what
> > you think about the increased prominence of 'curation' to describe what we
> > do online? Does the word work? Do clients understand it? Is there a better
> > alternative? Is this all just a bunch of marketing jargon that doesn't mean
> > much?
> > Any feedback you have would be very much appreciated.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Content Strategy" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> For me there's also a difference between the act of curation > (pulling disparate ideas together, making meaning and creating > opportunities for experience) and being a Curator (capital 'C'). In > my experience in museums, curators (at large institutions) tend to > wear one hat and they are often seen as arbitrators of culture and > taste and, with a few exceptions, slightly out of touch with the > average gallery visitor. It's often the educators and the publishing > department that create real meaning and access for a general > audience by compiling resources and points of access and engagement. > I love museums and think the curatorial role is crucially important; > but it tends to happen in a bit of an ivory tower and is driven by > the academic interests of the person filling the role, which may not > necessarily be what the community wants or needs.
I agree with Amy completely about the difference between curation and curators. However, this isn’t a unique pairing.
Amy was commenting on the difference between the skills and the roles. What we’ve found is that you have to separate the two, then, if you want to create great user experiences, ditch the roles and focus on the skills.
Jared M. Spool User Interface Engineering 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845 e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561 http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks Twitter: @jmspool
Jared, I appreciate your focus on the distinction between curation and being a curator. Right now, I'm definitely doing some curation (in the web sense of the word), but I wouldn't claim to be a curator.
One thing those who dislike using the word "curation" should keep in mind: It's not enough to say that's the wrong word. You need to come up with a term that people will embrace instead, something they understand as easily and use more frequently.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Jared Spool <jsp...@uie.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Amy Thibodeau wrote:
>> For me there's also a difference between the act of curation (pulling >> disparate ideas together, making meaning and creating opportunities for >> experience) and being a Curator (capital 'C'). In my experience in museums, >> curators (at large institutions) tend to wear one hat and they are often >> seen as arbitrators of culture and taste and, with a few exceptions, >> slightly out of touch with the average gallery visitor. It's often the >> educators and the publishing department that create real meaning and access >> for a general audience by compiling resources and points of access and >> engagement. I love museums and think the curatorial role is crucially >> important; but it tends to happen in a bit of an ivory tower and is driven >> by the academic interests of the person filling the role, which may not >> necessarily be what the community wants or needs.
> I agree with Amy completely about the difference between curation and > curators. However, this isn’t a unique pairing.
> Amy was commenting on the difference between the skills and the roles. What > we’ve found is that you have to separate the two, then, if you want to > create great user experiences, ditch the roles and focus on the skills.
> Jared M. Spool > User Interface Engineering > 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845 > e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561 > http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks Twitter: @jmspool
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
I personally don't care for the word, mostly because it creates the
kind of confusion that would require a topic like this. And this isn't
the only place it's being discussed. I think we should pick another
word. Before I make my suggestion, here's why it doesn't make sense to
me (apart from the general community confusion the term creates).
I think it makes sense, to a point, to call what we do when we
aggregate content curation, because it resembles the act of assembling
artifacts for a single user experience, as a curator does when
designing a show. But there are more dissimilarities to the curator
role than similarities. Curators spend a lot of their time in
acquisition and archiving roles. These are not automated but based on
their own sensibilities and perspectives. What the user sees is only a
fraction of their work. And those roles don't really resemble
aggregation much at all. Also, good content curators do more than
displaying other people's creations. They build context around them,
tell the story of why they've assembled them together (what's the
relevance of these pieces and not some others?), etc. The more content
curators perform their work like their "real life" counterparts in
museums, the less effective they are. In the end, I thing the metaphor
doesn't work very well. Just my 2 cents.
I prefer a more descriptive name, such as aggregation editor. The role
is primarily editorial. You're building contextual relevance around
the set of work you offer the user. You're writing abstracts,
adjusting anchor text and headings, all the things a section editor
does in a newspaper or magazine. The difference is, rather than also
serving as an acquisition editor, you are taking content form an
aggregated feed and pulling what you think is most relevant to the
audience.
On Jun 23, 11:30 am, James Callan <scarequo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jared, I appreciate your focus on the distinction between curation and
> being a curator. Right now, I'm definitely doing some curation (in the
> web sense of the word), but I wouldn't claim to be a curator.
> One thing those who dislike using the word "curation" should keep in
> mind: It's not enough to say that's the wrong word. You need to come
> up with a term that people will embrace instead, something they
> understand as easily and use more frequently.
> James
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Jared Spool <jsp...@uie.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Amy Thibodeau wrote:
> >> For me there's also a difference between the act of curation (pulling
> >> disparate ideas together, making meaning and creating opportunities for
> >> experience) and being a Curator (capital 'C'). In my experience in museums,
> >> curators (at large institutions) tend to wear one hat and they are often
> >> seen as arbitrators of culture and taste and, with a few exceptions,
> >> slightly out of touch with the average gallery visitor. It's often the
> >> educators and the publishing department that create real meaning and access
> >> for a general audience by compiling resources and points of access and
> >> engagement. I love museums and think the curatorial role is crucially
> >> important; but it tends to happen in a bit of an ivory tower and is driven
> >> by the academic interests of the person filling the role, which may not
> >> necessarily be what the community wants or needs.
> > I agree with Amy completely about the difference between curation and
> > curators. However, this isn’t a unique pairing.
> > Amy was commenting on the difference between the skills and the roles. What
> > we’ve found is that you have to separate the two, then, if you want to
> > create great user experiences, ditch the roles and focus on the skills.
> > Jared M. Spool
> > User Interface Engineering
> > 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
> > e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
> >http://uie.com Blog:http://uie.com/brainsparks Twitter: @jmspool
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Content Strategy" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
For better or worse curation passes the 'mom test', something we need to apply to almost every element of content strategy. It's a good metaphor for getting the basics across.
Yes, we can beat this to death in a big semantic pillow fight, and yes, I agree that editorial aggregation is more accurate, and yes, editorial as we CS nerds understand it is much more accurate, but curation works, and I think it's something we could explain to our parents without resorting to violence.
In "On Equilibrium", John Raulston Saul talks about the need for groups to create their own nomenclature and lexiconography in order emphasize their value and erect walled gardens around what they do. He disagrees with that approach and so do I.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM, James_Mathewson <jm...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > I personally don't care for the word, mostly because it creates the > kind of confusion that would require a topic like this. And this isn't > the only place it's being discussed. I think we should pick another > word. Before I make my suggestion, here's why it doesn't make sense to > me (apart from the general community confusion the term creates).
> I think it makes sense, to a point, to call what we do when we > aggregate content curation, because it resembles the act of assembling > artifacts for a single user experience, as a curator does when > designing a show. But there are more dissimilarities to the curator > role than similarities. Curators spend a lot of their time in > acquisition and archiving roles. These are not automated but based on > their own sensibilities and perspectives. What the user sees is only a > fraction of their work. And those roles don't really resemble > aggregation much at all. Also, good content curators do more than > displaying other people's creations. They build context around them, > tell the story of why they've assembled them together (what's the > relevance of these pieces and not some others?), etc. The more content > curators perform their work like their "real life" counterparts in > museums, the less effective they are. In the end, I thing the metaphor > doesn't work very well. Just my 2 cents.
> I prefer a more descriptive name, such as aggregation editor. The role > is primarily editorial. You're building contextual relevance around > the set of work you offer the user. You're writing abstracts, > adjusting anchor text and headings, all the things a section editor > does in a newspaper or magazine. The difference is, rather than also > serving as an acquisition editor, you are taking content form an > aggregated feed and pulling what you think is most relevant to the > audience.
> On Jun 23, 11:30 am, James Callan <scarequo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jared, I appreciate your focus on the distinction between curation and > > being a curator. Right now, I'm definitely doing some curation (in the > > web sense of the word), but I wouldn't claim to be a curator.
> > One thing those who dislike using the word "curation" should keep in > > mind: It's not enough to say that's the wrong word. You need to come > > up with a term that people will embrace instead, something they > > understand as easily and use more frequently.
> > James
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Jared Spool <jsp...@uie.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 15, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Amy Thibodeau wrote:
> > >> For me there's also a difference between the act of curation (pulling > > >> disparate ideas together, making meaning and creating opportunities > for > > >> experience) and being a Curator (capital 'C'). In my experience in > museums, > > >> curators (at large institutions) tend to wear one hat and they are > often > > >> seen as arbitrators of culture and taste and, with a few exceptions, > > >> slightly out of touch with the average gallery visitor. It's often the > > >> educators and the publishing department that create real meaning and > access > > >> for a general audience by compiling resources and points of access and > > >> engagement. I love museums and think the curatorial role is crucially > > >> important; but it tends to happen in a bit of an ivory tower and is > driven > > >> by the academic interests of the person filling the role, which may > not > > >> necessarily be what the community wants or needs.
> > > I agree with Amy completely about the difference between curation and > > > curators. However, this isn’t a unique pairing.
> > > Amy was commenting on the difference between the skills and the roles. > What > > > we’ve found is that you have to separate the two, then, if you want to > > > create great user experiences, ditch the roles and focus on the skills.
> > > Jared M. Spool > > > User Interface Engineering > > > 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845 > > > e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561 > > >http://uie.com Blog:http://uie.com/brainsparks Twitter: @jmspool
> > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Content Strategy" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> For better or worse curation passes the 'mom test', something we need to > apply to almost every element of content strategy. It's a good metaphor for > getting the basics across.
> Yes, we can beat this to death in a big semantic pillow fight, and yes, I > agree that editorial aggregation is more accurate, and yes, editorial as we > CS nerds understand it is much more accurate, but curation works, and I > think it's something we could explain to our parents without resorting to > violence.
> In "On Equilibrium", John Raulston Saul talks about the need for groups to > create their own nomenclature and lexiconography in order emphasize their > value and erect walled gardens around what they do. He disagrees with that > approach and so do I.
> Lets keep it simple. Imperfect, but simple.
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM, James_Mathewson <jm...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> I personally don't care for the word, mostly because it creates the >> kind of confusion that would require a topic like this. And this isn't >> the only place it's being discussed. I think we should pick another >> word. Before I make my suggestion, here's why it doesn't make sense to >> me (apart from the general community confusion the term creates).
>> I think it makes sense, to a point, to call what we do when we >> aggregate content curation, because it resembles the act of assembling >> artifacts for a single user experience, as a curator does when >> designing a show. But there are more dissimilarities to the curator >> role than similarities. Curators spend a lot of their time in >> acquisition and archiving roles. These are not automated but based on >> their own sensibilities and perspectives. What the user sees is only a >> fraction of their work. And those roles don't really resemble >> aggregation much at all. Also, good content curators do more than >> displaying other people's creations. They build context around them, >> tell the story of why they've assembled them together (what's the >> relevance of these pieces and not some others?), etc. The more content >> curators perform their work like their "real life" counterparts in >> museums, the less effective they are. In the end, I thing the metaphor >> doesn't work very well. Just my 2 cents.
>> I prefer a more descriptive name, such as aggregation editor. The role >> is primarily editorial. You're building contextual relevance around >> the set of work you offer the user. You're writing abstracts, >> adjusting anchor text and headings, all the things a section editor >> does in a newspaper or magazine. The difference is, rather than also >> serving as an acquisition editor, you are taking content form an >> aggregated feed and pulling what you think is most relevant to the >> audience.
>> On Jun 23, 11:30 am, James Callan <scarequo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Jared, I appreciate your focus on the distinction between curation and >> > being a curator. Right now, I'm definitely doing some curation (in the >> > web sense of the word), but I wouldn't claim to be a curator.
>> > One thing those who dislike using the word "curation" should keep in >> > mind: It's not enough to say that's the wrong word. You need to come >> > up with a term that people will embrace instead, something they >> > understand as easily and use more frequently.
>> > James
>> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Jared Spool <jsp...@uie.com> wrote:
>> > > On Jun 15, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Amy Thibodeau wrote:
>> > >> For me there's also a difference between the act of curation (pulling >> > >> disparate ideas together, making meaning and creating opportunities >> for >> > >> experience) and being a Curator (capital 'C'). In my experience in >> museums, >> > >> curators (at large institutions) tend to wear one hat and they are >> often >> > >> seen as arbitrators of culture and taste and, with a few exceptions, >> > >> slightly out of touch with the average gallery visitor. It's often >> the >> > >> educators and the publishing department that create real meaning and >> access >> > >> for a general audience by compiling resources and points of access >> and >> > >> engagement. I love museums and think the curatorial role is crucially >> > >> important; but it tends to happen in a bit of an ivory tower and is >> driven >> > >> by the academic interests of the person filling the role, which may >> not >> > >> necessarily be what the community wants or needs.
>> > > I agree with Amy completely about the difference between curation and >> > > curators. However, this isn’t a unique pairing.
>> > > Amy was commenting on the difference between the skills and the roles. >> What >> > > we’ve found is that you have to separate the two, then, if you want to >> > > create great user experiences, ditch the roles and focus on the >> skills.
>> > > Jared M. Spool >> > > User Interface Engineering >> > > 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845 >> > > e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561 >> > >http://uie.com Blog:http://uie.com/brainsparks Twitter: @jmspool
>> > > -- >> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> > > "Content Strategy" group. >> > > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com >> . >> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> >> . >> > > For more options, visit this group at >> > >http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Content Strategy" group. >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
________________________________ From: Trevor Stafford <copywry...@gmail.com> Reply-To: <contentstrategy@googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:12:48 -0400 To: <contentstrategy@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Curation and Content Strategy
For better or worse curation passes the 'mom test', something we need to apply to almost every element of content strategy. It's a good metaphor for getting the basics across.
Yes, we can beat this to death in a big semantic pillow fight, and yes, I agree that editorial aggregation is more accurate, and yes, editorial as we CS nerds understand it is much more accurate, but curation works, and I think it's something we could explain to our parents without resorting to violence.
In "On Equilibrium", John Raulston Saul talks about the need for groups to create their own nomenclature and lexiconography in order emphasize their value and erect walled gardens around what they do. He disagrees with that approach and so do I.
Lets keep it simple. Imperfect, but simple.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM, James_Mathewson <jm...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
I personally don't care for the word, mostly because it creates the kind of confusion that would require a topic like this. And this isn't the only place it's being discussed. I think we should pick another word. Before I make my suggestion, here's why it doesn't make sense to me (apart from the general community confusion the term creates).
I think it makes sense, to a point, to call what we do when we aggregate content curation, because it resembles the act of assembling artifacts for a single user experience, as a curator does when designing a show. But there are more dissimilarities to the curator role than similarities. Curators spend a lot of their time in acquisition and archiving roles. These are not automated but based on their own sensibilities and perspectives. What the user sees is only a fraction of their work. And those roles don't really resemble aggregation much at all. Also, good content curators do more than displaying other people's creations. They build context around them, tell the story of why they've assembled them together (what's the relevance of these pieces and not some others?), etc. The more content curators perform their work like their "real life" counterparts in museums, the less effective they are. In the end, I thing the metaphor doesn't work very well. Just my 2 cents.
I prefer a more descriptive name, such as aggregation editor. The role is primarily editorial. You're building contextual relevance around the set of work you offer the user. You're writing abstracts, adjusting anchor text and headings, all the things a section editor does in a newspaper or magazine. The difference is, rather than also serving as an acquisition editor, you are taking content form an aggregated feed and pulling what you think is most relevant to the audience.
On Jun 23, 11:30 am, James Callan <scarequo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jared, I appreciate your focus on the distinction between curation and > being a curator. Right now, I'm definitely doing some curation (in the > web sense of the word), but I wouldn't claim to be a curator.
> One thing those who dislike using the word "curation" should keep in > mind: It's not enough to say that's the wrong word. You need to come > up with a term that people will embrace instead, something they > understand as easily and use more frequently.
> James
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Jared Spool <jsp...@uie.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Amy Thibodeau wrote:
> >> For me there's also a difference between the act of curation (pulling > >> disparate ideas together, making meaning and creating opportunities for > >> experience) and being a Curator (capital 'C'). In my experience in museums, > >> curators (at large institutions) tend to wear one hat and they are often > >> seen as arbitrators of culture and taste and, with a few exceptions, > >> slightly out of touch with the average gallery visitor. It's often the > >> educators and the publishing department that create real meaning and access > >> for a general audience by compiling resources and points of access and > >> engagement. I love museums and think the curatorial role is crucially > >> important; but it tends to happen in a bit of an ivory tower and is driven > >> by the academic interests of the person filling the role, which may not > >> necessarily be what the community wants or needs.
> > I agree with Amy completely about the difference between curation and > > curators. However, this isn’t a unique pairing.
> > Amy was commenting on the difference between the skills and the roles. What > > we’ve found is that you have to separate the two, then, if you want to > > create great user experiences, ditch the roles and focus on the skills.
> > Jared M. Spool > > User Interface Engineering > > 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845 > > e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561 > >http://uie.com Blog:http://uie.com/brainsparks Twitter: @jmspool
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Content Strategy" group. > > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com <mailto:contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Content Strategy" group. To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com <mailto:contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Content Strategy" group. To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
I think I've been through too many of these naming exercises in other professions to get my knickers too twisted about it. Once the term (or whatever term) sticks and is socialized enough that it's recognizable, I'll use it, just as I learned to use "component content management" despite the inherent problems with the term itself.
Personally, I wouldn't use "curation" to describe the work to a prospective client because they wouldn't get it, and it sounds too fluffy (Apologies in advance - I don't think of curation as fluffy.). It's the same reasons that "holistic content strategy" got negative feedback: to the bean-counters and exec-level guys who write the checks, it sounds like something esoteric and unquantifiable, and a little like art...or therapy...or both. They don't get it, and I don't want to be fighting that battle while vying for a contract. But that's a different issue than internally developing a common vocabulary to describe what we do. Or what some of us do.
=== Rahel Anne Bailie, Content Strategist / CM Consultant Intentional Design Inc. www.intentionaldesign.ca Content strategies for business impact Tel. 604.837.0034 (PT, GMT -8) Social apps (skype, twitter, etc): rahelab LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/rahelannebailie
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Moritz, Chris <Chris.Mor...@c-e.com> wrote: > I second Jeff’s “hear hear.” K.I.S.S. > ---- > *Chris Moritz > *Digital Content Strategy Manager > Digital/Publishing Group > Campbell-Ewald
Been reading this thread with interest. I personally don't like 'curation' as it sounds a bit dusty. When trying to think of something else the idea of re-using the environmental '3 Rs' struck me as being applicable. The 3Rs are Reduce (waste), Re-use and Recycle. So what's this got to do with content?
I think content can be like a mushroom in the night. When day comes it has inexplicably multiplied. Reducing content to its operationally effective minimum helps everyone (bit of a bugbear with me see my writing on the Lean Intranet <http://web.fumsi.com/go/article/manage/3618> ).
I think there is a lot to be gained from re-using content, that is using content objects without any amendation. In my experience there are lots of very similar processes in any activity and having content easily avalable for re-use can help productivity quite a bit.
Finally recycling, this is like re-use but the content object may have to be tailored in some way for a different application. Still quicker than re-inventing the wheel.
Just my 2c
Patrick
________________________________
From: contentstrategy@googlegroups.com [mailto:contentstrategy@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rahel Bailie Sent: 24 June 2010 14:51 To: contentstrategy@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Curation and Content Strategy
I think I've been through too many of these naming exercises in other professions to get my knickers too twisted about it. Once the term (or whatever term) sticks and is socialized enough that it's recognizable, I'll use it, just as I learned to use "component content management" despite the inherent problems with the term itself.
Personally, I wouldn't use "curation" to describe the work to a prospective client because they wouldn't get it, and it sounds too fluffy (Apologies in advance - I don't think of curation as fluffy.). It's the same reasons that "holistic content strategy" got negative feedback: to the bean-counters and exec-level guys who write the checks, it sounds like something esoteric and unquantifiable, and a little like art...or therapy...or both. They don't get it, and I don't want to be fighting that battle while vying for a contract. But that's a different issue than internally developing a common vocabulary to describe what we do. Or what some of us do.
=== Rahel Anne Bailie, Content Strategist / CM Consultant Intentional Design Inc. www.intentionaldesign.ca Content strategies for business impact Tel. 604.837.0034 (PT, GMT -8) Social apps (skype, twitter, etc): rahelab LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/rahelannebailie
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Moritz, Chris <Chris.Mor...@c-e.com> wrote:
I second Jeff's "hear hear." K.I.S.S. ---- Chris Moritz Digital Content Strategy Manager Digital/Publishing Group Campbell-Ewald
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Content Strategy" group. To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Not to kick a dead horse, but I don't know if it does stand the mom test.
One of the reasons I raised it is because I've encountered a number of people who don't understand what it means or how/why it applies to the web. Just the fact that this thread has been so long, with so many different perspectives weighing in, means it isn't all that transparent of a term.
In any case - just another thank you to everyone who responded. You've given me a lot to think about and material to review.
Best,
Amy
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Jeffrey MacIntyre <
> .............................................. > Jeffrey MacIntyre, Principal > *Predicate, LLC* > *http://predicate-llc.com* > + 1 . 917 . 546 . 6796 > + 1 . 347 . 688 . 6796 | company > 32 West Street > Cold Spring, NY 10516
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Trevor Stafford <copywry...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> For better or worse curation passes the 'mom test', something we need to >> apply to almost every element of content strategy. It's a good metaphor for >> getting the basics across.
>> Yes, we can beat this to death in a big semantic pillow fight, and yes, I >> agree that editorial aggregation is more accurate, and yes, editorial as we >> CS nerds understand it is much more accurate, but curation works, and I >> think it's something we could explain to our parents without resorting to >> violence.
>> In "On Equilibrium", John Raulston Saul talks about the need for groups to >> create their own nomenclature and lexiconography in order emphasize their >> value and erect walled gardens around what they do. He disagrees with that >> approach and so do I.
>> Lets keep it simple. Imperfect, but simple.
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM, James_Mathewson <jm...@us.ibm.com>wrote:
>>> I personally don't care for the word, mostly because it creates the >>> kind of confusion that would require a topic like this. And this isn't >>> the only place it's being discussed. I think we should pick another >>> word. Before I make my suggestion, here's why it doesn't make sense to >>> me (apart from the general community confusion the term creates).
>>> I think it makes sense, to a point, to call what we do when we >>> aggregate content curation, because it resembles the act of assembling >>> artifacts for a single user experience, as a curator does when >>> designing a show. But there are more dissimilarities to the curator >>> role than similarities. Curators spend a lot of their time in >>> acquisition and archiving roles. These are not automated but based on >>> their own sensibilities and perspectives. What the user sees is only a >>> fraction of their work. And those roles don't really resemble >>> aggregation much at all. Also, good content curators do more than >>> displaying other people's creations. They build context around them, >>> tell the story of why they've assembled them together (what's the >>> relevance of these pieces and not some others?), etc. The more content >>> curators perform their work like their "real life" counterparts in >>> museums, the less effective they are. In the end, I thing the metaphor >>> doesn't work very well. Just my 2 cents.
>>> I prefer a more descriptive name, such as aggregation editor. The role >>> is primarily editorial. You're building contextual relevance around >>> the set of work you offer the user. You're writing abstracts, >>> adjusting anchor text and headings, all the things a section editor >>> does in a newspaper or magazine. The difference is, rather than also >>> serving as an acquisition editor, you are taking content form an >>> aggregated feed and pulling what you think is most relevant to the >>> audience.
>>> On Jun 23, 11:30 am, James Callan <scarequo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Jared, I appreciate your focus on the distinction between curation and >>> > being a curator. Right now, I'm definitely doing some curation (in the >>> > web sense of the word), but I wouldn't claim to be a curator.
>>> > One thing those who dislike using the word "curation" should keep in >>> > mind: It's not enough to say that's the wrong word. You need to come >>> > up with a term that people will embrace instead, something they >>> > understand as easily and use more frequently.
>>> > James
>>> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Jared Spool <jsp...@uie.com> wrote:
>>> > > On Jun 15, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Amy Thibodeau wrote:
>>> > >> For me there's also a difference between the act of curation >>> (pulling >>> > >> disparate ideas together, making meaning and creating opportunities >>> for >>> > >> experience) and being a Curator (capital 'C'). In my experience in >>> museums, >>> > >> curators (at large institutions) tend to wear one hat and they are >>> often >>> > >> seen as arbitrators of culture and taste and, with a few exceptions, >>> > >> slightly out of touch with the average gallery visitor. It's often >>> the >>> > >> educators and the publishing department that create real meaning and >>> access >>> > >> for a general audience by compiling resources and points of access >>> and >>> > >> engagement. I love museums and think the curatorial role is >>> crucially >>> > >> important; but it tends to happen in a bit of an ivory tower and is >>> driven >>> > >> by the academic interests of the person filling the role, which may >>> not >>> > >> necessarily be what the community wants or needs.
>>> > > I agree with Amy completely about the difference between curation and >>> > > curators. However, this isn’t a unique pairing.
>>> > > Amy was commenting on the difference between the skills and the >>> roles. What >>> > > we’ve found is that you have to separate the two, then, if you want >>> to >>> > > create great user experiences, ditch the roles and focus on the >>> skills.
>>> > > Jared M. Spool >>> > > User Interface Engineering >>> > > 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845 >>> > > e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561 >>> > >http://uie.com Blog:http://uie.com/brainsparks Twitter: @jmspool
>>> > > -- >>> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups >>> > > "Content Strategy" group. >>> > > To post to this group, send email to >>> contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >>> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> > > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> >>> . >>> > > For more options, visit this group at >>> > >http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Content Strategy" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Content Strategy" group. >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<contentstrategy%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
