Oct 27
2006
Why Curation is Better than Filtering
What seperates humans and computers is the ability to curate rather than filter.
Don't mean to hang on the word tip for another entry, but this is something I've been thinking a lot about lately.
For a while we've been talking about what all these bloggers and companies are doing online as 'filtering': They are helping bring news I want to me without all the other stuff. In fact, that's how I thought of myself, especially the sidenotes (for those that don't visit the site, they're on the homepage), which are just links to other places that I think are interesting. I've talked about it a fair amount in the past, even suggesting in an iMedia article that marketers need to become filters for consumers.
While I don't deny the value in filtering, I've decided that from here on out I've got a new word.
Curation.
The word suggests I'm actively looking after what I put out there for you guys, rather than just passively filtering by something like title or category.
What's really interesting to me about this idea is that I think it's what separates humans from computers: In the future computers will filter and humans will curate. While the computer will help and be fairly accurate, it won't know the audience well enough to recommend a far out story that doesn't fit in the algorithm.
So, welcome to NoahBrier.com: Carefully Curated Since 2004
I just looked up "curate" and "curator" on dictionary.com. The best definition it supplies is something to the effect of "one who organizes, administers or oversees an art collection, museum, etc." What I think you're trying to get at is rather than just filtering, you're trying to convey the fact that there's a definite POV. Which, in some ways, "curate" might actually work, since it can connote that meaning. However, human filtering does take this into account, since we pay attention to things based on our areas of interest. Wait: Are we back to square one?