Why Curation is Better than Filtering
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
Hi, I'm 
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?
Good point Rob. I think you hit on it with POV, while filtering can have a POV, it’s not a necessity.
I don’t know if that makes sense. Does it?
I’d like to think that the act of curating would involve modifying the content, or in the case of internet filtering, putting the content in context with a larger movement. Chartreuse’s former site is a good example. What do you think?
Noah, that’s genius! Curation puts it in the context of art, and art means making choices based on intelligence, practical experience, and a sense of economy tempered with intuition.
(But anyway, I always get gushy inside when people start thinking of everyday life in terms of art. Gives me hope and stuff.)
Rob makes a good point – in a way, curation’s just a stricter level of filtering.
I think what separates the two is intent. When I write a blog entry, to me that’s more like curation – I’m seeking to string together separate thoughts in order to form a bigger argument. Yet when I add something to my linkblog, it’s more like filtering because I’m just passing along something interesting I saw.
But with both, there is an understanding of the audience- like you said, you’re actively looking for stuff to put out for us.
That said, most computer programs are designed with the intent of filtering – finding the items in a list that share a common thread – rather than curating for a specific audience. I’d say social filtering like Amazon is closer to curation, but not quite there yet.
Maybe that’s a rudimentary turing test for artificial intelligence – when you get a list of things and can’t tell whether it was a friend or a computer that recommended it.