Talk:Attention economy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:20, 13 November 2006

This reads somewhat like a research paper...tagged with {importance}. Paul 21:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, I am the original author of this entry and I can assure you that it contains no original research--I was merely trying to summarize work on a concept that is garnering more and more interest given the increasing ability to measure attention in the form of clickstreams, TV shows recorded, etc. The number of people writing on the topic (see references) seems to me indicative of its importance--is there some more formal measure of importance you feel it is not meeting? Ryan Shaw 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Attention economics" is a valid subject, but the article needs work. "Attention economics" drove some of the excesses of the dot-com boom ("clicks and eyeballs" matter, revenue doesn't.) It definitely is a real subject that matters. "Attention economy" might be a more relevant title (300K hits in Google vs 9K for "attention economy"), so I'd suggest renaming the article accordingly.

Also, the mixed XML and Wikipedia markup within "References" is not working correctly. I'd say fix that, change the name, and let people edit it. --Nagle 05:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed to "Attention economy". Fixed formatting in references. Removed essay-type intro paragraphs.

Article still needs work. A section on television (Tivo commercial skipping, history of cable TV vs. ads, ad clutter, product placement, etc.) might come next.--Nagle 20:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed tag from "importance" to "cleanup". It's too long to be a stub, but too narrow to be a good article yet. --Nagle 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious: How can there be a discussion of attention as an economy without an associated discussion of the nature of value? --Smoliar 17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key concept is that time is a different dimension than value; you can't buy more time. --John Nagle 17:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After fixing up the reference to Ronald Coase under "Controlling Information Pollution", it occurs to me that the section on Email Spam seems to outline a "Pigouvian tax" solution, which has little to do with Coase's ideas. --sophocrat 01:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 01:19, 13 November 2006 edit Sophocrat (talk \| contribs) 65 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:20, 13 November 2006 edit undo Sophocrat (talk \| contribs) 65 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 20:		Line 20:
	: The key concept is that time is a different dimension than value; you can't buy more time. --[[User:Nagle\|John Nagle]] 17:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)		: The key concept is that time is a different dimension than value; you can't buy more time. --[[User:Nagle\|John Nagle]] 17:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

	After fixing up the reference to Ronald Coase under "~~applications~~", it occurs to me that the section on Email Spam ~~outlines~~ a "Pigouvian tax" solution, which has little to do with Coase's ideas. --[[User:Sophocrat\|sophocrat]] 01:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)		After fixing up the reference to Ronald Coase under "Controlling Information Pollution", it occurs to me that the section on Email Spam seems to outline a "Pigouvian tax" solution, which has little to do with Coase's ideas. --[[User:Sophocrat\|sophocrat]] 01:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)