Here's a quick follow-up to last night's post.
Earlier today, Ryan Block asked:
Why should I be concerned? People aren’t coming to Engadget to read about gadgets from 2006, or 1996, or 1896 — they’re coming to read about what’s going on today. Still, I love that PopSci, so this is gravy!
Ryan is absolutely right. In fact, he's pointed out to me that Engadget does not fill the same void as PopSci. People aren't going to his site for the archive, but rather, the very latest and greatest, and so much so that most of the content on Engadget is exclusive and they are the first ones to post about it. They could probably delete all of their archives older than 3 years and nobody would be able to tell.
Mr. Block also loves that PopSci gravy, which means that it's likely the audience can see those two sites as separate flavors and sample a little of column A, and a little... well, you get it.
I also like how Ryan responded to my post within 9 hours of my writing it. Maybe if I drop Megan Miller's name in here a few times, she will notice it in her Google Alerts too and come check out the blog.
Actually, I really like what Megan Miller of PopSci has been doing with the 5-minute projects on the site. There is certainly some room for improvement, but she mentioned in this week's podcast that PopSci is working with Instructables on these videos, though she didn't say in what capacity.
Mmmm, meta-journalism, hot and fresh! I really feel like I've been writing a story about the story of PopSci these last few days. Both in my Twitter stream with Etan asking about the particulars of my new job, and Jeremy direct messaging me as I drove to the office this morning, and now these past few days on my blog. I'm not the story here, the magazine is, and Megan Miller is, and Jonathan Coulton, and Bonnier, a family company. As are Eric and Seth and Sway, and also the folks over at PingVision. I haven't told the whole story, nor is it in the scope of these blogs to attempt to tell that whole story, just a story around the story.