<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://s2.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/newyorkobserver/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Betabeat &#187; READING</title>
	<atom:link href="http://betabeat.com/tag/reading/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://betabeat.com</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress.com site</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 01:29:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language></language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='betabeat.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://betabeat.com/osd.xml" title="Betabeat" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://betabeat.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
				
		<title>The Difference Between Things Clicked &#8216;Read Later&#8217; and Things That Actually Are Read Later: LifeSlackers</title>

		<comments>http://betabeat.com/2011/12/lifehacker-readers-12092011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 17:02:14 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://betabeat.com/2011/12/lifehacker-readers-12092011/</link>
			<dc:creator>Foster Kamer</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.betabeat.com/?p=23798</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><div id="attachment_23808" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 310px"><img class="size-medium wp-image-23808" title="Angry animal ... a monkey in India." src="http://nyobetabeat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/monkey-reading-paper.jpg?w=300&h=225" alt="" width="300" height="225" /><p class="wp-caption-text">Read this NOW.</p></div></p>
<p>Yesterday, content-saving service <a href="http://readitlaterlist.com/" target="_blank">Read It Later</a>—which, like <a href="http://www.instapaper.com/" target="_blank">Instapaper</a>, allows you to save the web pages you want to read eventually but don't have time for quite right now—released a list of data about the most "Read It Later"-clicked authors on the entire whole big bad Internet, which goes hand-in-hand with their celebration of the surpassing of four million users.</p>
<p>But that wasn't the only list they released.   <!--more--></p>
<p>Here's the first one, of those authors who got 'Read Me Later'd' the most:</p>
<p><center><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-23805" title="1_saved_authors (1)" src="http://nyobetabeat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/1_saved_authors-1-e1323466843427.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="832" /></center></p>
<p>Note:</p>
<ul>
<li>Lots of gadget readers!</li>
<li>Lots of tech readers!</li>
<li>And a whole bunch of efficiency strategy readers!</li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;<br />
But why is that chart so much different from this one, which presents the writers whose writing was actually read later?</p>
<p><center><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-23804" title="2_return_rate" src="http://nyobetabeat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/2_return_rate-e1323466949285.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="861" /></center> </p>
<p>Note:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Distinct Voices Win</strong>: Deadspin's crew populates this list more than any other. So do big names, like Bill Simmons, and scandal-driven short-reads that might be a little NSFW (see: Gawker's Maureen O'Connor). A lot of these writers have a cult of personality; the dedication to them shows.</li>
<li><strong>Essayists Dominate: </strong>Some things are just better read when you have nothing else to do if only for length.</li>
<li><strong>Breaking news writers lose readers: </strong>TechCrunch and BoingBoing lose prominence on lists like these if only because the things TechCrunch writes about often lose relevance in the news cycle after only a day, let alone a few hours. BoingBoing, which is usually an early-adopter of news-like memes—or memes that become news, for that matter—loses prominence because the content they start goes everywhere.</li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;<br />
But really, there's one very obvious reason why the top of these lists are so different:</p>
<p>Look at the first one again.</p>
<p>Ever been to <a href="http://www.lifehacker.com" target="_blank">LifeHacker</a>? There's a reason people are reading it. It's a site about making one's life more efficient.</p>
<ul>
<li>Either LifeHacker readers are doing a great, great job about making their lives more efficient, or</li>
<li>Lifehacker readers are doing a terrible job making their lives more efficient. And need to read Lifehacker more.</li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;<br />
That is all.</p>
<p><em>fkamer@observer.com </em>| @<a href="http://twitter.com/weareyourfek" target="_blank">weareyourfek</a></p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><div id="attachment_23808" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 310px"><img class="size-medium wp-image-23808" title="Angry animal ... a monkey in India." src="http://nyobetabeat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/monkey-reading-paper.jpg?w=300&h=225" alt="" width="300" height="225" /><p class="wp-caption-text">Read this NOW.</p></div></p>
<p>Yesterday, content-saving service <a href="http://readitlaterlist.com/" target="_blank">Read It Later</a>—which, like <a href="http://www.instapaper.com/" target="_blank">Instapaper</a>, allows you to save the web pages you want to read eventually but don't have time for quite right now—released a list of data about the most "Read It Later"-clicked authors on the entire whole big bad Internet, which goes hand-in-hand with their celebration of the surpassing of four million users.</p>
<p>But that wasn't the only list they released.   <!--more--></p>
<p>Here's the first one, of those authors who got 'Read Me Later'd' the most:</p>
<p><center><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-23805" title="1_saved_authors (1)" src="http://nyobetabeat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/1_saved_authors-1-e1323466843427.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="832" /></center></p>
<p>Note:</p>
<ul>
<li>Lots of gadget readers!</li>
<li>Lots of tech readers!</li>
<li>And a whole bunch of efficiency strategy readers!</li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;<br />
But why is that chart so much different from this one, which presents the writers whose writing was actually read later?</p>
<p><center><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-23804" title="2_return_rate" src="http://nyobetabeat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/2_return_rate-e1323466949285.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="861" /></center> </p>
<p>Note:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Distinct Voices Win</strong>: Deadspin's crew populates this list more than any other. So do big names, like Bill Simmons, and scandal-driven short-reads that might be a little NSFW (see: Gawker's Maureen O'Connor). A lot of these writers have a cult of personality; the dedication to them shows.</li>
<li><strong>Essayists Dominate: </strong>Some things are just better read when you have nothing else to do if only for length.</li>
<li><strong>Breaking news writers lose readers: </strong>TechCrunch and BoingBoing lose prominence on lists like these if only because the things TechCrunch writes about often lose relevance in the news cycle after only a day, let alone a few hours. BoingBoing, which is usually an early-adopter of news-like memes—or memes that become news, for that matter—loses prominence because the content they start goes everywhere.</li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;<br />
But really, there's one very obvious reason why the top of these lists are so different:</p>
<p>Look at the first one again.</p>
<p>Ever been to <a href="http://www.lifehacker.com" target="_blank">LifeHacker</a>? There's a reason people are reading it. It's a site about making one's life more efficient.</p>
<ul>
<li>Either LifeHacker readers are doing a great, great job about making their lives more efficient, or</li>
<li>Lifehacker readers are doing a terrible job making their lives more efficient. And need to read Lifehacker more.</li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;<br />
That is all.</p>
<p><em>fkamer@observer.com </em>| @<a href="http://twitter.com/weareyourfek" target="_blank">weareyourfek</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://betabeat.com/2011/12/lifehacker-readers-12092011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://nyobetabeat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/monkey-reading-paper.jpg?w=300&#38;h=225" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Angry animal ... a monkey in India.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://nyobetabeat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/1_saved_authors-1-e1323466843427.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">1_saved_authors (1)</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://nyobetabeat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/2_return_rate-e1323466949285.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">2_return_rate</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
