I agree with what you’re saying about the value of mystery and not knowing our audience all the time. I absolutely like that. I’m not really trying to get more people to look at my old stuff; I’m actually trying to find a better system to remember what I’ve written and thought and talked about while I am looking at what others are saying using the same terms. in other words, who else has tagged an articel “cinquecento” and “tagginging.”

I want to keep growing rather than going around in circles. I want it all, I guess. I should have said that better in the post. it was rather a wild ride through those ideas, but it sure was fun to think about. I won’t stop my inner weaving; I’ll just add to it a better use of tagging.

bg

I also think that like many, you undervalue your unknown audience and how they may use/find your “old” stuff. Its been a long time lesson that you largely never know your audience was there; only a small segment leave an imprint via comment or link, you don’t know where the enter or exit, and most people interact with your work w/o any trace. Sure, you can can some sense of this by detailed analysis of log files (which to me is as enticing as reading a software agreement); but I have always been sublimely intrigued by an unknown silent invisible audience.

So I think it is pointless to try and guess whether “old” content has a value; my rule of thumb long and has been- if you ever create anything on the web, you have birthed a URL, and you should do all in your power to never remove it– it is akin to yanking out your own body’s cells or nerves. The web we weave is not a set of boxes or files we need to purge or willy nilly throw out- it is an organism, and removing pieces from it hurts the ecosystem or has consequences we cannot forsee.

And… since you are devoted to linking; ahem, that last link featuring my name goes to Stephen Downe’s article; which I would love to take credit for, but cannot…..