Hi Dirk,
In order to reply to you in a way people will be able to follow, I am going
to concentrate my answers (per point) here:

1) PlanetR doesn't encourage the adding of new feeds. No where on the site
is there a "contact page" or a "submit new feed" form. I give the full
credit for the site (especially since it was first built in 2007), but to
say one can add itself to the feeds is not paying attention to the details
(BTW, I added my blog www.r-statistics.com to it the other day, and hope to
see that the site is still maintained).

2) R-bloggers doesn't intend to be the feeder of all the content on R, but
only on the bloggers content on R. It is (in my book) useful for both
bloggers about R (wanting to know what to respond on), and
to beginner/non-expert R users who are simply looking for content to follow
(not Wiki or CRAN updates). Dirk, just because you are not that audience
doesn't mean that there are no people who can benefit from it.

3+4) As I answered Romain - if you are used to working with a G-reader not
R-bloggers nor PlanetR are of any use to you (in my book), since you can
just add all the feeds by yourself. But again, for first degree students, I
would direct them to R-bloggers, instead of trying to teach them RSS (in
case they didn't know it by themselves), and not to PlanetR.

5) e-mail updates has an advantage. Since I wrote about this site two days
ago, I already got 4 people subscribing by e-mail, and about 6 more bloggers
asking to be added. I think this proves that there might be room for this
service.

6) Regarding the related article - here is how I do it:
http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/yet-another-related-posts-plugin/
And for random reading, it is sometimes better the nothing (especially when
we are talking about large volumes of content).
But you are welcome to ignore it if you wish.

To sum up: I believe (and hope) that http://www.r-bloggers.com/ can offer
something of use to the R community.


Dirk, even if I didn't agree with you at full on all points I would still
like to say that I appreciate your conversation, and thank you for it.
With much respect,
Tal
















----------------Contact
Details:-------------------------------------------------------
Contact me: Tal.Galili@gmail.com |  972-52-7275845
Read me: www.talgalili.com (Hebrew) | www.biostatistics.co.il (Hebrew) |
www.r-statistics.com/ (English)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org> wrote:

>
> Tal,
>
> For completeness:
>
> On 5 December 2009 at 22:32, Tal Galili wrote:
> | 1) Planet R is limited (for years) to 26 feeds only, and I don't remember
> | seeing it evolve to include (or allow inclusion) of new R blogs that came
> | around.
>
> That was already addressed by Romain. It would appear that you didn't
> really
> try too hard to find out how to add content there.
>
> | 2) The feeds are of blogs and non blogs (such as wiki or cran updates).
> That
>
> A good thing in my book as the _aggregator_ that PlanetR is frees me from
> having to follow a number of other feeds. And e.g. I would have gotten some
> of the literature update feeds etc.
>
> | 3) In PlanetR, one can only view (about) 5 days back and no more
> (R-bloggers
> | allows viewing of much more then 5 days back).
>
> Non-issue when you use a reader like Google Reader which keeps history.
>
> | 4) R-bloggers allows searching inside the content, PlanetR doesn't.
>
> Non-issue when you use a reader like Google Reader which gives you Google
> search for your feeds, all your read posts, just particular feeds, ...
>
> | 5) R-bloggers allow one to get e-mail updates, PlanetR doesn't.
>
> Good heavens, as if I needed more email. Procmail currently filters into
> sixty some buckets already ...
>
> | 6) R-bloggers offers "related articles", PlanetR doesn't.
>
> I am not sure what 'related articles' would be and why I'd care. Let's
> scratch that one.
>
> All that said, more choice is always better, and I am sure we all benefit
> from your little endeavour.  Your motivational 'elevator pitch', however,
> may
> seem to need a bit more work.  Good luck.
>
> Dirk
>
> --
> Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]


