readwriteweb.com — Web users interested in personalization, privacy and increasing sophistication in their applications take note: APML (Attention Profiling Markup Language) gained substantial momentum today with the announcement that two of the long-time leaders in the RSS reader market, NewsGator and Bloglines, are joining the official APML working group.
Oct 15, 2007 View in Crawl 4
cozmoz365Oct 16, 2007
Part officer????
cleverclogsOct 16, 2007
Aaronyu700's comment is spam. Means nothing in this context. Reported.
Closed AccountOct 16, 2007
Buried because it's just Chris Saad aka Faraday Media (www.faradaymedia.com) aka Exigent Studios (www.exigent.com.au) aka Red Shift (www.redshift.net.au) aka Catalyst (www.incatalyst.net) aka Equinox (www.equinox.net.au) aka inCast (www.incast.net) aka WhatsTheGo (www.whatsthego.net) trying to promote/spam his own business using digg, and you all fell for it. You'll have to use www.archive.org's WayBackMachine to see most of those sites, because they're all his old business names/aliases and cross-linked business ventures. Particls (www.particls.com), Engagd (www.engagd.com) and the subject of this digg, apml (www.apml.org - under the guise of being a workgroup), are just his latest. Don't be fooled.
marshallkOct 16, 2007
Curious what your point is.
Closed AccountOct 16, 2007
I imagine you would be, since you wrote the article in question.One wonders why so many of those sites have dropped off the face of the internet, and why so many of the trading names have been "retired".It is clear to anyone watching from the outside that this is an intricate marketing attempt, now exploiting digg along with many other social networking sites, to make "APML" appear as some kind of standard when in fact it is simply a product of a business being run by the Australian proprietary company Faraday Media.This entry on digg is, therefore, spam, pure and simple. Anyone willing to do a little Google can see just what's going on here. That there are, of writing, 112 diggs for this, and 8 comments (4 of which are spam, and none of which address the subject of the article itself), raises serious questions about how that many diggs appeared for something that no one seems to be actually interested in, or understand enough to make a simple comment about.Digg spam.