Subscribe to Subset
SubsetNon-zero friction
For consumers, this means every touchpoint in the user journey should be slick and smooth and never, ever invoke end user thought. For creators, the friction that must be minimised is the friction that is demonstrably non-value-generating, which equates to the majority of creator workflows and proce
SubsetAnti-audience
To be anti-audience is to deny that audiences are a first principle of digital culture at all. To be anti-audience is to refute the idea that the monopolisation of the many's attention by the few is a precondition of "winning". It is to acknowledge an organic upper bound on one's reach and influence
SubsetThe unreasonable effectiveness of email digests
Like math, recurrent neural networks, big data and protocols, email digests are unreasonably effective. There's a massive asymmetry between the time, energy and expense required to produce them, and the value added for the producer, the recipients and the cultural landscape at large. And that was be
<100 subscribers
SubsetNon-zero friction
For consumers, this means every touchpoint in the user journey should be slick and smooth and never, ever invoke end user thought. For creators, the friction that must be minimised is the friction that is demonstrably non-value-generating, which equates to the majority of creator workflows and proce
SubsetAnti-audience
To be anti-audience is to deny that audiences are a first principle of digital culture at all. To be anti-audience is to refute the idea that the monopolisation of the many's attention by the few is a precondition of "winning". It is to acknowledge an organic upper bound on one's reach and influence
SubsetThe unreasonable effectiveness of email digests
Like math, recurrent neural networks, big data and protocols, email digests are unreasonably effective. There's a massive asymmetry between the time, energy and expense required to produce them, and the value added for the producer, the recipients and the cultural landscape at large. And that was be
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
We're advocating for a new way to save, share and search. This means we're thinking a lot about the modern search experience. One big problem we're focusing on is the surfacing of Dunbar goods. A Dunbar good is composite assemblage of information whose value is legible only to a small, difficult-to-define group. Examples include:
Lists of resources compiled by practitioners and experts
Insight shared through mentorship programs or community workshops
Informal knowledge networks, like meet-ups, societies and group chats
Group- or domain-specific best practices shared in professional contexts
These things are produced by curators—a marginalised group on the web—and overlooked by contemporary search paradigms and means of communication because:
They degrade outside of the local context they emerged within
They're index-resistant, whole-more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts composites
They're created, shared and sustained without regard for value capture
To make Dunbar goods accessible, we're exploring new search mechanisms and developing novel architectures. This involves questioning what a good search outcome even looks like. It means interrogating the difference between awful, bad, good and great search. Here's our proposal:
Awful search outcome: further from finding the thing
Bad search outcome: no closer to finding the thing
Good search outcome: found the thing
Great search outcome: able to ask a better question
Contrary to expectation, there is something worse than not finding the object of one's search. This is the awful outcome of inquiry: you're further away from the objective. That could mean distance—the steps between the objective and your current position have increased. It could mean there's more fear, uncertainty and doubt to wade through. Or it means that there's been a multiplication of the resources required to get from A to B.
The awful outcome is comparatively rare, fortunately. The same can't be said for the bad outcome. Most people have had an experience of searching and not finding. A good outcome is also common. The thing is found; end quest. But a great search outcome? That's a mythical beast. A legendary item.
A great search outcome is decoupled from an instrumental objective—finding or not finding the thing. Instead, it results in a better question. A great search yields a sharper domain map, improved terrain traversal, and clearer connections to other domains. It makes it easier to form and express higher quality queries. This is a revolutionary capability.
Someone exposed to great search outcomes over time sees their ability to ask better questions compound. And the result is profound. Not only do they tend to find things more effectively. They gain a deep understanding of themselves, of others, and of the world around them.
Those are the stakes. That is why we (and others) are pushing for a new way to search. For great search outcomes to become the norm. Because it'll mean better questions that compound into a better world.
We're advocating for a new way to save, share and search. This means we're thinking a lot about the modern search experience. One big problem we're focusing on is the surfacing of Dunbar goods. A Dunbar good is composite assemblage of information whose value is legible only to a small, difficult-to-define group. Examples include:
Lists of resources compiled by practitioners and experts
Insight shared through mentorship programs or community workshops
Informal knowledge networks, like meet-ups, societies and group chats
Group- or domain-specific best practices shared in professional contexts
These things are produced by curators—a marginalised group on the web—and overlooked by contemporary search paradigms and means of communication because:
They degrade outside of the local context they emerged within
They're index-resistant, whole-more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts composites
They're created, shared and sustained without regard for value capture
To make Dunbar goods accessible, we're exploring new search mechanisms and developing novel architectures. This involves questioning what a good search outcome even looks like. It means interrogating the difference between awful, bad, good and great search. Here's our proposal:
Awful search outcome: further from finding the thing
Bad search outcome: no closer to finding the thing
Good search outcome: found the thing
Great search outcome: able to ask a better question
Contrary to expectation, there is something worse than not finding the object of one's search. This is the awful outcome of inquiry: you're further away from the objective. That could mean distance—the steps between the objective and your current position have increased. It could mean there's more fear, uncertainty and doubt to wade through. Or it means that there's been a multiplication of the resources required to get from A to B.
The awful outcome is comparatively rare, fortunately. The same can't be said for the bad outcome. Most people have had an experience of searching and not finding. A good outcome is also common. The thing is found; end quest. But a great search outcome? That's a mythical beast. A legendary item.
A great search outcome is decoupled from an instrumental objective—finding or not finding the thing. Instead, it results in a better question. A great search yields a sharper domain map, improved terrain traversal, and clearer connections to other domains. It makes it easier to form and express higher quality queries. This is a revolutionary capability.
Someone exposed to great search outcomes over time sees their ability to ask better questions compound. And the result is profound. Not only do they tend to find things more effectively. They gain a deep understanding of themselves, of others, and of the world around them.
Those are the stakes. That is why we (and others) are pushing for a new way to search. For great search outcomes to become the norm. Because it'll mean better questions that compound into a better world.
Matthew McDowell-Sweet
Matthew McDowell-Sweet
1 comment
"A great search outcome is decoupled from an instrumental objective—finding or not finding the thing... A great search yields a sharper domain map, improved terrain traversal, and clearer connections to other domains. It makes it easier to form and express higher quality queries." https://paragraph.xyz/@subset/great-search