And now, come July 1st, it will be no more.
The amount of information I gather on Reader in one-minute spurts, sprinkled throughout my day, still feels incredible. And best of all: the feeds are my own selection. As much as I love "discovering" content on Twitter, I adored tending my own garden, filling platform with feeds specific to my tastes. So my sentiments match those the Reddit thread dedicated to the shutdown, or the Twitter hashtag #savegooglereader, or the Hitler video (an old meme resuscitated for an old platform), or the Change.org petition: How can Google say 'don't be evil' and then kill off a product so beloved?
我花一分鐘用Reader收集的信息量就能充實我一天的生活,這一點至今仍然讓我覺得不可思議。最了不起的是,它提供的內容都是我自己挑選的。正如我喜歡在Twitter上“發現”信息一樣,我熱愛打理自己的花園,在院子里放滿我喜歡的內容。所以我的心情就跟Reddit網站上致力于改變這個決定的人們一樣,也可以用Twitter的標簽#拯救Google Reader、或者網上流行的惡搞視頻《元首的憤怒》來形容(古老的人物因為這個古老的閱讀平臺而蘇醒),還像Change.org上的請愿書一樣:谷歌怎么可以一邊說著“不作惡”,一邊砍掉一個如此深受用戶喜愛的產品呢?
Google's explanation is terse: "There are two simple reasons for this: usage of Google Reader has declined, and as a company we're pouring all of our energy into fewer products. We think that kind of focus will make for a better user experience."
谷歌的解釋簡明扼要:“有兩個簡單的原因:其一,Google Reader的使用量已減少;其二,作為一家公司,我們正在將所有的精力投入到更少的產品上。我們認為,這樣的專注度能夠創造更好的用戶體驗?!?/div>
Both points are no doubt true. Or true-ish. Usage may have declined in sheer number of users, but Readers are a powerful bunch: We are nerds!
這兩點毫無疑問是真的,或者至少大約是真的。用戶使用率可能確實降低了,但Reader的用戶群是一幫網絡達人:我們是網蟲??!
Reader drives more traffic to websites than Google+, the social-media project Google seems focused on. This is a shame, and I'm not just saying that because I will miss Google Reader terribly, but because Reader was a brilliant little social network. Emphasis on little. Even though Google took away most of the neat sharing functions in 2010, when it rolled out Google+, it still was one of the best ways to find stories and pass them on: on Twitter, Facebook, or even email.
與谷歌看重的社交媒體業務Google+相比,Reader帶來了更多的網站流量。這很丟人,我這么說并不是因為我會非常懷念Google Reader,而是因為它確實是一個很出色的小型社交網絡。注意小型這個詞。盡管谷歌在2010年推出Google+時砍掉了大多數優秀的分享功能,Reader仍然是搜索新聞、同時通過Twitter、Facebook甚至郵件傳播這些消息的最佳途徑之一。
In a comprehensive look at the service, Rob Fishman summed it Reader's role in the social web thusly: "Facebook may well achieve an equilibrium, but it is social to a fault; the network, like a heaving, many-headed Narcissus, rallies mostly around itself. Reader pivoted on the fulcrum of content, unearthed and spread in equal parts."
羅伯?費什曼全面分析了Reader這項服務,還總結了它在社交網絡中扮演的角色:“Facebook在保持平衡上做得很好,但是它過于偏向社交了。它的網絡就像起伏不定的多頭水仙,緊緊環繞著自身。Reader則以內容為支點,破土而出,同時擴展到所有部分?!?/div>
That's it exactly.
此言不虛。
Reader was a space for a very specific type of information junkie to gather and share other bits of information with other junkies/nerds. So Google is shutting Reader down because there weren't enough nerds to make it worthwhile. Fine. Google is a massive company and no doubt sees better ways to make money.
Reader是一個平臺,幫助那些特定的信息狂人收集信息,同時和其他狂人分享信息。然而就因為沒有足夠多的網蟲來凸顯Reader的價值,谷歌就把它關了。好吧。谷歌是一家巨型公司,它當然知道什么是更好的生財之道。
To my mind this speaks to a larger problem on the social web. The titans (Google, Facebook) don't seem content building smaller, more precious sideshows—they want to be the platform, the body to the many-headed Narcissus.
我覺得,這個變化凸顯了社交網絡一個更大的問題。那些巨頭(谷歌、Facebook)似乎不滿足于提供小型的精彩雜?!麄兿胍蔀楠毎蕴煜碌钠脚_,成為能長出多頭水仙的軀干。
But why does there have to be just one social network, one platform, when we contain multitudes?
但是當我們包容萬物時,為什么只能有一個社交網絡,一個平臺呢?
來源:可可英語 http://www.ccdyzl.cn/read/201303/230681.shtml