<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wifikartan: A study in a service that loses its meaning</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.angner.se/blog/wifikartan-a-service-that-loses-its-meaning/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.angner.se/blog/wifikartan-a-service-that-loses-its-meaning/</link>
	<description>Interaction Design Technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:05:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted</title>
		<link>http://www.angner.se/blog/wifikartan-a-service-that-loses-its-meaning/comment-page-1/#comment-44</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:55:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.angner.se/?p=990#comment-44</guid>
		<description>Hi Mårten!

I have been meaning to write and answer for quite a while. Here it is!

To begin with, thanks for a great post. I really appreciate such good and well articulated feedback.

As you know, Wifikartan.se part of a network of websites. I&#039;ve been trying to keep the sites as simple and similiar as possible. Simplicity has been my guiding principle. Therefore I have avoided adding features to the site that make them different from each other. 

Wifi-spots, restaurants, beaches, churches etc can all be reviewed along a bunch of different critieria. Signal strenght (for wifi), parking spots (for restaurants), dangerous water currents (for beaches), priest quality (for churches) etc etc. It goes on and on. My thought as been: If you want to review  these things the best way to do it in text. So if you think a priest is talking to loud, you just write so. If you think there are too many kids on a beach, you write so. If you think there are too few electical sockets at a wifi-spots, you write so :)

True, in order to find the best place to go to, you will have to read the other reviews. There is no &quot;aggregate function&quot; for these things, but if you read the reviews you will quite quicky realize which wifi-spots are good and which are bad. 

When it comes to the ability to remove a place from the website: That actually exists already. If you click the link &quot;update info about this place&quot; you can put a tick in the box &quot;this place has closed&quot;. Or you can write a short note saying that the place has closed. 

This, however, is obviously not communicated well enough. If you didn&#039;t realize that, then probably very few people do. :)

I will try to look at that shortly, making that functionality easier to spot. 

In the meantime, I&#039;m monitoring all the reviews, and if someone writes that a place has closed or uhnplugged their connection, I remove it manually. :)

The biggest &quot;problem&quot; though, is very few of the users contribute. A lot of people read the reviews, but quite few write reviews of their own. The more people that actively contribute to the site, the better it will become, for everyone.

Therefore you are a very important user, and I hope to see you back. :)

Ted</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Mårten!</p>
<p>I have been meaning to write and answer for quite a while. Here it is!</p>
<p>To begin with, thanks for a great post. I really appreciate such good and well articulated feedback.</p>
<p>As you know, Wifikartan.se part of a network of websites. I&#8217;ve been trying to keep the sites as simple and similiar as possible. Simplicity has been my guiding principle. Therefore I have avoided adding features to the site that make them different from each other. </p>
<p>Wifi-spots, restaurants, beaches, churches etc can all be reviewed along a bunch of different critieria. Signal strenght (for wifi), parking spots (for restaurants), dangerous water currents (for beaches), priest quality (for churches) etc etc. It goes on and on. My thought as been: If you want to review  these things the best way to do it in text. So if you think a priest is talking to loud, you just write so. If you think there are too many kids on a beach, you write so. If you think there are too few electical sockets at a wifi-spots, you write so :)</p>
<p>True, in order to find the best place to go to, you will have to read the other reviews. There is no &#8220;aggregate function&#8221; for these things, but if you read the reviews you will quite quicky realize which wifi-spots are good and which are bad. </p>
<p>When it comes to the ability to remove a place from the website: That actually exists already. If you click the link &#8220;update info about this place&#8221; you can put a tick in the box &#8220;this place has closed&#8221;. Or you can write a short note saying that the place has closed. </p>
<p>This, however, is obviously not communicated well enough. If you didn&#8217;t realize that, then probably very few people do. :)</p>
<p>I will try to look at that shortly, making that functionality easier to spot. </p>
<p>In the meantime, I&#8217;m monitoring all the reviews, and if someone writes that a place has closed or uhnplugged their connection, I remove it manually. :)</p>
<p>The biggest &#8220;problem&#8221; though, is very few of the users contribute. A lot of people read the reviews, but quite few write reviews of their own. The more people that actively contribute to the site, the better it will become, for everyone.</p>
<p>Therefore you are a very important user, and I hope to see you back. :)</p>
<p>Ted</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

