The community is very important. But there's something to be said for the ability to filter properly - there was a blog post on HN recently discussing how aggregate sites end up with the lowest common denominator. What ends up on the first page is only a small % of the submissions that are actually interesting. I probably miss half of the stories that I would like just because they fall off before I even see them.
The question is, how do you figure out what's interesting to who? Joel is attempting to answer this for himself. A site that could answer it for everyone while still somehow maintaining social bonds would do very well I think.
I have been working at it with http://hubski.com. In short, you choose people to filter content for you based on what they post, and what they share. You in turn choose what to pass on to those who follow you. It's been working pretty well.
I'm still working on recommendations. There are suggestions once you follow someone. It's a good way to get started, but the best way to get good content is to hand pick folk based on what they have shared.
Absolutely... the spirit of reducing waste and consumerism is admirable, but this guy is being ridiculous by claiming that he only owns "15 things". Not only is he missing the point, but his hyperbole is out of control. A toiletry kit is 1 item? Right.
Actually, the OP provides a fairly insightful definition of "item":
I count my things as resellable items I would be pissed if someone took.
By this definition an "item" is "one emotional connection to an object", not merely an object itself.
Yes, this means that the guy carries around many more physical objects than he counts as "items". This seems emotionally healthy, though, if one can afford it. And affording it is easier than ever: This is not the 18th century, and underwear is so cheap that, were a pair to be stolen, you're out the cost of a cup of coffee.
(By his own definition, I wonder whether the OP really "owns" a toiletry kit. Even a moderately fancy toiletry kit is worth maybe twenty bucks and can be replaced in ten minutes at any drugstore. And they're certainly not resellable. So I tend to suspect the OP's toiletry kit appears in this list mainly for branding purposes: He doesn't want to give readers the impression that his style of minimalism involves never taking a bath. ;) And he doesn't want to get into a lengthy debate over underwear and soap: As he makes clear in the rest of the post, his goal in life is not to ever think or worry about underwear or soap.)
By this definition an "item" is "one emotional connection to an object", not merely an object itself.
This would be a pretty odd definition of an "item". Going with this definition though, I (and suspect quite a few others) don't have more than 1-2 "items", or even any at all. I can't think of a single (physical) object I have emotional connection to, as long as I am reimbursed so that I can replace it it's business as usual.
You may find it quite alien, or perhaps hilarious, or both, but I've met quite a few people on the hoarding spectrum, and it is decidedly not fun.
And I'd venture to say that most people have something with significant emotional resonance that they'd be loath to lose it. A wedding ring. Objects inherited from one's late grandparents. A few pieces of custom-built tools, furniture, or clothing that fit you perfectly.
I think the truth is somewhere between the two hyperboles. Gram Hill's minimalism as an overriding cause is taken to completely silly extremes. However, the principle of getting rid of shit you don't need (and better yet, not buying shit you don't need in the first place) is quite sound.
Tasker for Android can do all of the things mentioned in the post to create a "bedroom mode", plus much, much more:
http://tasker.dinglisch.net/index.html
(on Android market too but the direct version is cheaper)
It's like a GUI scripting engine for your phone. Very similar to Locale, but you don't have to pony up for extra plugins to do fancy stuff. Well worth the asking price.
I'll second this suggestion. In my experience so far, webapp2 is a great way to get beyond some of the stranger idiosyncrasies of the default webapp without being overwhelmed or completely throwing away the benefits of Google's extensive documentation. If you like an extension or modified feature, use it. If not, do the way Google tells you to and it'll work just fine.
If you use nothing else, the extended routing functionality and lazy loading of handlers are big improvements and are pretty painless to implement.
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback trb. The site is targeting a fairly specific market... basically, people who are planning events that normally have gift-giving associated with them. Weddings, baby showers, engagement parties, and the like. It's common practice to make a gift list somewhere so that people know what you want. I could probably do a better job of immediately communicating that on the site.
I'm most definitely not a designer by trade, so the typography tips are much appreciated.
Ah, that was what my assumption. In that case, you are likely targeting everyone, so you should make it very clear what the benefit of your service is. Be very blunt, maybe something like "Manage your gift-getting for any occasion".
The question is, how do you figure out what's interesting to who? Joel is attempting to answer this for himself. A site that could answer it for everyone while still somehow maintaining social bonds would do very well I think.