<?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: Signal to noise</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bobpickard.com/signal-to-noise/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bobpickard.com/signal-to-noise/</link>
	<description>Global communications counsel, international PR firm builder.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:05:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Terri MacMillan</title>
		<link>http://bobpickard.com/signal-to-noise/comment-page-1/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>Terri MacMillan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:42:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bobpickard.com/?p=83#comment-5</guid>
		<description>hi Bob, and thanks for doing this - you&#039;re exactly right about your stream being signal, not noise.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hi Bob, and thanks for doing this &#8211; you&#8217;re exactly right about your stream being signal, not noise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Linn</title>
		<link>http://bobpickard.com/signal-to-noise/comment-page-1/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>James Linn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:08:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bobpickard.com/?p=83#comment-3</guid>
		<description>Thanks for that point on signal/noise ratios. Even before the advent of social networking, I&#039;d used this term on some technical website that I hang out in, ones that have threaded discussions, both discussions started from articles or blog posts, or user initiated discussions. 

The definition in that kind of context is around the qualitative nature of the debates that rage, whether its Mac versus PC or watercooler debates around politics. 

Those whose debating style includes personal insult and hyperbole fall into the &quot;noise&quot; side, while those who chose to use logic and facts create signal.

Sadly none of us are perfect and we each generate both signal and noise in our internet postings. That should not stop us from attempting to raise our own signal to noise ratios and encouraging others to do the same.

James</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for that point on signal/noise ratios. Even before the advent of social networking, I&#8217;d used this term on some technical website that I hang out in, ones that have threaded discussions, both discussions started from articles or blog posts, or user initiated discussions. </p>
<p>The definition in that kind of context is around the qualitative nature of the debates that rage, whether its Mac versus PC or watercooler debates around politics. </p>
<p>Those whose debating style includes personal insult and hyperbole fall into the &#8220;noise&#8221; side, while those who chose to use logic and facts create signal.</p>
<p>Sadly none of us are perfect and we each generate both signal and noise in our internet postings. That should not stop us from attempting to raise our own signal to noise ratios and encouraging others to do the same.</p>
<p>James</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

