Skimming through my flickr photos and looking at my blog posts I’m slightly weirded out at what people will find “interesting” (for interesting I’m taking this as the the stuff that get’s the most clicks compared with everything else).
I don’t create stuff thinking “Ohhhh yes, people will find this interesting this will gain me squillions of clicks. I’ll be crowned the click master”. I generate lots of tweets, take random photos and blog about things I think are interesting. (Careful, I’m running the risk of getting terrible reflective and ending up in a hall of interesting mirrors)
My photos on flickr have a modest number of views. Nothing stretches into the squillions. The top picture is a picture of Mr Chris Unitt of Created in Birmingham fame & elsewhere. Next is a picture of Nicktheowl pressing his face up against a door on a train back from a Tom Jones gig. (I did share that picture of twitter so that may explain it’s popularity) Then a picture of Citizensheep and a picture of my bookshelf at home.
The most popular posts on the blog are about FAILcamp, people you should follow on twitter and my ongoing campaign to get John Wyndham on the Birmingham Walk of Stars.
I guess what I’m stabbing at here is the notion of interesting, popular, clickable and the disconnect between what I think will be interesting that I generate and what actually attracts clicks from people.
But there’s part of me that worries that my consideration of what’s interesting won’t actually be, you know, interesting.
(Obviously I’ve now created an artifical popularity for those pictures and posts by reposting their details so this now ceases to be an accurate representation of anything at all and should be ignored.)