andrew said:
> subscribers value the implicit filtering of the library.

i'm sure some do.

today.

this year.

tomorrow? maybe.

next year? maybe not.

before long? certainly not.

"implicit" filtering will mean very little, if anything at all,
once collaborative filtering establishes its rightful place.

specifically, if the collaborative filter says a book stinks,
it won't matter what the "implicit" filtering says about it.

now, perhaps you don't think that publishers like yourself
need to fret that, since you know your books don't stink...
maybe you're even thinking you will _benefit_ from that,
since then both filters will be recommending your book...

but that thinking ignores the more important dynamic...

if the collaborative filter says that a book is _worthy_,
its "implicit" filtering for that book will be meaningless.

indeed, even if the book has _zero_ "implicit" filtering
-- i.e., doesn't have some fancy publisher's imprint --
that's irrelevant, since you know the book _is_ worthy,
because it was rated that way by people _just_like_you._

this means that the author of a _worthy_ book will not
benefit from any "implicit" filtering, and thus will not be
willing to trade anything of value in order to obtain it...

(and won't suffer from that decision in the marketplace.)

but, of course, if an author isn't willing to trade enough
so that you can pay you a salary, you'll not be interested.

will you?

in other words, you will run out of authors simultaneously
with the world being over-run with content just like yours,
much of it available for free, and just as findable as yours...

and this is how dinosaurs go extinct in the age of mammals.

-bowerbird