Idea: Reversed news

[muzrix]

First of all pardon me in advanced if my english doesn't make sense to some but i try to define my ideas that got struck me yesterday the best i can.

Here is it: news/articles based on people comments, contrary to traditional way which the news/articles that people comments on. In other word, comments that produced a news rather than news that generated comments. It work like this: people will given a specific topic (or any topic at all) to comment on. from all that comments then a selected few that relevant or the best in that sense will be a based on or references as to produced the news or an articles.

I dont know if this make sense, but if anybody got what i mean, please describe it better. Is it something like that?

[natemartin]

If I'm understanding you correctly, how is this different from something like reddit or digg? You can read the discussion on reddit before reading the actual news.

Unless I'm misunderstanding.

[muzrix]

yes u misunderstood it.

on reddit/digg, people submit the actual news link that generated the comments based on that news

my idea is, people submit the comment first on any specific topic that result people produced a 'news' based on that comments

[natemartin]

Perhaps "news" is the wrong term to use then?

In my mind, news if referring to an event that has occurred (even if that event is the stating of someone's opinion)

Maybe "article" is a better term, or even "essay".

Someone chooses a topic, people discuss it, and then someone works that discussion into an essay about that topic.

[Raphael]

This is like contextual advertising, such as Google Adsense.

[muzrix]

probably but with actual human touch instead of bot

[bgnm2000]

Isn't that called a forum?

[frossie]

I don't think that is what the OP is saying, but maybe I misunderstood too.

It's kind of like a forum where at the end somebody writes an article describing the pertinent information in the thread. It's an interesting suggestion - not sure what the practicalities are, but you know those forum threads where entry #1 is a question ("How do I do X in Y"), #2-5 are requests for clarification, #6 is an answer, #7 points out the answer is wrong, #8 is another answer, #9 is a caveat on the answer, #10-#12 are ofshoots about whether #6 is wrong, #13-#15 are about somebody's avatar, and so on.

So I think the OP is postulating an "article" that says "In order to do X in Y, and as long as #9, then #8." where this "article" was caused by the forum thread.

[muzrix]

EXACTLY, thanks for the details :) may be the practicalities is stil unseen but i think it is fun to know that your comments getting buzz. maybe we can call it custom news, similar to threadless doing custom shirt where at the end the highest vote got selected