Monday, July 28, 2008

Lifehacker still thinks Delicious is yummy

Following Mike Arrington’s most recent “Delicious 2.0 is about to launch!” post there were a few comments along the lines of: “WHo the hell cares about Delicious 2, 3 or 4?” and “Wow, people still use delicious?” But there were many more comments like this one that perfectly captures my thinking on the subject:

Knock delicious all you want. It is still my favourite bookmarking tool because it is so lightweight and non-obtrusive. I’m keen to see the next version but I do not truthfully care. I will always choose any tool that provides the most value for me (and right now, delicious is it). I’ve been keeping my eye on other services and products — but I crave the simplicity of delicious.

Today, Lifehacker’s Gina Trapani added another vote of confidence. In a Macworld article, the Lifehacker editor revealed the Webapps her team uses for their Virtual Office:

With a social-bookmarking service like, co-workers can share bookmarks with each other using tags. Finding and sharing good Web links is what we do. So finding a way to share new links—without interrupting the entire team with an e-mail or IM every time we come across a good one—is crucial. Instead, we save it in the social bookmarking service (Lifehacker’s publishing company, Gawker Media, uses social bookmarking service Wists to do the same thing.)

Whenever one of us finds something that’s relevant on the Web, we add it to with a unique in-house tag. The rest of us subscribe to that tag’s RSS feed, so we can peruse the recommended links at our leisure from our newsreaders. In essence, the bookmark tag acts as a low-overhead company blog. We also use the site’s for: tag—any bookmark that I tag with for:ginatrapani will show up in my Links For You area.

Now, I’m pretty confident that Delicious is the best bookmarker out there. Of course, I don’t know everything (for example, I’d never heard of Wists). But if there were a better bookmarking service out there, I expect the smart folks at Lifehacker would have found it.

No comments: