Enter attention.xml. Of course it monitors my attention list, noting what feeds are in what order. Then it pays attention to what items I read, in what order, or if not, then what feeds I scan, and for how long. The results are packaged up in an attention.xml file and shipped via some transport (RSS, FTP, whatever) to Technorati. Dave has some ideas about what he will provide in return: "If you liked these feeds and items, then here are some ones you don't know about that you may want to add to your list."

But the real power comes in a weighted return feed that works like this: OK, I see who you think is important and what posts are most relevant to your interests. Then we factor in their attention.xml lists weighted by their location on your list, average the newly weighted list based on this trusted group of "advisors", and return it to your aggregator, which rewrites the list accordingly.

Dave Winer says this guy’s full of shit. I’m not sure why, or it if’s sarcasm. In a lot of ways, what Steve Gilmore wrote about sounds like syndicating whuffie and what Gary Lawrence Murphy of TeledyN wrote about republishing RSS items read and rated from one’s news aggregator.

<p>Sounds like the next one of the next steps this tech needs to take to hit a new level of intelligence, forming a minimum-effort feedback loop from writers to readers and between readers themselves.  What did I read today, and was it interesting? What did you read today, and was it interesting?  What did we both read and both find interesting?  What did you read, and find interesting, that I didn&#8217;t read and <strong>might</strong> find interesting?  And then, back around to the author again, what of your writings was found very interesting, and (maybe) by whom?</p>