Jon Oringer Quotes

I'm a big fan of editing and keeping only the interesting bits in.

That's why editors and publishers will never be obsolete: a reader wants someone with taste and authority to point them in the direction of the good stuff, and to keep the awful stuff away from their door.

I've built a network that curates interestingness. In my universe, it encompasses thousands and thousands of filters and people, each person being a filter. So it's kinda cool. Like I've created my own utopia, removing the boring stuff and showing only the amazing stuff.

We need to build systems that can automatically figure out what's high quality and what's not, and encourage users to contribute high-quality content. There's a lot of technical challenges in that.

I want Facebook to pick the best 20 items to show me every single time I refresh that screen.

All sorts of factors contribute to what Facebook or Twitter present in a feed, or what Google or Bing show us in search results. Our expectation is that those intermediaries will provide open conduits to others' content and that the variables in their processes just help yield the information we find most relevant.

I'm pretty quick to delete something off of my phone if it's become obsolete. And things like RSS readers have made life easier - all of the headlines are going to be related to a topic I'm interested in.

The more material there is, the more need there is for filters. You don't need a printing press anymore, but you do need people who know how to cultivate sources, double-check information and put the brand of legitimacy on it.

Anything you see on the screen was at one point approved by me.

Getting out any weekly magazine requires many hours of reading, choosing, discarding, and thinking beyond the obvious.

I think Facebook has a lot of work to do to make sure people are seeing meaningful things and not garbage.

We'll turn down crappy games that are submitted to the Epic Store.

I don't do that much telly because I want quality, not quantity - you've got to be happy with what you're putting out.

A great problem of the internet is how to filter information, how to discard what is not relevant or what is silly and to keep only the important information.

Somebody else does the rigor and then I listen. I have an assistant, and my manager, and other people who hunt and find and send it to me, and then I just figure out which ones I can do justice to.

It's just as valuable to curate content as it is to create it.

I would like to see us shake-in, instead of a shakeout, in the sense that it's true that there's a lot of junk online, and we have to filter it and so forth.

I will only do something if it has credibility for me, and that includes the films I make, the TV shows I judge and ad-campaigns I sign up for.

The thing with newspapers is that they are a filter. We're relying on the editors of that paper to be a filter and to tell you that this is worth reading about, this is quality, and this is quite reliable.

Epic will manually curate the Epic Games storefront rather than relying on algorithms or paid ads.

You have to be careful not to go overboard. How do you balance what is clearly great television with good journalism?

I think the curation consternation is this: Just because you like something or list something, are you really curating?

Television is like a library. There are a lot of library books in it, and you have to pick and choose what you take out of it.

Even if you are a superstar, you have to give your audience some content. Because there is so much good content out there that people consume today. To sustain this, you have to nurture good content and writers.

There are lots of new products and new services making adding content easier. But there's not many people on the other side helping users digest that content.