I kinda see what they're trying to do. In theory, if a person reads a bunch of articles on a topic, over time they should become an "expert" on that topic.
It seems they're pushing it a little far, to be honest. I'd say "expertise" is way too strong of a word for arbitrary knowledge gained by reading news on the internet. At the very least there should be some kind of testing component. I can click through every link on HN, but that doesn't mean I've learned, or even read, anything.
On the other hand, reading through their blog, perhaps the whole thing is a clever troll poking fun of the triviality of most "startups."
Expertise is definitely too strong of a word, especially for where we are at right now... we need to refine our copy.
Our goal is to eventually build in some testing mechanisms but right now we are primarily focused on testing out our tagging accuracy. We will probably roll out some form of time-on-site metric soon that will modify the tag's relevancy score to determine how much credit you should actually earn. In addition we've played around with some word-relationship stuff and it actually wouldn't be that hard for us to roll out some form of auto-generated quizzes. Again, a lot of this is very new and we are open to any feedback...
It seems they're pushing it a little far, to be honest. I'd say "expertise" is way too strong of a word for arbitrary knowledge gained by reading news on the internet. At the very least there should be some kind of testing component. I can click through every link on HN, but that doesn't mean I've learned, or even read, anything.
On the other hand, reading through their blog, perhaps the whole thing is a clever troll poking fun of the triviality of most "startups."