Wikipedia and Democracy

According to this article form The Register, Wikipedia gouvernance is evolving and the direction seems to be pointing towards oligarchy. Here's a quote from the article:

Controversy has erupted among the encyclopedia's core contributors, after a rogue editor revealed that the site's top administrators are using a secret insider mailing list to crackdown on perceived threats to their power.

Web 3.0

Define Web 3.0 Contest - Winners of Web 2.0 Expo Tickets

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/define_web_30_contest_winners.php

The Day Digg Users Revolted

You should all check out what is happening with Digg.com right now.

Threatened because of their publication of a master key unlocking all copy protected DVDs, the creators of Digg had taken the story of the site. Due to the uprising of the community they have decided to follow their voices and leave stories on, whatever happens.

Could this be web 3.0 ? Where the community is empowered to decide what the website does, even if it means it could disappear, effectively "owning" it

http://blog.digg.com/?p=74

Coke + Second Life

Cokes newest viral marketing campaign: Second life, you tube and my space are all involved.

"The contest is simple: design a new Coke machine for Second Life. The execution of the challenge, however, is the unique factor that bears mentioning.

Submissions will require entrants to visit the MySpace and YouTube pages that Coke has set up for the contest, which in essence, implements a socially integrated marketing strategy that many have predicted would be the next big promotional movement by the major brands."

For the whole article see the following link: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/04/17/coke-expands-viral-marketing-efforts-online

OECD on the Participative Web

The OECD has recently issued this report on the participative Web and user-created content. This is a very important document tackling some of the questions we have pondered in class:

This study describes the rapid growth of UCC, its increasing role in worldwide communication and draws out implications for policy. Questions addressed include: What is user-created content? What are its key drivers, its scope and different forms? What are new value chains and business models? What are the extent and form of social, cultural and economic opportunities and impacts? What are associated challenges? Is there a government role and what form could it take?

Happy reading!

cheers,
B.

virb.com

if you haven't checked out virb yet, you should. this site wants to be the answer to myspace's sketchiness and last.fm's laziness - hip and sleek and attractive, all in one. and even if that sounds boring, it's worth reading "virb - advanced social networking", which is circulating as the most comprehensive review of the (i must say) kickass site. join or don't join, but it's impressive/interesting to see how it's branding itself and trying to make it into the web 2.0 majors. and it's not all talk - this site is beautiful, technologically smart and works WELL.

- essie

ps - they opened virb up to everybody on march 07 and dropped the "invite only" tag.

also on btb.

Web Regulation 2.0

Featured in Wired Magazine:

Tim O'Reilly's response to controlling data flow on the web.Can this really (help) regulate the internet?

This "good conduct" badge business is like kindergarten all over again, but I guess it might work...

Sharing Secrets Online

The site I mentioned today in response to the presentation on Online Support Groups is:

www.mysecret.tv

The site was created by LifeChurch in Oklahoma, and an article in the New York Times appeared in September 2006:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/us/01confession.html?ex=1314763200&en=87d1db65eec43d47&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The technology has changed since the site first appeared. The look has been redesigned (much more Web 2.0 than when I first saw it), and there are now options for community involvement(feedback, etc). Tags have been added, as well as videos. It is interesting to see the site now, as opposed to when it was first emerging. Perhaps elements like videos and tags were incorporated to increase trust?

Second life + branding = ?

This article shows how marketers are having a tough time with Second Life. Or when housewives and college kids rule the virtual marketing world.

Flickr

www.Flickr.com

Flickr.com is a Yahoo! owned company that is specialized in the exhibition of people’s photos on the web. In my opinion it is the YouTube of the still picture world. They describe themselves as “almost certainly the best online photo management and sharing application in the world” and state that their two main goals are to help people share their photos with those who matter to them whether it is just friends and family or the public, and to allow for new ways to organize ones photos.
Their 1st goal is achieved by getting photos in and out of the system in as many ways as possible. The “in” part is managed through the web, mobiles, personal computers, and it is compatible with any software that can be used to manage photos on the computers. As for the “out”, it is made possible simply through the website or through RSS feeds, email, and blogs.
Their 2nd goal is attained by a process of collaborative photo organizing by allowing friends, family and other contacts arrange the user’s photos by adding comments, listing notes and adding tags. All this information gathered makes it easier to find the photos later because it all “accretes around the photo as metadata”.
When I first looked at Flickr, my thoughts were leaning more to it being a network oriented society than a community based one. Having read and explored the site more, I find it to be leaning more towards a community oriented site. First of all because people on Flickr have one joint interest which is pictures, whether they are looking at friends and family photos or competing with other members for the top spots, or learning techniques from other members, it is all concerning one thing. Secondly it is because of the way this site promotes itself as a community with guidelines of what is acceptable and what isn’t.
Other reasons for why I believe it is a community oriented society is because it is governed by in a democratic manner and its morphology is collective opposed to individualistic. As Castells states in his article that “The consolidation of shared meaning, through crystallization of practices in spatio-temporal configurations creates cultures, this is systems of values and beliefs informing codes of behavior”, which sounds like Flickr.com.
The way it connects between technology and social dynamics is that the technology itself aids in building and tightening those social ties. It is the technology which allowed for the social dynamic to exist. Also the demands of the society brought the technology together to do it.
The site “content” fits into the picture in that it has collected a library of pictures that are so impressive they should be published. It doesn’t stop at picture sharing for family and friends it is more of showing off your art and discussing techniques.

Master of Simplicity

I found this website - and the author's book - to be pretty relevant to the post on multitasking. John Maeda is a graphic designer and part of the MIT faculty. Regarding his book, one of the authorities on management says, "Our lives and our businesses are faster and broader than ever. As such, they are also more complex and difficult to manage, for both customers and managers. Therefore, achieving simplicity in both our products and our organizations will be crucial for securing market share. No one has seen this more clearly than John Maeda, the Master of Simplicity."

Ahhh, Zen, quand tu nous tiens...

Imeem: Another hybrid monster

There is a thin line between the idea of a community and that of a network. As such, Imeem (www.imeem.com) is another hybrid creation that boasts to socially connect people amongst themselves through an array of media-sharing features. This includes the possibility of sharing videos, photos, music as well as playlists, blogs and groups. The latter categories of playlists, blogs and groups demonstrate that Imeem members have the ability to share their tastes and thus their common values. Hence, amidst this array of networks that enable individuals to share their media content, there is also the option to go beyond the superficial stage of a network and look deep into Imeem’s well of sociodigitization in order to find communities that subsist due to their shared meaning. Therefore, just as Facebook is a network in which communities can be formed, so is imeem. In essence, it is another creature, a hybrid beast resulting from the union of a community and network. It is a website where collaborative filtering is omnipresent and where technology reveals the physical shapes of the networks that connect people. However, just as technology shapes social dynamics, it merely organizes the content that is present on the imeem website. Although one can say that the content-organization process found on imeem may lead to sharing more than just media, it is hard to imagine what goal is shared by the website’s members that makes Imeem a community rather than a network. In his book entitled “Internet Galaxy”, Manuel Castells discusses the idea of community networks by using the example of the Mexican Zapatistas who promoted solidarity via a virtual network on behalf of exploited Indian minorities. So where is Imeem’s communitarian side? What do these members share concretely aside from a few megabytes of mp3’s or jpeg files? Some see Imeem as an “open source” network, where the act of sharing media content is perceived as a new social endeavor and can thus constitute the shared meaning of its members, therefore making the website a form of community. The answer to whether Imeem is a network or a community is not that simple because it demands of one that he define something that is in the making. Technology shapes our social structures, thus with the speed at which technology is changing social structures, perhaps to state that a new form of sociability is being created might not be so far-fetched. With the idea of mass sociability, which focuses around the idea that a certain incentive drives a loosely connected mob or crowd, one finds that the terms network and community are getting increasingly closer to each other in the context of virtual social interaction. For now, Imeem is only in its Beta version, and does nothing more than allow its users to share data under a system of “folksonomy”, where each individual can tag his or her favorite pics, videos or mp3’s. It is a network, but with features that are sometimes strikingly close to that of a community.

BBC Takes a Quick Look at Digg

More about Diggs... here they refer to it's functions as social networking tools although they are tools that promote a social community feel.

http://www.pronetadvertising.com/articles/bbc-takes-a-quick-look-at-digg.html

http://www.pronetadvertising.com/articles/diggs-unknown-social-networking-functionality12437.html

Selling Communities

Check this out.

What's interesting is that the most important selling point (and that was even more evident in the first version of the auction) is the community and the possible financial benefit it represents.

To multitask or not to multitask?

This article on the NYT has quite a lot to say on that matter and underscores what many recent studies have shown. Multitasking is very often not increasing performance but actually hampering it. Here is what the experts recommend:

Check e-mail messages once an hour, at most. Listening to soothing background music while studying may improve concentration. But other distractions — most songs with lyrics, instant messaging, television shows — hamper performance. Driving while talking on a cellphone, even with a hands-free headset, is a bad idea.

Aha!

YouTube Videos onTV

Aha, another case of convergence is seems. CBS plans to show YouTube et al. videos on regular broadcast TV. Read more about that here. Wonder how those blocky clips will do on people's shiny new plasma screens...

boyd

tomorrow's reading is rad (well, most first monday articles usually are i suppose). i just wanted to officially state that i am jealous of this author. if i had spent 2003-2006 doing "ethnographic research" on friendster and myspace...well, i would feel like i had wasted a lot less time, that's for sure.

a demain!

PPTs online, info, etc.

Hi all,

Here is some info after todays session:

• By popular request I put the powerpoints of the last five session on Blackboard.
• Here is the link to "The Big Meshup", the video I showed in class.
  
• For a lot of very informative statistics and studies, PEW / Internet is a very good address.

See you soon,
B.

First Life

Liked Second Life ?

Check this out

Extra Session, Program, RFC

Hi all,

I'm using this post to build / announce / enhance the program for our extra session on march 24. If you have wishes / suggestions / needs feed free to comment below. Current elements are:

• The Internet - How does it work
• Using search engines, queries, operators and tricks to search with more precision
  
• Useful tools for the Information hunter & gatherer

cheers and enjoy your trip!

PEW and Web 2.0

Renouwned research insitution PEW Internet&American Life Projet has some interesting data on Web 2.0 in this findings summary. Especially the Wikipedia vs. Encarta and the MySpace vs. Geocities graphs are quite interesting...

B.

Google Analytics: The Marketing Frankenstein

The idea behind the Google analytics concept is that of website optimization. Briefly explained, this consists in maximizing the number of visits to one’s website, but also in studying the demographics and statistics that would help the website’s creator or manager in reaching his or her goals.

Google’s presentation of this service explains that it is about “acquiring, converting and retaining customers” hence a priceless Web 2.0 tool for e-business varying from small to big business.

Google analytics is an invaluable free service for e-business websites because it allows for its profit maximization via marketing and statistical tools available at the user’s request. A perfect illustration of the marketing tools available is the Marketing Optimization section of the website, which determines the number of visits, the pages viewed per visit and the cities or geographical locations from which most visits originate.

Within the visitor statistics, the subsection entitled “visitor loyalty” gives an overview of the number of visitors who return to the website and their visit frequency. This in turn is also linked to the conversion rate of Google Analytics illustrated by its “Goal conversion tracking” subsection and its “conversion summary.” In summary, a conversion rate consists in the number of visitors that reach the goal set up by the website. In short, this goal is whatever the goal of the website is, thus ranging from membership registrations to downloads and product sales.

Although Google Analytics is a free service, it is sustained by the company’s patented technique of advertising called AdWords. According to Google, AdWords’s main innovative techniques are pay-per-click (PPC) advertising and site-targeted advertising for both text and banner ads. It also allows the targeting of groups on an international level as well as on a local or national level. In addition, it also allows the user of Google Analytics to exploit or maximize his or her campaign strategies by looking at the number of conversions that are due to the campaigns undertaken in the form of referral links (Campaign conversion) as well as the number of conversions with regard to the referral sources(Source conversion).

What is to be remarked with the geo-targeting of advertisements and its site optimization goals is that Google Analytics is a new approach to marketing. According to its creators, it is a “new cross-disciplinary approach” that encompasses the roles of executives, marketers, content developers, merchandisers and webmasters.

Google Analytics also distinguishes itself by the fact that it is a free online tool that is characteristic to Web 2.0. It allows implicit and explicit data to be managed for site optimization purposes; this, in turn, can be viewed as a form of collaborative filtering for it allows to optimize marketing strategies based on visitor data.

Nik Bhowmick

Viral Marketing; Friend or Foe?

This is an interesting article for those of you hot on the Viral Marketing trail:
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/1850.asp

Rebecca Weeks takes a look at Viral Marketing's potential for growth and clear advantages.

Need visitors? Buy them!

There is a nice article over at Wired News that shows quite well that the social news movement might run into problems sooner than later. The author hires a company to get his bogus blog into the rankings and is quite pleased with the results:

U/S had done what it promised: The company had helped me buy my way into Digg popularity, and my site traffic had gone way up -- overnight, I'd been hammered with so many hits that the diggers had to set up a mirror.

B.

Henry Jenkins on Broadcasting vs. Grassroots

In his rather well known article "The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence" (available on Blackboard in "additional materials") from 2004, Henry Jenkins draws the following picture on the question of broadcasting vs. network models of information circulation:

Imagine a world where there are two kinds of media power: one comes through media concentration, where any message gains authority simply by being broadcast on network television; the other comes through collective intelligence, where a message gains visibility only if it is deemed relevant to a loose network of diverse publics. Broadcasting will place issues on the national agenda and define core values. Grassroots media will reframe those issues for different publics and ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard. Innovation will occur on the fringes; consolidation in the mainstream.

Is this where we are heading? Or are we already there? I quite often think about this quote from EPIC 2015:

At its best, EPIC is "a summary of the world — deeper, broader and more nuanced than anything ever available before ... but at its worst, and for too many, EPIC is merely a collection of trivia, much of it untrue.

The point is that the benefits of the current media multiplication many only reach those that already have a critical and cosmopolitan worldview - and the others getting stuck with Jerry Springer.

B.

Sarnoff, Metcalfe, GFN?

The change from a broadcast dominated model of mass communication to a network oriented ecosystem that includes many-to-many interaction is perhaps the most important change in communication structure since the explosion of the printing press.
I recently re-read this article written by the MITs David P. Reed, in which he makes the argument that there are three stages of value production in the history of modern electronic communication, each described by its own "law": the first one, named after David Sarnoff, states that in a classic broadcasting system, the value of a network is equal to its viewers. According to the second, Metcalf's law (named after the inventor of Ethernet, an important networking standard) the value a communication structure with connections between every node (like the Internet) is proportional to the square of the number of users it has.

But Reed doesn't stop there; he goes on to distinguish a third kind of network that "directly enables and supports affiliations (such as interest groups, clubs, meetings, communities)". In such a network structure, which he calls Group Forming Network (GFN), value scales even faster, exponentially that is.

While I think that the mathematics behind his approach is bogus (as others have shown: potential for connection does not equal connections made - that fact that every user on the net can connect to every other doesn't mean that they actually do), I think that this paragraph fits perfectly into some of the questions we have been looking at:

What's important in a network changes as the network scale shifts. In a network dominated by linear connectivity value growth, "content is king." That is, in such networks, there is a small number of sources (publishers or makers) of content that every user selects from. The sources compete for users based on the value of their content (published stories, published images, standardized consumer goods). Where Metcalfe's Law dominates, transactions become central. The stuff that is traded in transactions (be it email or voice mail, money, securities, contracted services, or whatnot) are king. And where the GFN law dominates, the central role is filled by jointly constructed value (such as specialized newsgroups, joint responses to RFPs, gossip, etc.).

This seems rather fitting for the whole Web 2.0 thing, doesn't it? The article is from 1999 though...

B.

Viral Videos, sun, etc.

Ladies and Gs,

From sunny Montpellier I send you our last session's viral video links and more...

First, there is angry man, a video that wasn't part of any marketing campaign but one of those videos that got emailed around a lot in the 90ies and thereby showed marketeers how big "contageous communication" could become. Don't try this at home though...

One of the first companies to turn the idea into a campaign was outpost.com. The company has vanished into oblivion but the tattooed kids continue to get the message out there.

While these two videos fall into the "funny" category, k-fee built an entire campaign around the also quite social idea of "play a trick on your loved ones/friends/co-workers". An example and another one. Turn up the volume for viewing pleasure...

The Blair Witch Project was a lowest budget movie ($35.000 production cost) that went on to become one of the major hits of 1999 (it grossed about $250.000.000, not counting DVD sales). Why? Probably because it had a viral campaign that was based on ambiguity (is it real or not?) and fit perfectly with what Henry Jenkins calls "provoke and reward collective meaning production". I just remember that my then boss at the web agency I worked at was on a major sugar high for at least a month. You can look at some of the trailers on youtube and there are parts of the original campaign online. This article has some of the viral background.

Anyways, I am in love with BlendTecs "will it blend" campaign - so simple and so pure. So will it blend? Golf balls, a golf driver, the iPod, .... Look at how many people saw that clip and think about how much it cost to produce that thing.

But as I said in one of my last posts about the Chevy Tahoe ads, viral can backfire. The moment you put something in the hands of the wired public / interactive audience it is difficult to stop the process. This happened with the Tahoe but also with the Sportka (1, 2). After Ogilvy decapitated that poor cat (3DSmax cat that is), the responses were not necessarily friendly as the press recounts.

And finally: how much do you think Sony spent on this very nice ad? You'll have the answer after the break...

To understand the crucial shift from a "broadcasting dispositif audience" to the interactive and connected audiences we have now, just consider this citation by Jeff Bezos (amazon.com, founder) in this interview: "Word of mouth is very powerful online, so that if you make a customer happy, they can tell 5,000 people. And if you make them unhappy, they'll certainly tell 5,000 people. So each customer can be his or her own ombudsman, and that's just bound to shift the balance of power toward the customer. "

do have a nice break,
B.

Google Analytics

This system of Google Analytics has come as a shock to me and it hit me how much more advanced the internet is than I ever knew. EPIC 2015 seems to be more of a reality than I had originally imagined. What I found most fascinating about it is that it doesn’t only give you the raw data metrics but also a detailed analysis of the meanings behind those metrics. The attention to detail and hard work that was put into to this project is obvious and it would be a shame if companies don’t learn from it and take advantage of it. Also its user-friendliness and thorough instructions and explanations make the experience of surfing through those options more satisfying.
Under the marketing section of the site, I found the “Campaign Conversion”, “Entrance Bounce Rates” and “Cost-Per-Click” parts were of supreme importance and although it doesn’t show much information on our blog, I can imagine the variety and quality of the information it could provide in a real situation. Also under the webmasters section I found the “web design platforms” extremely interesting. By knowing the different applications, systems and speed of the visitor’s computers helps to further customize the contents to improve their viewing and to cater to their needs. Further I can imagine what this kind of information does for, for example, online computer sites, internet providers, software companies and so on.
The options to have the information on excel or to print or the calendar and the ability to navigate through the daily, weekly or monthly reports are also great to clarify the overall picture to the analyst allowing them to present or strategize accordingly.
So with the help of effective methodology, like the ones mentioned in the “A practical evaluation of web analytics”, this raw data can be used to create effective strategies in enhancing the goal of the website to exist as well as the visitors experience.

Google Analytics Overview...

Google analytics is a program which allows website administrators to view critical data and detailed statistics about their website. Although digitally and technologically advanced, it presents information in a clear and concise manner with a variety of summaries, statistics, and graphs sectioned according to the appropriate category. These include how many people are viewing your site, what country your visitors are clicking from, how they are being directed to your site, and if they are inclined to return or not. Web statistics on Google analytics display information that can be extremely useful especially in marketing. The information which was once obtained by using expensive and at times inaccurate database marketing techniques is now available free of charge on the net. Google Analytics allows website administrators to understand the efficiency of their website through various click through rate, cost per click, and keyword advertising statistics and equations. While the global internet blog is not a lucrative revenue generating website (yet), if it was we could easily access vital visitor information so that we could attract as many visitors as possible and keep them returning to the website. Although not necessarily a precursor for success, maintaining a substantial and loyal visitor base can be a very powerful characteristic in the hopes of luring online advertisers.

From a sociocultural and business perspective, we can see that the more our personal lives are being encompassed by the internet, the more our behaviors are being analyzed and monitored on the cyberspace in which we behave. While most of us are used to services on the internet such as search engines and email accounts being free of charge, in fact, when we use these services, important information about our internet behavior is being extracted, analyzed, and at times manipulated. So in essence, while the internet is the public grounds where users are free to communicate and facilitate important issues in their lives, personal privacy has become a major concern.

Google Analytics

According to Wikipedia.com, Google Analytics is “a free service offered by Google that generates detailed statistics about the visitors to a website.” The main advantage that Google Analytics offers is that a webmaster can utilize their AdWords advertisement and marketing campaigns through the use of the site’s analysis of where the visitors are from, the time period they spent on the website, and where in the world the user is.
Google Analytics was modeled on Urchin Software Corporation's analytics system, Urchin on Demand (wikipedia.com). Google continues to sell the standalone installable Urchin software through a network of value-added resellers. In 2005, Google Analytics debuted, and anyone who desired its services were allowed. With the type of service Google analytics was offering however caused an enormous demand, and as a result, new sign-ups were suspended only a few days later. This in itself is revealing about the importance of web analysis of such type. As capacity was added to the system, Google began using a lottery-type invitation-code model. Wikipedia explains that, “Prior to August, 2006 Google was sending out batches of invitation codes as server availability permitted; since mid-August, 2006 the service has been generally available (wikipedia.com).”
Google has been working to improve system performance, and reports now generally update in less than 1 hour. All users can officially add up to 10 site profiles, and "pre-free" customers can add up to 50. Each profile generally corresponds to one URL.
GA's approach is to show basic dashboard-type data for the casual user, and more in-depth data further into the report set. There are currently over 80 distinct reports, each customizable to some degree. GA also offers three dashboard views of data, Executive, Marketer, and Webmaster.
Google Analytics uses a small JavaScript on each page the user wishes to track. This JavaScript loads files from the Google webserver and then sets variables with the user's account number. The GA reports interface will check for the presence of this script on a tracked site's homepage, and warn should it not be available.
Many ad filtering programs and extensions (such as adblock) block the Urchin JavaScript. This prevents some traffic and users from being tracked, and leads to holes in the statistical data. Also, privacy networks like Tor will mask the user's actual location and prevent accurate geographical data.
Following extensive time spend on Google analytics, examining its processes while looking at a report on the Global Internet Collaborate Blog page, the functioning and effectiveness of Google analytics is better understood. According to Google Analytics, there has been 215 page visits. These visits are seen to peak on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Considering the users of the site attend class on both of these days, it is not surprising, and seems reliable that this information is true. Secondly, the main visitors to the site are returning visitors rather than new visitors. However, the percentage difference is not considerably different between new and old users. Visits by source reveals that the main source feeding to the Global Internet page come from the Blogger.com. However, there are also various other pages feeding to the internet blog, including other specific blog pages on blogspot.com. Next Google Analytics displays the georgraphical location of those accessing the website. The main location is France, which as well is logical. Europe is the site of most access, however there also include many others from around Europe. The United States is also home to visitors of the site, which could likely be attributed to the fact that many of the contributors to the site are American, have travelled back and forth to the states, or have spoke with friends and family in the states. Interestingly, there is a high level of visitors from China and other Asian countries. What is interesting as well about this geographical analysis, is that following the request of a friend in Tuscon, Arizona to access the blog, the user indeed did show up on the site. Therefore, the accuracy of Google Analytics is evident.
Above all, the accuracy of Google Analytics is clear. The high demand for the service makes it evident that in an age of Web 2.0, attention is of the utmost value. By having access to an analysis of attention, Google Analytics offers those in desire of attention and hence value, a complete analysis and the possiblilty to increase views with more knowledge of the site’s usage.

Google Analytics: Goals

Where ?
All Reports>Content Organization>Goals & Funnel Process

What ?
- Goal Tracking
- Goal Conversion
- Defined Funnel Navigation
- Defined Funnel Abandonment
- Reverse Goal Path
- Goal Verification

Why ?
The Goal function enables you to set a certain page as a goal, a target, and to analyze the ways of getting there, you can learn who visits a goal page, but also create a funnel, a set of pages that lead to a target and therefor observe the percentage of users that go to the end of the series of pages.
In the business sector this can be particularly useful, because it allows you to monitor a check-out process and see if and when people give up on buying your products, and if there seems to be an obvious problem change the page that creates that problem.

VM is delicate business

While Viral Marketing is an interesting technique if you've got the right product and strategy, it can backfire quite easily. This article by Rohit Bhargava analyzes "5 Signs Your Viral Marketing May Flop". From his negative points, we can easily deduce criteria for what might actually work...

Make sure to check out some of the user generated advertisements from the Chevy Tahoe campaign Bhargava refers to.

B.

The Long Tail/Viral Marketing

Here's a site that uses the idea of the long tail:

http://www.3wk.com/

This on-line streaming radio station allows users from all geographical locations to listen to bands they might not have otherwise been exposed to prior to the space-time compression brought about by the internet. Physical location is no longer an obstacle for listeners who want to discover bands from different parts of the world who do not conform to conventional pop culture.

This site also acknowledges the importance of viral marketing; it encourages users to recommend the site to others:
http://www.3wk.com/share3wk.php

Viral Marketing

Probably one of the first and certainly one of the most succesful viral marketing campaigns of the Internet age was the promotion of the indy horror movie "The Blair Witch Project". Read about it here.

B.

vault

And www.vault.com is Web 2.0

This site is aimed for professionals and jobseekers, who would like to explore job opportunities, as well as for the employers who are looking for qualified working labor. The site offers services, as its founders say, as “set of community tools designed to allow jobseekers, students and professionals to share insider information on their career and education paths”.
Most noticeable Web 2.0 characteristic is allowing costumers to post their content or messages on the site that enables interaction. Costumers can share information among themselves.
Site offers opportunity consumers to make a base of their data (CVs). That enables employers to search through the work force they need. It offers variety of links for finding jobs from many different spheres, for different level of education . Posting a job, enables mutual interaction between consumers and the site itself, as well as between jobseekers and employers.
Consumers with their posts, messages and communication enrich the site-content. They are also generating new consumers of the site: other users discover the content and link to it. This is like harnessing collective force to make build the site.
The site has variety of links that guide towards other sites for finding job and job-offers. For example www.vault.com has link for www.info.monster, site for employers and job-seekers, also, which main logo is “bring people together to advance their lives”. Both sites refer one on another.
Site has links of companies that were most active at current month, week or 50 top companies at all time, of best school etc, also links for student loans…
Enriching the site comes also with blogging, also one of the main characteristic of web 2.0. All bloggers have a side-list of other bloggers (users) who are potential consumers of this site.
Another form of interaction between costumers and web-site are also offers for subscription for free for some magazines. This is also a way of attracting new users.

The difference between CF & personalization in the context of the web.

Collaborative filtering, also known as a recommendations system, is the method of making automatic predictions (filtering) about the interests of a user by collecting taste information from many users (collaborating). CF’s underlying assumption is “those who agreed in the past are likely to agree again in the future”. Those automatic predictions are specific to the user, but the information is collected from many users. Many different types of CF exist; some examples are active filtering, passive filtering, and item-based filtering. Some websites that use collaborative filtering include but are not limited to Amazon, NetFlix, TiVo and Musicmatch. It is demonstrated in Amazon when for example you are viewing or purchasing a book and then they advertise other books stating “customers who bought items in your recent history also bought...” This shows how Amazon used other customer’s collaborative information that is specific to the user by filtering his/her information (items purchased or viewed).
Web personalization is based on the individual’s interests. It is usually based on implicit data such as pages viewed and purchases made. If it were to use explicit data such as ratings and preferences or if the user was able to make changes within the website then it would be called customization. There are 'two types of personalization in the context of the web: rule-based and content-based. Rule-based personalization filtering is based on “if this-then that” rules processing as well as collaborative filtering. In Christina Ricci’s article “Personalization is not technology: using web personalization to promote you business goal”, she states that “web personalization is a strategy, a marketing tool, and an art”. She also said that:
“Personalization, properly implemented, brings focus to your message and delivers an experience that is visitor-orientation, quick to inform and relevant. Personalization, poorly implemented, complicates the user experience and orphans content”
From the way I see it, collaborative filtering and web personalization are extremely closely related. I find that collaborative filtering is a somewhat a form of personalization. However their biggest difference is that one derives information from like-minded individuals, the other from the user’s him or herself. Collaborative filtering has the benefit of being fast and more efficient in computation, allowing for quicker results and feedback. The disadvantage of collaborative filtering is that it may lead to less reliable recommendations. Like web 2.0 applications, the quality of recommendations improves with an increasing user population size. Personalization on the other hand may give more individualized recommendations but may also be limited by a lack of recommendations. Both should consider the ethical implications when designing their strategy so that they don’t infringe on the user or other user’s privacy. They are both necessary for building relations and acting as marketing tools therefore they should be carefully constructed with the best design and calculation architecture in order to optimize results.

Collaborative Filtering/Personalization

Collaborative filtering and personalization are two processes by which websites are able to gain users’ attention. By offering recommendations that are relevant to the user either based on the suggestions of others (collaborative filtering) or based on the previous buying/viewing patterns of the active user (personalization), sites are able to focus users’ attention to products that they might enjoy, which could lead to an increase in purchases made by the users.
Collaborative filtering is the process of generating recommendations for products for one user by collecting information of many previous users regarding their taste choices. This process exemplifies the idea of Web 2.0; users generate reviews and ratings of products that are then used to aid other users in finding products that they might enjoy as well. The more users rate products, the more successful the collaborative filtering practice becomes. By using information from other users, the program can generate a list of products that the active user may like as well; the idea is that if people agreed on one product in the past, they will tend to agree about similar products in the future. With the myriad of choices available on the long tail, it is hard to sift through everything that is offered on a site; collaborative filtering makes the process of finding and purchasing items easier. Information that is relevant to the user is sorted through the system of collaborative filtering, so the user’s attention is focused on items that they will most probably like. This saves time for the user and is also beneficial for the business, which can gain more revenue by drawing the user’s attention to similar products that they will likely purchase.
There are two types of collaborative filtering: active filtering and passive filtering. An example of active filtering is amazon.com; the site generates recommendations for the present user based on the ratings of past users. iTunes presents both active and passive filtering. When one searches for a certain band or musician, there is a window of recommendations that displays similar bands that other users liked and purchased; this is an example of active filtering. An example of passive filtering on iTunes is the list of recommendations iTunes generates based on your own previous purchases. It does not rely on information of other users, but it analyses your own buying patterns to create suggestions for future purchases.
Passive filtering is closely related to the idea of personalization; sites track the buying or viewing patterns of a user and change their account accordingly. The difference between collaborative filtering and personalization is that collaborative filtering gleans from information provided by numerous other users in order to generate recommendations for the active user. Personalization utilizes the information given solely by the active user; this gives the website power to command the user’s attention because it is presenting information that is significant to that particular user and not anyone else.
Although there are differences between the practices of collaborative filtering and personalization, the goal of both procedures are the same. They both are concerned with commanding and focusing the user’s attention for the benefit of the site. It gives the user a sense of individuality because it seems that the site is tailored to their needs and desires. As a result, the user will frequently return to the site because it is easier to find the products they may like; increased traffic to the site will probably result in an increase in purchasing from the site. The user and the site both benefit from collaborative filtering and personalization.

Web 2.0

After reading Tim O’Reilly’s What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, it became obvious to me that one of the most important components of Web 2.0 is user participation. Users are presented with a platform upon which they build networks themselves. Web 2.0 is much more malleable than Web 1.0; it is ever-changing and ever-growing. Instead of delivering software that is pre-built and unable to be augmented as Web 1.0 did, the user asserts more control over the software and can transform it to his/her liking. Without user interaction, Web 2.0 is potentially useless. For example, even though Napster provided a forum in which users could share music files, if there were no users, Napster would have become obsolete. O’Reilly gives several examples of Web 2.0 and contrasts them to their Web 1.0 counterparts; DoubleClick is Web 1.0, whereas Google AdSense is Web 2.0, et cetera.
When considering my own example of what Web 2.0 is, I thought of the on-line social network Facebook; users create profiles that describe their interests/histories/backgrounds which can be viewed by other members of Facebook. With a Facebook account, people are free to join networks and communities that link them to other people in their geographic area, high school, college, or job. By allowing users to join several networks at one time, a complex network that connects thousands of people is created instantaneously. Users then can invite other people to join their Facebook networks; with each new addition, users expand the platform and add value to the service by creating more possible links to other users and increasing the complexity and interconnectedness of existing networks.
User participation is encouraged in many different ways; Facebook is constantly updating and improving the services it offers in order for users to remain interested in the site. Blogs or notes can be posted or shared through users’ profiles, which then can be viewed and commented on by other people. Furthermore, users can post pictures in digital photo albums, which enable them to tag other members of their networks in pictures. Also, people can post links to news articles, videos, or events which are then shared with all of the people that comprise their networks. By participating in all the available services that Facebook offers, users contribute to the “news feed”, which is displayed on the Facebook homepage. In one glance, a user can see that his/her friend has added new photos, or changed their status, or broke up with their girlfriend/boyfriend. Without user participation, a feature like the “news feed” would not be able to function. Another new feature that Facebook offers is the ability to create invitations through the website and invite their friends or extend the invitation to everyone in their network as well as other networks. The invitation can contain photos and also has a place for people to post comments and RSVP to the event. To increase the visibility of an event, users can then create flyers that are visible to entire networks; by clicking on the flyer, a person can view the invitation to the event as well as RSVP.
In my opinion, Facebook is the perfect example of Web 2.0. The service relies on users to add value and to provide feedback on how the website can be improved. Users are given the power to update and change information in their profile and to link themselves with large networks. The more people use Facebook, the more complex the service itself becomes, which creates an environment for change and enhancement.

Collaborative vs. Personalized Filtering

The web is becoming increasingly personalized in order to manage the vast amount of information one encounters on a daily basis. Websites have become attuned to how wary a consumer can become when browsing the web for information and have responded by engaging the consumer. A good example of the movement toward personalization is the travel industry online. Every travel website allows the customer to register with the website to facilitate future travel bookings. Once the travel company has the costumer’s information, they can send them emails concerning travel promotions that they would be interested in based on their home location or recent travel searches. This system establishes a personalized relationship between the consumer and the travel company, because the emails are like personal tips from a friend on how to save money. The relationship is equally advantageous for the travel companies as well because targeted marketing greatly increases their sales.
Collaborative filtering is another type of web personalization where the tastes and preferences of users are used to recommend items to other users with similar tastes, such as on the website Amazon.com. It is a system that assumes that if a certain customer chooses item A, then he would also like items B and C because other users who bought A also bought B and C. The flaw in this system is that it only increases sales for items that are already popular, leaving unselected items unseen by the customer. On the other hand, the system is effective in highlighting products that are of interest to the consumer. User ratings make the online shopping world a personal place by taking the existing system of consumption, which is normally driven by personal recommendations of products, and makes it an automated system on the web.

Making Money of Web 2.0

It was to be expected, companies are now trying to capitalize on the web 2.0 trend, and attract users wishing to enter the arena, by providing all-inclusive tools
4D has released the 4D Web 2.0 Pack, including 4D Ajax Framework and 4D Live Window
Subscription based service, it starts at 599$ with a 6 month subscription.

Check it out:

http://www.4d.com/products/4dweb20pack.html

Edwards and campaigning on the web...

Hey guys,
Essie made a post earlier about barack obama's website, and that it is a good indication that the american 2008 election is going to show a new extreme of e-campaigning and web 2.0. Another indication of this is John Edward's vlog, or video blog. People are able to post videos asking questions, making comments, etc. and Edwards promises to respond with video posts. The vlog style of his site is interesting as well, something that has a unique effect in my opinion, since videos interaction one could argue, is more personal than written responses. Video production on the internet has seen a huge increase since 2005, evident by not only YouTube, but with the rise in vlogging. If you want to check it out, the site is: http://blog.johnedwards.com/videoblog

Collaborative filtering is the technique of making automatic predictions about the interests of the user by gathering taste and preference information from many users. In this sense, it is collaborative by collecting, or collaborating with all other users. The underlying assumption of the collaborative filtering approach is that those who agreed in the past are inclined to agree again in the future. Take for instance, a collaborative filtering or recommendation system for music tastes could make predictions about which music a user should like given a partial list of that user's tastes. These predictions however, are specific to the user, but use information gleaned from many users. This differs from the more simple approach of giving an average, non-specific score for each item of interest, for example based on its number of votes.
Collaborative filtering systems usually take two steps. The first of these is to look for users who share the same rating patterns with the active user. This means the user whom the prediction is for. Secondly, collaborative filtering uses the ratings from those like-minded users found in the first step to calculate a prediction for the active user. Alternatively, item-based collaborative filtering popularized by Amazon.com (users who bought x also bought y) and first proposed in the context of rating-based collaborative filtering by Vucetic and Obradovic in 2000, proceeds in an item-centric manner, first building an item-item matrix determining relationships between pairs of items. Then, using the matrix, and the data on the current user, it infers his taste.
Another form of collaborative filtering can be based on implicit observations of normal user behavior (as opposed to the artificial behavior imposed by a rating task). In these systems you observe what a user has done together with what all users have done (what music they have listened to, what items they have bought) and use that data to predict the users behavior in the future or to predict how a user might like to behave if only they were given a chance. These predictions then have to be filtered through business logic to determine how these predictions might affect what a business system ought to do. It is, for instance, not useful to offer to sell somebody some music if they already have demonstrated that they own that music.
In the age of information explosion such techniques can prove very useful as the number of items in only one category (such as music, movies, books, news, web pages) have become so large that a single person cannot possibly view them all in order to select relevant ones. Relying on a scoring or rating system which is averaged across all users ignores specific demands of a user, and is particularly poor in tasks where there is large variation in interest, for example in the recommendation of music. Obviously, other methods to combat information explosion exist such as web search, data clustering, and more.
The three types of filtering include passive, active, and item based filtering.
Web personalization, on the other hand, is based on the interests of an individual. Personalization implies that the changes are based on implicit data, such as items purchased or pages viewed. The term customization is used instead when the site only uses explicit data such as ratings or preferences.
On an intranet or B2E Enterprise Web portals, personalization is often based on user attributes such as department, functional area, or role. The term customization in this context refers to the ability of users to modify the page layout or specify what content should be displayed.
There are two categories of personalization are both rule-based and content-based. An example of personalization would include MyYahoo, where the user is allowed to design his or her page according to their personal desires. This is different from collaborative filtering in the sense that the user is the only one influencing the information. The information presented is only that which the user chooses, rather than assuming like-minded users would possess similar interests, therefore similar data.

Works Cited

"Collaborative Filtering." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 6 February 2007. 11 February 2007 ://en.wikipedia./wiki/Collaborative_filtering

“Personalization.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 17 January 2007. 11 February 2007 <>.

Shardanand, Upendra. Social Information Filtering: Algorithms for Automating "Word of Mouth.” Penn State and NEC. 1995. 11 February 2007.

In What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, Tim O’Reilly makes an argument for what he views as an immense transformation in internet today. With the dot-com collapse in late 2001, O’Reilly describes how many felt the internet had been over-hyped and that in the end, it was not all it was cracked up to be. What was feared to be the failure of the internet was nothing of such, and instead the internet, was only seeing bubbles and shakeouts, as all technological revolutions seem to see. As O’Reilly explains, the internet saw instead of a collapse, a unique transformation in which the companies that forged out of these troubled times seemed to possess something in common. From these characteristics that the survivors held, a new concept emerged called “Web 2.0” emerged. From the characteristics and traits that O’Reilly describes in his piece, it becomes evident that You Tube is a clear example of what he calls Web 2.0.
Founded in February 2005, You Tube is “a consumer media company for people to watch and share original videos worldwide through a Web experience” (YouTube.com). Everyone can watch videos on You Tube, both on YouTube.com and across the Internet. People can see first-hand accounts of current events, find videos about their hobbies and interests, and “discover the quirky and unusual” (YouTube.com). As the website explains, “As more people capture special moments on video, You Tube is empowering them to become the broadcasters of tomorrow” (Youtube.com). You Tube is a place for people to engage in a new fashion with video by sharing, commenting on, and viewing videos. Originally starting as a personal video sharing service, You Tube has grown into an entertainment destination with people watching more than 70 million videos on the site daily. You Tube allows viewers to upload, tag and share videos worldwide, browse millions of original videos uploaded by community members, find, join and create video groups to connect with people who have similar interests, and can customize the experience by subscribing to member videos, saving favorites, and creating playlists. Users can also integrate You Tube videos on websites using video embeds or APIs, make videos public or private, and elect to broadcast their videos publicly or share them privately with friends and family upon upload. You Tube therefore, emerged as a unique company that offered services like no other before.
The first characteristic of Web 2.0 that O’Reilly explains is that to be classified under this class, it must provide services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability. YouTube.com does this very thing. As a site where users can upload and download videos for free sharing with all other users, it provides a service, not software. As well as offering the service of posting videos to share with others, it does not cost the viewer to post them. Therefore it is extremely cost-effective for the user as well as the company itself.
Next, it must have control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them. The more users upload videos onto You Tube, the more information is available for others to find. Likewise, the more users search and view videos, the more the videos posted are viewed and receive attention. The greater the user base becomes, the more unique You Tube has become due to the diversity of videos posted. O’Reilly notes that “the value of the software is proportional to the scale and dynamism of the data it helps to manage” (O’Reilly 3). The more people using You Tube, in turn means that more data is made available. With more users, You Tube is more therefore more valuable.
The next characteristic of Web 2.0 is that the company trusts users as co-developers. YouTube.com in fact does this. By allowing content to be in the hands of the users, they in turn are co-developers. Web content is reliant on the users and their role of uploading videos. Also related to this trust of users as co-developers, the company must have the ability to harness collective intelligence. While viewing a video from a certain user, the viewer is allowed to view other videos from the same user, or videos also on playlists where the video they are watching also appears. Furthermore, the user is allowed to view most watched videos of the day. All these qualities of YouTube.com make is successful in harnessing collective intelligence, and provide an example of what O’Reilly calls Web 2.0.
Though the user has the option of making videos private, and to share only with their specific friends and family, this does not eliminate You Tube as a version 2.0 company. As O’Reilly explains, “The more points [a company scores], the more they are worthy of the name. Remember, though, that excellence in one area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven” (O’Reilly 18). Therefore, a weakness in one area, such as the option of making videos private or public does not account for the disqualification of You Tube as a Web 2.0 company. Furthermore, the number of users who choose to make videos private is few, and many videos in turn are made public. This sets You Tube apart from other companies, such as Friendster, where the user always must accept connections from other members.
As O’Reilly explained, one characteristic of Version 2.0 companies is that companies of such often join in collaboration with other version 2.0 companies to build even stronger companies and capitalize on version 2.0’s success. This is true in the case of You Tube, which was acquired by other version 2.0 giant Google.com in 2006. With such a pairing, their version 2.0 characteristics were even further enhanced. With their pairing with internet giant Google.com, You Tube created even more possibilities of exposure and access.
As O’Reilly points out in What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, contrary to what many onlookers thought at the time, the dot-com collapse of 2001 was not the end of the internet. Rather, it was the beginning of a new era, one in which its champions would prevail with characteristics specific and in common. This fashion was deemed Web 2.0, and many soon claimed to be such companies. Yet as he lays out the fundamental characteristics in his writing, it becomes clear that only certain companies can be classified as such. Following O’Reilly’s description, it is clear that You Tube is a valid example of a Web 2.0 company, and it is precisely because of this that they have seen such immense success, and have gained the interest and acquisition by internet giant, and fellow Web 2.0 company Google.

It's no surprise: Hillary Rodham is on the e-campaigning bandwagon as well. She's actively seeking recruits to join her "online community" via MySpace, flickr, YouTube, and Facebook. It's anybody's guess as to whether this method of outreach will ultimately have the desired effect (drawing in and communicating to the masses), but it seems likely that she will garner at least some attention from those taken by the idea of "facebooking" or "myspacing" the former first lady.

The Collective versus the Individual Consumption Pattern

Both the terms collaborative filtering and personalization are integral to the attention economy that is apparent on the web. As attention becomes a scarce resource, an increasingly higher number of web-based businesses or e-commerce in general, in addition to vast array of virtual communities that seek to attract your attention, seek to do so under the veil of the illusory attention. This process, in turn, gives the reader or the web user the impression that he is being targeted personally by the the message that was brought to his attention. Nevertheless, although similar in their end, these terms differ in their means.

The term personalization, in some circumstances interchangeable with customization, implies that the person being targeted by the message is receptive to it because it was able to attract his attention based on a series of data that are collected and that reveal the individual's consumption habits on the website. According to the website www.boxesandarrows.com, "Web personalization is a strategy, a marketing tool, and an art. Personalization requires
implicitly or explicitly collecting visitor information and leveraging that knowledge in your content delivery framework to manipulate what information you present to your users and how you present it." One example of personalization is the algorythm- model for Google Ads, which scans an individual's e-mail in order to detect key words that would contribute to changing the ads bordering the email according to the e-mail's content. Similarly, Wikipedia states as part of its definition of personalization that in that case, "web pages are personalized based on the interests of an individual. Personalization implies that the changes are based on implicit data, such as items purchased or pages viewed." In this context, it is not entirely sure
if Google Ads fits this criteria, since although it is based on implicit data, it is unknown as to what implicit data truly is. It is unsure for example, on what criteria this implicit, or even explicit data is based; one does not usually how the data collected, since some
data is collected on key scans and other on buying habits of the consumer.

In contrast with personalization, collaborative filtering might be a better suited marketing or attention-drawing tool for the web user. Once again, wikipedia offers the following definition of the term, which consists in looking "for users who share the same rating patterns with the active user (the user whom the prediction is for)" and in using "the ratings from those like-minded users found in step 1 to calculate a prediction for the active user." The collaborative filtering seems to be more a better suited tool because it takes into account that attention is not attributed individually, but rather to fragmented consumer groups, but whose tastes may overlap. As such, a consumer wanting to buy a CD on Amazon's website, may find the different sorts of music that people buying the same CD listen to. For example, if a consumer types the album title "Peines De Maures / Arc-En-Ciel Pour Daltoniens" from the French rap group La Caution, it will show a section called " Customers who bought this item also bought" and list a variety of album purchases from Gotan Project's La Revancha del Tango to the soundtrack of the movie Ocean's 11. Consequently, collaborative filtering fulfills a more adequate role in terms of web 2.0 criteria and the dynamics of virtual networks, for it allows individuals to collaborate and reach a subjective consensus on a series of data that allow individuals to share information. This not only allows them to contribute to a source of information but also to gain from this mutual exchange of information that is enabled by bringing one individual's attention to the sort of products that others have bought and that he or she might be interested in.


Although both processes are marketing tools, collaborative filtering follows rules of common consumption patterns and allows for consumers to expand the horizons of their cultural consumption tastes. In contrast, personalization only suggests certain products based on the individual's consumption pattern, thus limiting his active role in seeking out what others who who bought the same product might be buying. The collaborative system is a system based on
consumer reciprocity, which allows for personalization of tastes by expanding the individual's original consumption tastes via a system of information sharing.


-Nik Bhowmick

Me Me Me

hey guys, posting this on btb as well:

barack obama's website is a good indication that the american 2008 election is going to show a new extreme of e-campaigning and web 2.0. the homepage includes "mybarackobama.com", an area that looks to engage potential voters by letting them contribute, network, plan events and give feedback. it's definitely worth checking out, in light of our recent class discussions.

Collaborative Filtering and Personalization

The main difference between collaborative filtering and personalization is the method. Both aim at giving the user/consummer something that is adapted to his taste.

In collaborative filtering the main idea is this: Those who tend to have liked the same thing in the past will like the same thing in the future, therefore we can give recommendations to the user by looking at what other users with the same past tastes have also liked.
A good example of that can be found on last.fm where the sites creates a radio for you of titles you have previously not listened to, but that other users who listen to similar music have listened to. Another example is Amazon, that offers recommendations based on what users with similar purchases have also purchased.

Personalization is not based on anyone else than the user himself. It is based on his choices or his status (platform, location...) an example of that would be www.versiontracker.com. the site provides updates and software on several platforms, but it takes the user straight to the menu of the platform the user is using at the time, hence if you are on Mac Os X at the time you access the site, it will take you straight to the mac download platform. Another example is myspace.com that takes you straight to the french version of the site if you access it from France by detecting your country of origin through your IP address (although using a Proxy will render this method ineffective).

In effect collaborative filtering and personalization have the same goal: making the site more relevant to the user, but they are based on different methods. Personalization is based on positive data from the user himself, whether communicated voluntarily or not. Collaborative Filtering is based on Speculative data from other users that the system recognizes as having similar taste.

Two critical articles

Ever wondered if there are people who think that all the "YOU" might not be such a great thing? Well, there is dutch media theorist Geert Lovink who sees blogging as a nihilist impulse. But also Jaron Lanier, the "inventor" of Virtual Reality who believes that the "Wisdom of Crowds" is often not so wise after all.

cheers,
B.

The Internet Movie Database, or IMDb.com is an example of what O’Reilly describes as Web 2.0. As a subsidiary company of the successful and undoubtedly Web 2.0 site Amazon.com, this website follows the same business model, incorporating a service based upon user-added value, database management, and a lightweight business model, and is thereby exemplary of a Web 2.0 site.

To start, IMDb is a service that does not rely on advertising. Knowledge of the site is generated through user to user communication (or viral marketing), which is an identifying factor of a Web 2.0 site. The users are encouraged to vote on each film, and are offered a scale of 1 to 10 to choose as a rating for the film (1 being awful and 10 being excellent). Results are then broken down demographically in order for users to quickly understanding this quantitative data. Users are also encouraged to leave comments, and each addition makes the database richer in information and exclusivity. Thus, users are engaged as co-developers, and the value of the database increases through normal usage. IMDb is successfully harnessing collective intelligence, a concept James Suriowecki calls “the wisdom of crowds”(O’Reilly, p. 11).

Another Web 2.0 identifying factor is database management, in which IMDb is expert. The online database is expansive, including more than 425,000 titles from 1891 to present, and 1.7 million filmographies of cast and crew members. The information presented includes many facets of information about each film, including who was in it, who made it, trivia about it, filming locations, and links to reviews and fan sites on the web (IMDb.com About Us). The value of this information is remarkable, and the site follows suit of many other Web 2.0 sites that design their systems in the “some rights reserved” mindset. Portions of IMDb’s database can be licensed to other users.

Additionally, IMDbs inclusion of such a variety of information fits the profile of the Web 2.0 principle dubbed “innovation in assembly.” Information about movies may be a commodity, but combining all types of information in a format that is easy to access and understand contributes to a lightweight and successful business model.

Indymedia.com, or the Independent Media Center, began in 1999 in Seattle Washington to cover protests against the World Trade Organization. They syndicated the news coverage through an independent publication called, “The Blind Spot” as well as the IMC’s website. The website received an overwhelming response with over 1.5 million hits during WTO protests alone. The following year the first IMC office was established in Boston, and subsequently requests were sent in to start up IMC offices in cities all around the world. Currently they have an office on every continent in over one hundred and fifty cities.
Indymedia today is a “collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage.” Drawing from the work of free lance writers and independent publications all around the world, Indymedia is a place to find the news that mainstream news networks can’t or won’t tell you. Their mission is to undermine the system of corporate-driven news networks which often skew the truth in order to sell their news. In effect, mainstream news networks will simply not publish world issues that they don’t think the Western world would care about. Indymedia offsets the balance of power of the western-centered news networks by providing news content from around the world. Ultimately they are trying to re-install the values of original news media which was to report world news truthfully.
What is truly unique about the site is that any person has the right to contribute, by either writing articles or providing a language translation of an article. This makes the website a part of the shift to Web 2.0. It is a fully interactive news network, where the common man’s perception of news worthy issues can be aired. Contributors to Indymedia have no ties to government or corporation, so the news content is intended to tell the real story.
This may make some readers skeptical of the legitimacy of the news content, and of contributors who may write biased stories in favor of the websites anti-capitalist theme. In the FAQ section of the website the question is asked, Should I believe the news I read on Indymedia? To this the editor responds, “Should you believe the news on CNN?” He admonishes people to read Indymedia with a skeptical eye just like they should with any news source. What Indymedia offers is a “safe space” for not for profit news writers to air their stories. The organization can only hope that the “open-publishing” structure encourages honest contributors, and they seldom often get hate news on their news wire. Indeed, integral to the organization is its not-for profit structure. Indymedia is funded entirely by donation. While this keeps the content grassroots, it also means that they can not afford to pay any of the contributors to the site. So the system is heavily reliant on passionate activists who believe in the mission of providing alternative media news content. As a result, the site bears a heavy anti-American government sentiment and seems to push stories that reveal that belief. For example in their FAQ statement they describe how their writers are both activists and journalists, but they strictly require that their contributors not get involved with the situations they report on. They claim that they support non-violent action and “do not approve of war criminals such as the members of the Bush Administration or the Al Quaeda regime.” In light of this, their mission to be anti-establishment seems to be undermined by a stronger mission to be anti-bush.
In addition, the lack of funding results in a stagnant flow of news to the site. Often the same news stories will remain the headline for two to three days. This makes the site less of a competitor to the mainstream sites. IN addition the upkeep of the website seems poor. The graphics are still relatively crude and some of the links to their other news broadcasts, such as live radio and satellite television don’t work or are in the process of being built.
While the concept of Indymedia is ideal, it is yet an inferior news source. Maybe in the future with the upsurge of interactive media predicted by Web 2.0, this site will gain more momentum.

SourceForge.Net

Web 2.0: SourceForge.net
By Marcello Arcucci-Dedina

SourceForge is the number one Open Source software development website. It provides free hosting and a communication platform for over 100.000 projects. The model is entirely participatory as users are the ones developing the projects hosted by SourceForge. Users registered on the site can participate in several projects, while finding a similar interface and code of conduct in all the sites hosted, therefore allowing users to easily go from one project to another. The interface is clear and light.
SourceForge provides a series of services (list available here: http://sourceforge.net/docs/B02/en/#top) that users can activate and manage on their own. From donations to statistics, everything is integrated in the same environment.
Although services to Open Source projects are free, VA Software has developed SourceForge Enterprise Edition. This offers the strengths of SourceForge.net in terms of accessibility, High-End technologies featuring Open Source, reactive bug correction and constant feature development. The main differences are due to the built from the ground strategy, with enterprise integration in mind from the beginning, SourceForge Enterprise Edition therefore includes platform-independent J2EE architecture, Modular Web services-oriented architecture and fully documented and open SOAP XML web services API.

Interestingly, the parent company that owns SourceForge, OSTG Inc (Open Source Technology Group) also owns, amongst others, Slashdot and ThinkGeek. Other sites that are based on the same values of participatory development, the whole OSTG, from the fields it targets (open source development, user-tagged information...) is at the peak of web 2.0

Newsvine:A Web 2.0

Newsvine: A Web 2.0

Newsvine was launched in March of 2006 by a group of colleagues with one objective in mind: "to build a perfectly different, perfectly efficient way to read, write, and interact with the news". Their mission is "to bring together big and little media in a way which respects established journalism and empowers the individual at the same time”.
What differentiates Newsvine from other sites like CNN or Yahoo is that they have incorporated the entire Associated Press wire into their web service. This allows users access to articles that would not have, otherwise, been available to them. Chris Anderson refers to this as "the long tail," meaning that by having the entire Associated Press wire available, Newsvine is able to take advantage of the “collective power” of the other smaller newspapers, news sites and the like which, for the most part, when combined makes up for a huge proportion of news content. Other news sites, such as the ones mentioned above, have editors that choose which sites or articles they prefer the most.
Furthermore, Newsvine allows users to personally "vote" on the articles they read moving it higher up in the line. The web-based platform is also designed in such a manner that it only gets better the more people use it. When the user reads an article they really like or that they think is important, all they have to do is click on a grey arrow up button and the article will be "voted up". The more "vote up's" the more recognition it will get within the community.
Collective intelligence is a big part of this website. They have a process called "Seeding Newsvine" and it allows users to post other news articles from other websites to the Newsvine website. By allowing others to contribute to the service Newsvine is constantly operating in a real-time environment. The users aid in the constant updating of the news and the website. It is the users that add value to the service being provided and to the community of users using the site, all key principle attributes to the Web 2.0 era.
All in all, the website is extremely interactive. Users can chat live to one another, post comments about the articles, report bugs to the company, you can even have your own personal webpage where you can write your own articles or choose the articles that you like the most. Really, they have combined, a My Space, Facebook, Instant Messenger, Blogger etc.
In short, Newsvine has developed a website that's services are supported by many of the key principles of what defines a Web 2.0. Their users are "treated as co-developers, they want and expect their users to add value to their service, they have a system of collective intelligence, their website is constantly updated in real-time, and the more the people use it the better the system gets.

aSmallWorld

Introducing aSmallWorld, it is a privately owned, exclusive, invitation only online community that began in 2004 to connect cosmopolitans around the world. As it is explained in their site, it is “designed for those who already have strong connections with one another. We allow our members to connect, reconnect and interact more effectively with like-minded individuals who share the same circle of friends, interests, and schedules”. It allows people in different cities to make events, give recommendations, and more interestingly conduct business. The names of the most cosmopolitan cities (including Paris, Los Angeles, New York, London, Tel Aviv, Munich, Vienna, Beirut, Dubai and many more) are stated in an easily accessible section allowing you get all the information you need about where to go regarding restaurants, bars, hotels, travel agents, hairdressers, spas, brokers, real estate and so on. It also has four sections for posting threads which are travel, business, discussions and le café. The great thing about this site is that it joins like minded people allowing discussions about anything from politics to the best vacation spots. It also helps people allocate things by asking for recommendations from people about anything from how to reserve a private jet, to finding a babysitter in a small town or even for opportunities for investments to start businesses. There are also sections for finding job opportunities, places to stay for short term and long term, roommates needed, and selling or buying. Invitation rights are reserved for certain members chosen by the board as representatives in each city that is stated. This is because they want to have “imposed certain criteria in order to keep the network exclusive”. This site is rumored to have members like Quentin Tarantino, Paris and Nicky Hilton, Ivanka Trump, Tiger Woods, Naomi Campbell, Prince Pavlos of Greece and many more famous people.
The reason I chose this site as a Web 2.0 is because first of all it is extremely data driven and depends on the members to create the highly reliable information you can obtain. This is shown in the threads where any question can be answered and discussed by individuals trying to give advice. It is also shown in the sections where they recommend different places in the “in” cities where everyone can give their personal ratings and opinions so you can hear from more than one person about their experiences.
The second reason I chose it is because its users add value to its credibility giving the site a competitive advantage. Although one of the ways listed for a site to be perceived as 2.0 is that the “service automatically gets better the more people use it”. In the case of this site it’s more about quality rather than quantity that makes this site so successful. Since the board of the website are very picky about who can join and who stays on the site it makes members more comfortable when seeking information. People who use offensive writings or send inappropriate private messages can be reported as “abusive” and the management can decide to expel them from aSmallWorld into aBigWorld which allows them to see what is happening on aSmallWorld with limited access and no chance for participation. Like before moving to France I asked many questions regarding which are the safe areas to live in, which schools are good and their reputation, I even looked for an apartment and a possible roommate through this site with the full security that I was receiving reliable information from people who are more like me rather than any other site like myspace where anyone can join and give their opinion. It is easy to retrieve information through the use of folksonomy since you can type any tag word and be referred to all aspects of the site that cover it.
Due to the success and huge publicity that this site has received many copy cats have tried to either compete or mock aSmallWorld by coming up with asmallerworld or abiggerworld. aSmallWorld doesn’t rely on advertising, instead its popularity is driven by its word of mouth exclusivity and publicity. It has been covered in magazines, newspapers, and TV such as CNN, CNBC, Vanity Fair, Time, AdvertisingAge, The New York Times, Tatler, Herald Tribune, Wired, Avenue and many more. aSmallWorld has also had advertisements from companies such as Moet & Chandon, Illy, and different art exhibitions that are going on, which is a perfect place to market them because of the exclusivity of the site.

Search engines

"How do search engines direct attention and what are the ensuing political and cultural issues?" by Marcello Arcucci-Dedina

Search engines are at the core of information gathering on the internet, because of the power they hold over visits and visibility of the sites. The basic principle of ranking in search engines is related to links: the more links you get, the better your rank, and therefore the more chances you have to show up in a search. Although the formula is a lot more complicated, mostly to avoid link-farms and cheating the system, this is the basic principle. Visits for a website are currency, and revenue is directly connected to the number of visits, through the advertisement displayed and clicked. Because a large portion of the visits of a site comes from other sites directly (linking) or indirectly (PageRank based on linking) linking becomes a commodity that can be traded, and why not sold. Although currently there is little activity when it comes to actually selling linking, link trading is very common. This is the reason for comments on blogs and discussion boards linking to random, unrelated sites. Google has however modified the algorithm to disregard “cheating” and brings the PageRank down to 0. It is not hard to imagine that commercial sites with a high PageRank, and whose linking is therefore more valuable, would sell the opportunity to link to another site. However such practices would make them loose credibility in the Internet community and therefore the decision would have to be carefully made...

When it comes to news, there is a difference depending on the search engine that is used, and therefore the methods of influencing information are very different. Yahoo! News uses a team of editors, real life humans that find, verify and and publish the news. Google news has a very different approach, they use algorithms in order to find the news on the internet. with no human action in the process, besides for the actual coding of the algorithm. Each of these systems has strength and weaknesses, in the case of Google, the main disadvantage, from a first look is the fact that news will be delayed and will not show up on google news instantly, and might not show up at all. this is due to the fact that the algorithm define the worthiness of the news partially on the number of sources reporting it, therefor creating a delay in breaking news. Because of the algorithm using several thousands of sites, Google News offers a better representation of different and non-mainstream point of views and media. The problem with that can be an over-representation of certain ideas. The article gives the example of research about John Kerry, that turned up a very high percentage of small right extremist websites. Although the explanation was related to the use of the first name or the last name only, the problem remain. In an age where news is increasingly obtained through these services, the algorithms or editorial staffs have enormous power over the penetration of news. They literally choose the information that will be distributed, and in political terms this can tremendously change the outcome of an election.

Google Financial Data

After today's class some precisions on Google's financials. In 2006 they had revenues of ~$10B and a net income of ~$3B, with Q4 bringing in a hefty $1B+. You can check out the details on their investor relations website, here.

Have a good WE,

B.

SoulSeek and P2P Music

SoulSeek and P2P Music

SoulSeek is a free website used for downloading music using the peer to peer system, much like Napster or LimeWire. People download the software for free (although donations are accepted) and are then able to search and download literally millions of songs. The site is in English but has users all over the world. Besides making music available for free downloading, the site also has different forums for discussing particular types of music –from opera to punk rock to Celtic music. When looking for music, the user can search using a song title, artists or album name or an association, such as a movie that featured the song. Users can also communicate directly with other users or browse their music collections. Each participant can also define how much music can be downloaded or specify files that can be browsed and even block other users if they want to. If you cannot find a particular song, users can add them to their ‘wish lists’ and will be notified when it becomes available. On top of all that, the site also showcases unknown or unsigned artists, creating a type of ‘town square’ where art can be expressed and appreciated.
SoulSeek is packaged as a service –it is not selling software, it makes it available for free. Furthermore, the service is continually updated and the better, newer versions are made available for downloading as soon as they are ready for use. As with Napster, every downloader is a server, helping the network grow. The more people who use the program, the faster it is to download certain songs because they get broken down and pieces come from more than one other computer. So many people are involved that users can download songs in a matter of minutes, sometimes seconds depending on its popularity.
The program also works in terms of collective intelligence. For example, if one user has a song on his computer that is not very well know, he might be talk about it in one of the forums; another user may find it when browsing his files and acquire it or it may turn up as a result in a search. Whichever way the song is ‘discovered’ there is now one more user who has it and may discuss it and so forth. Knowledge is spread through debate or discovery and the site builds on that, so now that a larger group has been made aware of the song, it might be the first result that appears during a search. To mention O’Reilly’s article again “every user automatically helped to build the value of the shared database” (pg. 8). The more users the site has, the more valuable it becomes.
On their first page, SoulSeek has a statement that reads: “Soulseek(tm) does not endorse nor condone the sharing of copyrighted materials. You should only share and download files which you are legally allowed to or have otherwise received permission to share. By using this network you agree to this and the other rules which are linked to from this page. Take some time to recognize files that may be protected by copyright within your own shares. Please share responsibly and help make Soulseek(tm) a place where all artists can find a common ground.” This statement clearly demonstrates the sites reliance and trust in its users to self monitor, making the user co-developers.
The software is also written for use above the single device, as the music that is acquired can be moved to an MP3 player or burned onto a CD, or even transferred onto a mobile phone.
SoulSeek is more than just a peer to peer music space, it is a network where users can ‘get together’ and talk about their interests; new artists can expose their work to a large audience and abuses are noticed and dealt with.