As a corollary to my previous post about WetPaint, I had a meeting with these guys earlier this week about possible employment.
I mentioned some of my previously mentioned concerns that this is more an evolutionary play than a revolutionary one.
Their pitch was that the "wiki" aspect of their free websites--allowing others to edit or add pages on your website--is the secret sauce that differentiates them from other social networking sites that offer websites (read: MySpace). I'm still skeptical.
The real value of something like this is to build out the content and information "tail" and become an interactive version of Wikipedia, but with a greater toward hobbies than factual information. However, most of the WetPaint sites I've perused have precious little information and member participation. Maybe it's too early to count them out yet, but I'm still skeptical.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Friday, February 2, 2007
WetPaint
Anybody been to WetPaint? These guys have an interesting variation on the social networking phenomena. WetPaint allows you to quickly and easily set up a web site around a particular interest. For example, I set up a website in about 2 minutes around vintage baseball cards. The website is free, but of course you have to tolerate lots of Google Ads down the left rail (not sure if WetPaint shares any of the revenue with the site owner). I can also easily invite others to my site where they can interact with me (and the posted content). Furthermore, there's a setting that allows users to even edit my site's pages!
This approach seems to be an evolution of the once-beloved Geocities business model. The difference, of course, being that we've realized storage is a cheap commodity that can be given away for free since more money can be made by serving ads. Unlike previous sites, they have also made them very interactive and viral right out of the box.
WetPaint is much more evolutionary than revolutionary. The challenge I see with their offering is that member postings are difficult to find and are not sorted or ranked in any particular order. For example, if I wanted to find a WetPaint site whose discussion at some point revolved around the 1963 topps Pete Rose rookie baseball card and counterfeit attempts, you'd be hard pressed to ever find that level of specificity on WetPaint. They simply don't provide the search capability nor do they tag or allow users to rank postings to be able to find highest quality, most relevant content. Finally, their offering seems very similar to websites that MySpace allows you to build (for free). Other than allowing other users to edit your site, I don't see any difference.
To me, this is where many social network communities, including WetPaint fall short.
This approach seems to be an evolution of the once-beloved Geocities business model. The difference, of course, being that we've realized storage is a cheap commodity that can be given away for free since more money can be made by serving ads. Unlike previous sites, they have also made them very interactive and viral right out of the box.
WetPaint is much more evolutionary than revolutionary. The challenge I see with their offering is that member postings are difficult to find and are not sorted or ranked in any particular order. For example, if I wanted to find a WetPaint site whose discussion at some point revolved around the 1963 topps Pete Rose rookie baseball card and counterfeit attempts, you'd be hard pressed to ever find that level of specificity on WetPaint. They simply don't provide the search capability nor do they tag or allow users to rank postings to be able to find highest quality, most relevant content. Finally, their offering seems very similar to websites that MySpace allows you to build (for free). Other than allowing other users to edit your site, I don't see any difference.
To me, this is where many social network communities, including WetPaint fall short.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Why bother with social networks?
Many people have asked this question.
Sites like MySpace and FaceBook really highlight entertainment value. I'm not saying that you can't build your career network by joining these sites, but the vast majority of members seem to be looking for friends, dates, and generally wanting to keep in touch with people in a very simple, flashy, cute kind of way. Personally, the glitz and glamor of people's profile (songs, flashing lights, creative wallpaper, etc) all support MySpace's entertainment value.
These sites also tend to attract a demographic that values this entertainment; namely, young, single males & females ages 15-28. MySpace is offering enough entertainment value to entice many people to join their site.
LinkedIn, while not a social network yet, draws a very different audience. Most people (including myself) who register and build networks through linkedin are hoping to build a career or business network. This network is tapped far less often than a MySpace network, presumably because people more frequently need entertainment value than they need to find another job. I've noticed that LinkedIn members only interact when somebody is looking for a job, somebody is hiring for a job, or somebody wants to form a partnership or sell something. Compared to MySpace, there isn't a continual draw back to LinkedIn beyond these activities. But, when a user is in one of these phases, this network is a very valuable resource.
Then, there's wikipedia--one of my very favorite sites! While some will argue that this is not a social network, it is increasingly becoming so with communities forming around a posted subject. The motivation for those that post seems to be visibility and respect. If I am an expert on lizards, I find altruistic value in sharing my knowledge with other people. I also appreciate the respect that I gain from that sharing. Finally, because I feel passionately about the subject, I am most likely very open to discussing it with other interested parties.
So, there you have it. Very different motivations for different social networking sites. Some offer entertainment value; others offer access to career opportunities and potential hires that might not otherwise be available; others offer the ability to be seen and respected.
Sites like MySpace and FaceBook really highlight entertainment value. I'm not saying that you can't build your career network by joining these sites, but the vast majority of members seem to be looking for friends, dates, and generally wanting to keep in touch with people in a very simple, flashy, cute kind of way. Personally, the glitz and glamor of people's profile (songs, flashing lights, creative wallpaper, etc) all support MySpace's entertainment value.
These sites also tend to attract a demographic that values this entertainment; namely, young, single males & females ages 15-28. MySpace is offering enough entertainment value to entice many people to join their site.
LinkedIn, while not a social network yet, draws a very different audience. Most people (including myself) who register and build networks through linkedin are hoping to build a career or business network. This network is tapped far less often than a MySpace network, presumably because people more frequently need entertainment value than they need to find another job. I've noticed that LinkedIn members only interact when somebody is looking for a job, somebody is hiring for a job, or somebody wants to form a partnership or sell something. Compared to MySpace, there isn't a continual draw back to LinkedIn beyond these activities. But, when a user is in one of these phases, this network is a very valuable resource.
Then, there's wikipedia--one of my very favorite sites! While some will argue that this is not a social network, it is increasingly becoming so with communities forming around a posted subject. The motivation for those that post seems to be visibility and respect. If I am an expert on lizards, I find altruistic value in sharing my knowledge with other people. I also appreciate the respect that I gain from that sharing. Finally, because I feel passionately about the subject, I am most likely very open to discussing it with other interested parties.
So, there you have it. Very different motivations for different social networking sites. Some offer entertainment value; others offer access to career opportunities and potential hires that might not otherwise be available; others offer the ability to be seen and respected.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Human vs. Algorithmic Recommendations
This morning, I was reading a really interested post about a couple of startups that are building algorithmic engines that look at past and current views and clicks on a given site in hopes of serving you better content/offerings/ads. Amazon has done this for years, though their recommendations are certainly far from perfect. These startups also claim to have predictive value by determining what the user will buy in the future.
This got me wondering about whether recommendations from humans are still inherently more accurate and useful vs. algorithmic results? Perhaps it depends on what web category we're considering.
For example, let's supposed I'm looking for a job that is most likely contains some form of the title "Director of Product Management." And, I'm really picky about who I work for and want someone who is a clear communicator, strategist, and who would be a good mentor. I sign up for Jobster alerts and peruse CareerBuilder, Monster, Linkedin, etc for jobs that might be interesting.
In this case, there's no way an algorithmic recommendation will be of much value to me. For starters, the description itself is often inaccurate but you don't know that until after you've clicked and read the actual description (and read between the lines). That data point is captured by an algorithmic engine and presumed to be valid, and it will be used to refine its result set. How many times does a recruiter from Microsoft enter an entry level product management position but tag it with descriptors like "Director of Product Management?" The answer is: all the time! How many times is the description not accurate and very aspirational (but not very realistic)? All the time. Finally, how often does the information you really need to find the right job not even exist on the web? All the time. Yet, with an algorithmic engine, they think they understand what you want by analyzing your surfing when in reality that surfing hasn't produced anything of value. In this case, knowing somebody that knows the company, the position, and the hiring manager (potentially, your next boss) can offer far more relevant results. There are probably lots of other examples where human intelligence provides far greater insight than anything devised by an algorithm.
The problem is, how do you tap into this human intelligence, find people that have the right information, get them motivated to share that information, and then actually have them share the information? Social networks, email, blogging are all obvious tools that can help unleash this information to those who would benefit.
We still have a long way to go before this algorithmic recommendation system works properly. I, for one, look forward to its perfection because I am tired of Amazon recommending book after book on road racing based on a book I purchased for a friend's birthday two years ago.
This got me wondering about whether recommendations from humans are still inherently more accurate and useful vs. algorithmic results? Perhaps it depends on what web category we're considering.
For example, let's supposed I'm looking for a job that is most likely contains some form of the title "Director of Product Management." And, I'm really picky about who I work for and want someone who is a clear communicator, strategist, and who would be a good mentor. I sign up for Jobster alerts and peruse CareerBuilder, Monster, Linkedin, etc for jobs that might be interesting.
In this case, there's no way an algorithmic recommendation will be of much value to me. For starters, the description itself is often inaccurate but you don't know that until after you've clicked and read the actual description (and read between the lines). That data point is captured by an algorithmic engine and presumed to be valid, and it will be used to refine its result set. How many times does a recruiter from Microsoft enter an entry level product management position but tag it with descriptors like "Director of Product Management?" The answer is: all the time! How many times is the description not accurate and very aspirational (but not very realistic)? All the time. Finally, how often does the information you really need to find the right job not even exist on the web? All the time. Yet, with an algorithmic engine, they think they understand what you want by analyzing your surfing when in reality that surfing hasn't produced anything of value. In this case, knowing somebody that knows the company, the position, and the hiring manager (potentially, your next boss) can offer far more relevant results. There are probably lots of other examples where human intelligence provides far greater insight than anything devised by an algorithm.
The problem is, how do you tap into this human intelligence, find people that have the right information, get them motivated to share that information, and then actually have them share the information? Social networks, email, blogging are all obvious tools that can help unleash this information to those who would benefit.
We still have a long way to go before this algorithmic recommendation system works properly. I, for one, look forward to its perfection because I am tired of Amazon recommending book after book on road racing based on a book I purchased for a friend's birthday two years ago.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Social Networking Sites: The Good
From all my previous posts, you've probably concluded that I don't like currently available social-network sites. That's not entirely true. :-)
But, I'm not sure the MySpace and FaceBooks can reliably retain (0r even grow) their user base over time. Do married 40 year olds crave the same attention that young singles do? Will college students currently using FaceBook continue to frequent that community once they get a real job and begin supporting a family? The bottom line is that a social network that that offers a place to post, discuss, rate, and connect on issues that matter to a large number of people over a long period of time will make for the best social network sites. So in this regard, I believe MySpace and Facebook offer very little.
However, here's what I think MySpace has done right:
1) Open Community. Hear me out. Yes, this decision has allowed pedophiles to stalk children, which is inexcusable. However, social communities are most powerful when they give voice to everyone, or "democratizing information" as Chris Andersen calls it in The Long Tail. Opening up the community allows for the best content to emerge but simultaneously assumes you can also filter out all the crap and spam that dilutes great content. MySpace got this one right. The internet is all about openness and democratizing information.
2) Let the users tell you how to build the site. In the beginning, MySpace focused on the music vertical. Those who were interested in sharing music clips or promoting their own music were the early users. However, MySpace expanded in response to users wanting better tools for communicating with (and adding) other members, and other content and tools not directly related to music. Now, you can blog about anything you want, instant message other members, find a group about a topic of interest, set up an email domain, setup your personal website, etc, etc, etc. Some wonder how they all relate to one another. From everything I've read, it appears that MySpace simply offers something in response to an outcry from its users. This is a really important point in social networking because this is a concept in its nascency. Don't try to guess what might work, let the users tell you (and look closely at what they do when they're on your site).
Other things they do right?
But, I'm not sure the MySpace and FaceBooks can reliably retain (0r even grow) their user base over time. Do married 40 year olds crave the same attention that young singles do? Will college students currently using FaceBook continue to frequent that community once they get a real job and begin supporting a family? The bottom line is that a social network that that offers a place to post, discuss, rate, and connect on issues that matter to a large number of people over a long period of time will make for the best social network sites. So in this regard, I believe MySpace and Facebook offer very little.
However, here's what I think MySpace has done right:
1) Open Community. Hear me out. Yes, this decision has allowed pedophiles to stalk children, which is inexcusable. However, social communities are most powerful when they give voice to everyone, or "democratizing information" as Chris Andersen calls it in The Long Tail. Opening up the community allows for the best content to emerge but simultaneously assumes you can also filter out all the crap and spam that dilutes great content. MySpace got this one right. The internet is all about openness and democratizing information.
2) Let the users tell you how to build the site. In the beginning, MySpace focused on the music vertical. Those who were interested in sharing music clips or promoting their own music were the early users. However, MySpace expanded in response to users wanting better tools for communicating with (and adding) other members, and other content and tools not directly related to music. Now, you can blog about anything you want, instant message other members, find a group about a topic of interest, set up an email domain, setup your personal website, etc, etc, etc. Some wonder how they all relate to one another. From everything I've read, it appears that MySpace simply offers something in response to an outcry from its users. This is a really important point in social networking because this is a concept in its nascency. Don't try to guess what might work, let the users tell you (and look closely at what they do when they're on your site).
Other things they do right?
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Social Networking Sites: The Bad (Part III)
One of the biggest shortfalls of social communities is the ability to find relevant content. One of the smartest things Google did with their page rank relevancy algorithm was to examine how many (and which) sites link to yours as a gauge for relevancy. Links represent a vote of confidence in your site's content. Google also looks at who links to those who link to your site to prevent link farm gaming and the like.
MySpace has no such algorithm within its own community. Sure, they allow you to search the web and then use Google's organic search results, but I'm talking about finding relevant content written by members of MySpace.
Let's say, for example, I was planning to travel to Madagascar and wanted to find travel, accomodation, safari, and other activity recommendations from MySpace users. I search through the groups and find "places and travel" group and then an "Africa" subgroup within that. I see 30 different posts order from oldest to most recent. Very few of the posts even address the question. Some users describe their own Safari last year, another describes her study abroad in Ghana. The bottom line: this content does not answer the question and is not terribly useful. Perhaps the original poster found a new friend among those posting. However, I would love to see all content rated and scored by other users in addition to offering basic sorting options. The best communities provide tools for self-monitoring to those who care about the accuracy, validity, and relevancy of the shared content.
Allowing all community members to rate on another's comments serves several purposes. For starters, it gives members of the community a sense of belonging and ownership because they have the ability to rank one another's content. For those posting, it raises the overall thoughtfulness and quality of their post as they know others will read (and scrutinize) their every word. A person's reputation and pride is at stake when others can praise or ridicule your posting. This power of this incentive cannot be overstated.
Besides not having user generated review ratings and scoring, MySpace doesn't even allow me to sort the posts from most recent to less recent (the opposite is the hard-coded default).
User generated reviews and scores coupled with greater sort functionality would greatly improve MySpace's overall content relevancy. I don't hold out much hope, though.
MySpace has no such algorithm within its own community. Sure, they allow you to search the web and then use Google's organic search results, but I'm talking about finding relevant content written by members of MySpace.
Let's say, for example, I was planning to travel to Madagascar and wanted to find travel, accomodation, safari, and other activity recommendations from MySpace users. I search through the groups and find "places and travel" group and then an "Africa" subgroup within that. I see 30 different posts order from oldest to most recent. Very few of the posts even address the question. Some users describe their own Safari last year, another describes her study abroad in Ghana. The bottom line: this content does not answer the question and is not terribly useful. Perhaps the original poster found a new friend among those posting. However, I would love to see all content rated and scored by other users in addition to offering basic sorting options. The best communities provide tools for self-monitoring to those who care about the accuracy, validity, and relevancy of the shared content.
Allowing all community members to rate on another's comments serves several purposes. For starters, it gives members of the community a sense of belonging and ownership because they have the ability to rank one another's content. For those posting, it raises the overall thoughtfulness and quality of their post as they know others will read (and scrutinize) their every word. A person's reputation and pride is at stake when others can praise or ridicule your posting. This power of this incentive cannot be overstated.
Besides not having user generated review ratings and scoring, MySpace doesn't even allow me to sort the posts from most recent to less recent (the opposite is the hard-coded default).
User generated reviews and scores coupled with greater sort functionality would greatly improve MySpace's overall content relevancy. I don't hold out much hope, though.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Seattle Restaurant Social Network Startup
I had heard about this startup and then read a little more on John Cook's Blog the other day. The company is Menuism. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see this site as anything all that valuable for the following reasons:
1) No real differentiation from CitySearch or Zagat. If I want to find restaurant ratings on criteria such as price, food quality, service level, etc, this data already exists.
2) Many, including myself, don't eat out enough to make finding (and sharing) this kind of information that valuable. Put another way, if I eat out once a month at a nice restaurant, the cost of a bad decision isn't terribly high such that I am willing to take chances and experiment with different restaurants. The worst that can happen is I'm out 50 bucks and I had a nice night out with my wife. But, is a restaurant's food and ambiance worth spending numerous sessions per week writing about and discussing? For restaurant aficionados, perhaps. For me, definitely not.
In short, those spent enough time at restaurants may care to participate. To me, this is another example of a very niche social network that never gets truly broad review and content because it will probably never reach the critical mass of users to contribute. And besides, this information is already largely available.
1) No real differentiation from CitySearch or Zagat. If I want to find restaurant ratings on criteria such as price, food quality, service level, etc, this data already exists.
2) Many, including myself, don't eat out enough to make finding (and sharing) this kind of information that valuable. Put another way, if I eat out once a month at a nice restaurant, the cost of a bad decision isn't terribly high such that I am willing to take chances and experiment with different restaurants. The worst that can happen is I'm out 50 bucks and I had a nice night out with my wife. But, is a restaurant's food and ambiance worth spending numerous sessions per week writing about and discussing? For restaurant aficionados, perhaps. For me, definitely not.
In short, those spent enough time at restaurants may care to participate. To me, this is another example of a very niche social network that never gets truly broad review and content because it will probably never reach the critical mass of users to contribute. And besides, this information is already largely available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
