MappingTheWeb //

Everybody has their own list of web apps they CANNOT live without. These are the essential tools to daily life on the net. I find that my top apps tend to remain the same, although some changes do occur.

Anyways, here is MY list. Be sure to add your apps at the bottom…

10. Wikipedia - my source for information and research (PS. I know it’s not 100% accurate).

9. Digg - informative and entertainging news bits and articles.

8. Skype - allows me to keep in touch with friends, family, and contacts over IM or voice. 

7. Feedburner - keeps track of my RSS feeds and stats. 

6. Clicky - provides in-depth web analytics with a clean, usable interface.

5. iGoogle - displays all my RSS feeds; doubles as my search page. 

4. MSN Messenger / Hotmail - used for IM with friends; web-based e-mail. Ya, ya… I could use GMail, but all my friends use MSN Messenger and it integrates with Hotmail, so give me a break. 

3. Wordpress -  best blogging platform available, in my mind.

2. Firefox - my web browser of choice… obviously. 

1. Facebook - essential social network that keeps track of friends, family, and colleagues.

Just missed the list…

• YouTube - premiere video site on the net; this was tough to leave out of the top 10.
• Craigslist - used often, but on an inconsistent basis.
• Technorati - used for searching blogs quite often.
• Joost - I dabble from time to time…
• MyBlogLog - blog social network; used to use more, but it’s being overrun with SPAM.
• 9rules - my blog network; not so much a tool as it is a tight community.

So, that’s the basis for my life on the net. I’m sure many have similar apps of choice, while others have their own favourites. It will be interesting to look back at a post, such as this, in a year’s time to determine what changes have occurred in our online habits and behaviours. Which companies fell off the list? Which ones were added? The evolution of the Internet will no doubt affect the evolution of our ‘lists’, as new products and services crop up, while others fall by the wayside. Innovation is occurring at a blistering rate and no-one can remain at the top forever.

Last week, Jason Calcanis launched his pet project, a human-powered search called Mahalo. The engine provides company-edited results, as well as user-submitted results.

A typical search results page is comprised of several new areas:

• The Mahalo Top 7 - seven hand-picked results from the editors
• Guide Note - additional information and other relevant search queries
• Fast Facts - self-explanatory

A given SERP also gives users the ability to add relevant links and results for that given query. Finally, a discussion area is available for every query. This allows users to provide further thoughts, above and beyond the search results.

Some quick facts about Mahalo:

• 40 full-time editors
• 4,000 results pages created thus far
• 10,000 pages predicted by the end of 2007
• 25,000 pages predicted by the end of 2008
• 4 years - how long Calcanis says he can run the business without revenues

Once again, the scenario of ‘human vs. computer’ arises. Will Mahalo be able to provide better, more relevant results on an ongoing, frequent basis? My guess is no. I do not believe that a small team of editors can keep up to the constantly-expanding, dynamic nature of the web.

I am eager to see the offering put forth by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. He is working on a human-powered search engine of his own. Apparently, these tech industry veterans believe that they can overcome the speed and power of the algorithm-based engines. I am full of doubts. And until they can provide me wrong, I think I will favour the algorithm-based players (especially for long tail queries ).

Directories versus search engines. Editors versus algorithms. Quality versus quantity. However you want to break it down, the age old dilemma remains.

Google has risen to stratospheric levels because of its ingenious link-based search engine algorithm. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has achieved fame following a different path - an editorial-based path. Now Jimmy Wales (creator of Wikipedia) is looking to launch a search engine of his own. In contrast to Google, this new engine will be human-powered, as opposed to algorithm-powered. The trade-offs are very apparent. Nevertheless, a case can be made for either side - there are advantages and disadvantages to both strategies.

The most obvious trade-off is with respect to quality versus quantity. Search engines can crawl a lot more pages and websites than a group of editors can. However, quality and relevance can be maximized using humans. Furthermore, this effort would also eliminate parked and advertising-laden landing pages from the search results.
Speed and frequency are also an issue. Automated search happens at a very fast pace. Updates are always ongoing. An editorial effort would be much slower and less likely to produce updates at a high rate.

I am very interested to see how the search engine model of Jimmy Wales takes shape. This PR darling will undoubtedly grasp a loyal following from the get-go based on the success of Wikipedia. But I am still not unconvinced that a human-led search engine endeavour can keep up to the computing power of a multi-computer, algorith-based system.

Could there ever be such thing as a hybrid?…

The irony is simply extraordinary.

The past day in the life of Digg has been chaotic, tumultuous, and earth-shattering to put it mildly. If you are unaware of what has gone on, please familiarize yourself with the events of the past day or so before reading on.

Digg has based its success and premise on the power of ‘the crowds’. Irony entered the picture when the crowds decided to turn against the site. Sound familiar? Drawing from similar offline events, this sounds like a civil war or a revolution of sorts. Who ever thought Rome would fall?

This is the day many have been waiting for. This is a day that had to happen in evolution of the net. This is the day we find the flaws of social media.

Up until now, people have rejoiced and praised the advantages and benefits of wikis, social media, and crowdsourcing (among other things). These trends not only create community and a sense of belonging, but also viral growth within the user base. But what happens when the community feels disjointed and betrayed? An uproar of mammoth proportions.

Digg users felt betrayed by the ‘corporate entity’ that is behind Digg. Though I’m sure the decision to remove the stories was made with the best intentions, the stories were not the concern in the first place (for the users). The decision was. When Digg decided to delete those stories, it jumped into the shark tank.

So what does the future of Digg look like now? Doubtful in my mind. The company valuation plummeted in a matter of hours. A lot of money was lost due to a little bit of information. My guess is that the site will stay up and the company will fight all allegations in court til the bitter end - but will lose. The day’s events also bring up other questions. How are Digg’s investors going to react? What about the VC’s? There are so many questions to be answered in the days to come… My mind is running at 100mph.

What is Digg at its core? An amazing product? No. A sophisticated program that took years to build? No. It’s a simple concept, an algorithm. The magic enters the equation when users begin to interact with the site. And this aspect becomes more true and more powerful (for good or bad) as the user base increases. Previously, good was all that had come of the site. But now we are seeing the dark, ill-fated side of Digg that many were scared to see, but are now forced to live with.

This story truly hits home as it deals with so many different angles, perspectives, and notions. I think that a lot of people fail to see the psychology behind the events. This is the most interesting aspect to me. I hope to see case studies and research done on this matter. How can a site that garners 1% of all U.S. Internet traffic fall in a matter of hours? The magnitude/amplitude/reach of the Internet is undeniably scary and this is evidence of that.

The true significance of the Digg story has nothing to do with Digg. It has to do with the future of the Internet at large. Digg is merely the introduction to this never-ending story.

As they say, don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Or in this case, don’t f*ck with your users. I wish Digg all the best and I hope we can all learn from its mistakes. All the best, Kevin Rose.

Spock has been one hyped beast. Buzz has been swirling around this stealth start-up for months now. This low-flying aircraft has carefully managed to avoid the media at large and focus on the company. And despite the hype, the company looks to have an exceptional service from my preliminary analysis… 

Already, the company has raised $7 million (in December 2006) via Clearstone Venture Partners and Opus Capital Ventures. This was even before a BETA product was available. 

At the core, Spock is aiming to be the Google of people searches - which it estimates to be around 30% of all Internet searches. Should this number be accurate, then obviously there is huge potential in a largely untapped market. Competitors include the likes of Wink and ZoomInfo - neither of which has made a significant impact on the search world or gone mainstream.

Search results and profile information are being aggregated from blogs, Wikipedia, and social networks, among other sources. Individual searches reference tags and meta data that is edited by users. Finally, a given individual can claim his/her profile through an e-mail verification process with Spock.

Exclusive screenshots courtesy of TechCrunch are available here:

• Spock screenshot 1
• Spock screenshot 2
• Spock screenshot 3

What do I like about the profile interface?

• Prominent display of the search bar at all times
• Simple demographic information
• Abbreviated bio
• The ability to quickly and easily find pictures, related people, and even contact information

There is even a widget available… talk about web 2.0 compliant…

I would imagine that many people (including myself) end up on a Wikipedia page when researching a famous person. Not only am I biased to Wikipedia, but a link is usually present on the first page of nearly every search result for a given person. Having said that, I do use IMDB the odd time when researching a movie star or entertainer in particular. However, should Spock prove to be as useful as it looks, I may be changing my searching tendencies…