MappingTheWeb //

Unless you live under a rock, you are aware that Google launched “Knol” late last week. Immediate comparisons are being made to Wikipedia and Mahalo. However, a more accurate comparison can be made to Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger’s latest project, Citizendium, which focuses exclusively on the submissions of industry experts.

I’m not going to go into detail about the general concept (you can read this Mashable review if you’d like). Rather, I’d like to focus on the advantages and disadvantages of Knol. 

First off, the most apparent benefit of such system is the idea of a single, expert voice. This (in most cases) ensures that the article is not only credible, but also properly structured. Secondly, there is motivation for the publisher, both in terms of notoriety and monetary compensation. Lastly, community features, such as reviews, comments, and publisher profiles add credibility, authority, and validation to the entire system.

From a negative perspective, Knol articles are only presented from the point-of-view of one author. This means that bias and opinion are highly likely. Furthermore, there may also be conflicting information on a given topic from editor to editor. Finally, it may take extra time for a viewer to sort through all the articles on a given topic to locate the necessary information needed. 

Most important of all, Google results will start to appear in Google searches. This creates a huge conflict of interest, as well as head-to-head competition with SEO-dominant properties (i.e. Wikipedia, About.com, etc…). A little algorithm tweak here, a little tweak there… next thing you know, Knol pages are dominating the first page results. Now, I’m not saying this is going to happen, but it does pose a very lucrative opportunity for Google. If Knol pages are able to rank higher than Wikipedia pages, Google’s ad revenues will skyrocket. Nevertheless, I’m sure many will be keeping a very close watch on the entry of Knol pages into the search results…

For those interested, here is a screenshot courtesy of the official Google blog: Google Knol screenshot.

As announced earlier this week, LinkedIn is getting a facelift. The plastic surgeons, otherwise known as web developers, are reshaping the experience in an attempt to create a more ’sticky’ experience. The business social network believes that user engagement and attention need improvement. Therefore, the new launch is focused on creating that ’sticky’ experience that will have users returning on a more regular basis.

As expected (by me at least), the changes look like they drew inspiration from Facebook. Most notably, a ‘news feed’-like feature highlights the home page. Emphasis is also being placed on internal messaging. This function has been given the most prominence on the home page.

Here is a link to a screenshot (courtesy of TechCrunch): New LinkedIn home page screenshot. At present, the new changes are in BETA… of course.

On a side note, the company is looking to launch an API in the very near future as well. Stay tuned for that…

My guess is that LinkedIn was stuck in a conundrum. Like Facebook, LinkedIn placed tight controls on the system. A lack of customization ensured that the network didn’t end up looking like MySpace. However, the company is beginning to loosen their stance on this issue for obvious reasons. First and foremost, Facebook proved that it can be done in an elegant, yet functional manner. So why mess with something that works?

Let’s pull back for a second here. There is an important, recurring trend that I’d like to highlight:

Everything in the social network space seems to be moving in the direction of Facebook. After all, Facebook arguably pioneered two of the biggest advancements in social networking history - the news feed and the platform. These paved the way for huge progress in the industry. Consequently, rivals followed suit. Now they are playing catch-up…

Now, I’m not a LinkedIn power user. Don’t get me wrong - I think it’s a great service that has a lot to offer. But it’s all about connections and contacts. Almost all of my colleagues (and friends) use Facebook. Not only that, but I also find it much more productive and less confusing than LinkedIn.

For further analysis, be sure to read posts from my fellow Canadian tech bloggers Mark Evans and Mathew Ingram.

In addition, for those interested, I wrote an article a couple months back begging the question, “Is Facebook the new LinkedIn?” Feel free to give it a read.

You gotta be kidding me. It used to be a joke, and now it’s just plain ridiculous. Obviously, I’m referring to the new Technorati site re-launch. Techcrunch seems to like the new offering. Don’t ask me why. I’m completely baffled by the new direction of the company.

To me (and many others), search is CORE to Technorati. It is their primary offering. But it seems that the focus is shifting. The new site looks more like a news portal than a search engine. Features such as the “percolator” and tag cloud are being emphasized. I believe these to be secondary/supporting features. In other words, they shouldn’t be showcased. As search is the core offering, SEARCH should be emphasized. And for some insane reason that’s beyond me, they’ve shrunk the search box - it’s tiny. I implore everyone to visit the Technorati home page and take a look at the size of this box. It’s comparable to a regular (small) search box on any given website. This is ridiculous for a so-called “blog search engine”. It’s unacceptable.

I wish I could talk to the new CEO and say, “What the heck are you doing?” The guy is off to a bad start already. I’m genuinely upset about this new company shift. It’s illogical and irresponsible. If less concentration is going to be placed on search and more on content and discovery, then rebrand the company. Otherwise, focus on your core competency and let the rest take care of itself. Like I say, any new visitor to Technorati would assume that the site is more focused on current blog content rather than search.

Let me go on to criticize the home page a bit more…

First of all, way too much space has been allocated for advertising. I can spot one leaderboard, one giant square, and three text ads above the fold. Personally, I think they diminish the overall experience. I understand that they are part of the revenue model, but I still think they can be integrated in a more appropriate manner. Currently, they are completely ruining the experience.

I’ve criticized the company in the past, but this is a whole new ball game. Here is my advice for the company (free of charge): throw out the new stories, tags, some of the ads, and just gimme a big friggin search box. There… I saved the company thousands in consulting fees. Thank me later.

Once again, I encourage everyone to hit the Technorati home page and try to spot the search box. It’s like “Where’s Waldo 2.0?”… I’m sure you’ll be unpleasantly surprised.

That IS the question…

When ‘exposing’ your business plan to colleagues or known business acquaintances, is it always necessary to get them to sign an NDA? The fickle readers will tell me yes. The less cautious readers will say no. Here’s the dilemma:

We all know what an NDA is and what it is supposed to accomplish. But can trusted business contacts actually be trusted? Paperwork aside, the biggest downfall of an NDA may be the loss of respect and trust. Let me explain…

If I get a colleague to sign an NDA, I’m basically alluding to the fact that I don’t trust them. I either think they are going to talk to someone about the idea, or they might steal it for themselves. Bear with me here… I know it’s a long shot, but that might be the thought process of your colleague. In other words, they believe that you don’t trust them. Consequently, they begin to question your business (and perhaps, personal) relationship.

Don’t get me wrong, any understanding party should have no problem signing an NDA. However, some may question your intentions and self-assess your judgment whether you like it or not.

One key argument for NOT signing an NDA falls around execution. Sure, someone may know your business plan top to bottom, but the execution is where 99% of challenge lies. Most people don’t have the time, patience, expertise, or determination to take it to the next level.

Obviously, when exposing such a document to lesser known business contacts or potential investors, an NDA is essential. A certain level of trust has not yet been established. Therefore, such a request should go without saying. But when dealing with known individuals, the rules change. A level of trust has already been established to some extent. The question now becomes… does that level exceed your willingness for them to sign an NDA?

So basically, I keep jumping back and forth over the fence on this one (although I am leaning toward “don’t be a fickle bum”)…

What is your take on the situation? Do you think that everyone should sign an NDA before viewing a business plan? Do you think it may ruin or put strain on a relationship?

I know it’s a bold statement that isn’t entirely true, but let me explain. Obviously, a large number of successful companies can call advertising their revenue model, but this is only after siginificant traffic growth. The number of new start-ups that launch with an advertising model in mind, compared with the number that can actually sustain such a model is minimal. I would consider it a generous estimate to say 1% or so can do it.

Let’s do a little math experiment (using some basic assumptions)…

Company XYZ has 3 full-time employees. Let’s also say that they have no other expenses as they run out of a makeshift basement office. Assuming an extremely modest salary of $50,000 a year each, the company needs to generate revenues of $150,000 a year just to break even. Keep in mind that we are assuming no other expenses exist, even though hosting, bandwidth, and other factors should (in theory) play into the equation.

So, in order to break even, the company needs to generate $150,000, or $12,500 a month, or $417 a day. That doesn’t seem too unrealistic. Now, let’s assume that the website can achieve a $5 CPM, which is relatively good for a small company. The company would need to generate 83,000 page views per day just to break even. This is where many begin to realize that monetizing via advertising is much harder than it seems. From a monthly perspective, that’s 2.5 million page views per month. That’s a significant number. Once again, keep in mind that this is assuming no other expenses and doesn’t include a lifestyle of luxury.

[Please feel free to rip apart my math, point out any inaccuracies, or add any relevant commentary.]

On the whole, what I’m trying to say is that an advertising model is possible to sustain, but it’s rare. Other forms of monetization are much more effective and attainable. With such high levels of competition in every area of the Internet, your ability to capitalize on ads has been greatly diminished. 

As we all know though, many of these companies never intended on monetizing via advertising like they say. Their sole intention was to build traffic and sell off to a major player (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft). This is the typical web 2.0 revenue model. This “hope for the best” strategy is risky, but has paid dividends for a small minority. I wouldn’t recommend it though.