MappingTheWeb //

I will be guest posting Friedbeef’s Tech blog from time to time. The popular tech blog is focused around “solving everyday problems with simple technology”. It also has a very loyal following. I look forward to contributing to its success.

To read my first post on PhishTank, click here: Here Phishy, Phishy…

Thanks for the continued support.

Many critics shun the term ‘web 2.0′. This is understandable, although I do feel there may be room for a term to describe a new web experience focused around user-contribution and social media. Or maybe a term isn’t needed? What do you think?

I tend to use the term “The New Web”. It works for me and isn’t overly cliched. Although I dread a time when “The Newer Web” or “The New & Improved Web” come along.

As a side note, many techies are already mentioning the term ‘web 3.0′. Yikes. This may be a sign that we are actually in a bubble (which I still don’t believe). Although, acceptance is the first step in AA…

In any case, let me know your thoughts. If you have a different name suggestion, be sure to mark it down. If you don’t think a term is needed, let us know why.

Or is it the legend of the lack of ‘e’?

In any case, Flickr started the grammatical error trend. My guess is that they wanted the domain Flicker.com, but it had already been taken. So lazily, they dumped the ‘e’ and the name was born. This web 2.0 naming trend still lives on…

Today, when I see a company name ending in ‘r’ but lacking the ‘e’, I instinctively and unconsciously group it in a wannabe web 2.0 category. In 95%+ cases, the company has made a lame attempt at trying to jump on the bandwagon and ride the web 2.0 buzz to the bank. But I believe most new web observers can see right through the smokes and mirrors.

Now, I said 95%+ as there have been a few Flickr successors who have achieved some level of fame and success using the ‘r’ suffix. Here’s my list:

• Jaxtr (in BETA)
• Zooomr 

On the other hand, there have been many ‘r’ companies that have failed to impress - not because of the stereotypical web 2.0 name, but because of the product or service. Here is the rest of the pack:

• Blufr
• Browsr
• Coastr
• Empressr
• Flagr
• gpokr
• Grazr
• GTalkr
• Isolatr
• Preloadr
• Retrievr
• Scanr
• Socializr
• SoonR
• StockPickr
• Streakr
• Talkr
• Wrickr
• Zapr

I know that there are many others I missed. Please feel free to add your favourites in the comments.

From now on, let it be known that ‘r’ is the power letter of web 2.0. Also let it be known that if every second start-up uses this naming scheme, we are definitely in a bubble.

NOTE: Some of the companies listed with the rest of the pack have produced quality products and/or services, but have failed to generate traffic and a revenue model.

After reading and commenting on an interesting article over at Wisdump, I think the topic merits a post of its own. 

The article dealt with the notion of charging for a service, rather than monetizing with Google AdSense (or advertising), the standard web 2.0 tactic.

But users don’t want to pay and companies don’t want users to pay. Now, the former makes sense, but the latter needs some explaining…

What we are overlooking is the whole corporate ‘web 2.0 mentality’ here.

Companies that don’t charge users aren’t actually marketing their services to users. They’re looking for quick sign-ups and account creation. This leads to buzz and corporate gossip. In other words, the company is marketing to potential buy-out candidates.

By driving user adoption and launching with a promotional blitz, many start-ups can manifest a popular image and create the illusion of a much larger user base than reality. This is all due to the marketability of a ‘free’ service, as opposed to a subscription model.

Next, the start-up attempts to sell to a larger player. Popular examples include Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft. These ventures never really had plans for a revenue model all along. The hope is that monetary compensation will come in the form of an acquisition rather than a revenue model. In doing so, the company passes the burden of monetization on to the acquisitor. Slapping on a subsciption fee was never an option. It would hamper user base growth and provide a barrier to entry for many.

This is the so-called the “keep-your-fingers-crossed” strategy. It is also commonly referred to as the “let’s-hope-we-get-bought-over-before-we-run-out-of-cash” strategy. Either way, they’re both making reference to the same clever tactic.

This corporate strategy is very shallow and risky, but with such little capital put forth on most web 2.0 ventures, it’s worth risking say $50,000 when the potential pay-out may be several million dollars.

NOTE: This is not the case for all start-ups. But don’t kid yourself by denying the fact that this is a commonly used strategy in the web 2.0 world. Also note that I am not a capitalist pig with no heart. I do believe in the hard-working entrepreneur with good intentions. But this is the business world and I am simply pointing out the facts.

Today, MappingTheWeb debuted at a Google PageRank of 5. Patiently, I’ve waited until the Google algorithm re-adjusted. Up until today, the PageRank read 0. This didn’t sound reasonable. Nonetheless, this new iteration finally provided some clarity. Hopefully this will help drive more search traffic to the site and provide added exposure.

What does PageRank really mean to me?

PageRank paints a picture over time. An increase indicates a rising number of back-links (and vice versa). This also means that people are enjoying my content - this makes me happy. I am simply going to continue to write (what I hope to be) useful, interesting, and insightful content that readers can not only absorb, but respond to as well.

Thanks to all those who have linked to my page and enjoy the posts.