MappingTheWeb //

Google has been on a tear recently. The stock closed at a 52-week high today (just over $740 a share). The announcement of OpenSocial catapulted the stock to new heights. The upward climb has been fueled constant earnings blow-outs. But these can’t last forever. With every consecutive positive surprise, more and more pressure is placed on the company. Mark my word - one of these earnings reports will fall short of expectations and will stock will get absolutely hammered. A $300+ drop in a day is not out of the question. As they say, nobody stays at the top forever.

What are some potential flaws, faults, concerns, or dangers that the company needs to address or guard against?

• Revenue diversification - still completely dependent on advertising
• New search players and search technologies
• Click fraud issues

Their long-term strategy is still an enigma, although the platform move may give some indication. Nevertheless, it may also simply be a move to take the spotlight away from Facebook and regain superiority status. Google’s ability to work together with other companies and services is crucial. This brings us to another piece of news - or lack thereof. There is no GPhone. However, the announcement of Android may ultimately be a smarter move in the end. Finally, the integration and strategy surrounding recent acquisitions will be interesting to watch.

As I say, Google will not be at the top forever. What brings the company down is still a question mark. My gut tells me Google may even experience a similar fate to Microsoft - user backlash. The Internet giant used to be the wonder child of the net. Now, users are starting to voice their concerns with the bureaucratic Googleplex that has emerged. 

Do you ever arrive on a website and the feel just screams ‘web 2.0′? There is no need to read the text or delve further into the content - already, you are certain that you are dealing with a web 2.0 product/service.

It seems that some designers are now working in reverse in an attempt to leverage the whole web 2.0 phenomenon. Instead of focusing on the offering first, they are designing a lovely web 2.0 experience, then shaping the the service around the site. This is the opposite of what should be done.

Here are some obvious signs of a typical web 2.0 design:

• Rounded corners
• Big fonts
• Bright colours
• Faded backgrounds
• BETA logos

I have no problem with the use of these design elements (apart from the BETA logo). What I do (often) have an issue with is the process by which the experience is created, as well as the mindset of the designer.

Usability needs to be the key issue. Focus needs to be placed on making the offering as easy and intuitive to use as possible. Aesthetic design is secondary. Nevertheless, the two must complement each other in order to maximize the end result.

Basically, I’m sick of the web 2.0 cloak. If a site is easier to navigate based on a historical web 1.0 design, then so be it. For that matter, I think we should drop the terms altogether and truly focus on the design itself. I think the net will be a better place if we can overcome this obstacle.

Every hot Internet space goes through an evolution. There is an initial acceptance stage, followed by hyper-growth. Recent spaces that fit this description include micro-blogging, online video, and social bookmarking.

Buzz and exposure in these areas exceeds that of most other areas. Furthermore, acquisitions have taken center stage. Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft are the usual suspects, but traditional media companies (Fox, Viacom, etc…) are beginning to recognize that the web is going to play a vital role in the progression of media.

High valuations are also an indicator of a hot sector. They may reflect actual value, factoring in future growth and earnings, but often these stratospheric numbers are pulled out of the air by Kool-Aid drinking analysts.

So… back to the title of the post… what is the next hot space?

We’ve been hearing a lot about ’semantics’ and the ’semantic web’, but when is there truly going to be an app or service that regular people can use that leverages this technology? It’s been talked about for years now, but we have yet to see much progress (at least in my mind). New search engines Powerset and Hakia promise to revolutionize search using semantics - I guess time will tell.

Platforms and aggregators seem likely poised for success. They bank off raw data and information to create interesting, value-added services. The Facebook platform is a great example of this. Now, MySpace and Bebo have introduced similar platforms.

Perhaps, simple apps or feature-specific apps (think 37signals) will be the future. Keeping it simple and not over-crowding the offering with useless features is more complicated than it seems. Though this cannot be classified as a given space, it is more of a strategy that can be applied to any space.

To me, it seems that the most successful apps will either be more complicated or more simple than current services. This may seem like a generic statement that covers all bases, but I’ve been amazed (and unimpressed) with the majority of recent offerings.

What do you think the next hot space will be?

I really like web 2.0 and social media, but I have a problem. The majority of people don’t know what the heck it is. This means that they are unable to use such technologies. Preaching to the web 2.0 ‘echo chamber’ is great, but it limits growth, thus decreasing potential revenues.

In my opinion, many start-ups with products/services focused solely around web 2.0 are hoping for a successful launch, widespread PR and exposure, then a quick sale to an Internet giant or media mogul. Long-term aspirations are questionable. Even more perplexing are web 2.0 services that aggregate other web 2.0 services.

Simplicity… usability… they’re all I ask for. God bless the companies that make web 2.0 usable. Making it easy for regular folk to harness and leverage the power of these technologies cannot be overstated. I’ve hit on this topic before, but I will continue to do so.

First of all, we need to take a look at the messaging. Web 2.0 is full of jargon. Let’s take a look at some popular web 2.0 terms that a majority of people have likely never heard of:

• AJAX
• Widgets
• RSS 
• Wikis
• Mash-ups
• Podcasting

… and the list goes on. Personally, these terms are second nature to me. But I understand that my parents and friends have no idea what they mean. This needs to change.

Secondly, there needs to be better education around how these technologies can or are being used. The intimidation factor plays a huge role here. Many shy away from web 2.0 due to the seemingly frightening nature of these terms. This is nothing more than an information inefficiency. Bridging the gap is the ultimate goal.

So what needs to be done? What’s the simple solution?

Easy-to-understand messaging and better education are key to the adoption of web 2.0 technologies.

Once this happens (and all the planets align), we can all delve further into this interweb of unlimited possibilities.

Note: For further analysis and commentary, please read this previous post: How Facebook Is Bringing Web 2.0 MainStream.

Today, Yahoo added new search features and functionality. Video embedding (via Yahoo Video, YouTube, and MetaCafe), Flickr integration, event information (via Upcoming.org), and new Yahoo Shortcuts were all introduced. We’re seeing all this wonderful social media integration - so what’s the big problem? It’s biased. And search engines shouldn’t be biased.

To be honest, I’m genuinely upset about the changes. Not only do they add more clutter to the page, but they’re decreasing the overall quality and relevancy of the search engine. Furthermore, Yahoo is getting praise for these changes. Many are even saying that the company is catching up to Google. I even heard a whisper of the term “Google killer”. This is a bold statement and it can’t be farther from the truth. In reality, Yahoo is widening the gap. They are drifting further away from Google, as they are providing less relevant, more biased results. They are redefining ‘vertical creep’. On the occasion, Yahoo will have the most relevant result on the entire net, but more often than that, it won’t. What Yahoo needs to do is go back to the drawing board and work on their algorithm. This is the bread and butter of any search engine. Forget the web 2.0 app integration.

Pardon my rant, but I’m not a big fan of this move. It is company bias in a space where there should be no bias. All this new integration means that a given user will (in most cases) not be receiving the best quality, unedited, clean, no-strings-attached results. Rather, they are subjected to ’Yahoo’ results and links to Yahoo properties. In my opinion, this leads to higher short-term benefits (and revenues) for the company due to an increase in page views, but translates to long-term problems in the areas of relevancy and perception.

If Yahoo does want to include such results in search, place this information in the sidebar and provide disclosure around it. Numerous others have done it in the past, so why not Yahoo? By integrating company results into the natural search results, it confuses and/or deceives the user. This isn’t in the best interest of the company - at least in my mind. Another possible solution is richer functionality in the ‘vertical search tabs’. If I really want images or videos in my results, I search via Yahoo Image search or Yahoo Video search, not regular search. I think there is an opportunity here, but Yahoo is being greedy.

I say, “Just gimme the best damn results.” Google does a pretty darn good job of this. They haven’t cluttered the results or riddled the page with endless amounts of company-centric material.

One bright spot for Yahoo is Search Assist. This new tool (somewhat akin to Google Suggest) provides contextual suggestions and conceptual recommendations for your search queries. This saves time and hassle, and may indeed aide you in reaching the most relevant results. So why do I like this? As opposed to the other Yahoo features, this one is unbiased (at least I HOPE). It is based on user behaviour, patterns, and trends.

Below is a screenshot of Yahoo Assist (courtesy of Search Engine Journal):

In the end, I think what Yahoo is trying to do is capitalize on all their recent web 2.0 acquisitions by integrating them into search. I think it’s a valiant idea, but involved poor execution. As I mentioned before, I don’t think that integrating such results into the natural search results is the optimal strategy. Company bias and and self-fulfilling intentions start to play a role, and all of a sudden, people are starting to question the credibility and trustworthiness of search. Losing trust is probably the worst possible outcome for Yahoo at this point in the game.