MappingTheWeb //

[Facebook - Has The Novelty Worn Off?] - It looks like the Facebook frenzy has finally died down a bit. It seems like only yesterday every tech blogger was posting a story about the social network.

The launch of the F8 platform ignited the PR fire. Eventually, the chaos hit a feverish pitch when acquisition rumours began to swirl. Facebook was quick to discount these rumours, stating they had no intention of selling the company. The last big hurrah came when Microsoft invested a small chunk of cash in the company at an absurd valuation of $15 billion. Now that the PR hurricane has passed, the sea of Facebook is eerily tranquil…

Publicity aside, users are starting to shy away from the social network for another reason - information overload. When Facebook apps was launched, everyone was adding every application they received an invitation for. Now, people are being much more selective with apps, as well as events and groups. Personally, I don’t add any applications at all, and I’m very strict about which events and groups I sign up for. I focus on quality rather than quantity and I think others are doing the same.

If you sense pessimism, you are deceived. I am still very optimistic about the future of this social network. I think they’ve been very smart and strategic with their approach. Their constant push for innovation has led to some industry-changing features, most notably photo-tagging and news feed. If they continue to stay focused and strategic, I am convinced that Facebook can prosper for a long time to come.

[Direction of the Web] - It is unclear to me where the Web is headed in the very near future. The big guys (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft) seem to be a bit lost. In addition, no clear trends or “hot spaces” are emerging. Social networking seems to have cooled down a bit and micro-blogging, though still rising in popularity, seems to be taking a breather.

A few categories are showing promise, but lacking overall direction. These include online video, wikis, podcasting, and personal finances (to name a few). It seems that interest in these areas is present as many players continue to enter the game. Having said that, no-one seems to know how each space will play out. Everyone is providing their own take on the situation, choosing a different audience, vertical, or worse yet, generalizing.

What I’m surprised about is the lack of focus around local. I truly believe this to be the most lucrative niche by far. After all, it relates to real people - think Craigslist or YellowPages. Let’s be honest with ourselves - blog aggregators and social bookmarking sites preach the choir.

With local, a revenue model is not only achievable, but feasible. It’s also sustainable as people can relate (and understand) the business model. Whether income is generated via targeted advertising or premium directory placement, local is an area that needs to be explored more thoroughly.

What do you see in the near-term future of the Web? What sectors will catch fire and which will fizzle out?

Collaboration, wikis, and crowdsourcing are at the heart of web 2.0. The whole basis for social media is dependent upon these concepts. Value is achieved when numerous parties converge and aggregate knowledge. But a fundamental flaw still exists.

In all cases, collaboration on a document or article creates clutter. Unnecessary additions are all too familiar. Furthermore, what one person might find important, another may find completely irrelevant, in which case they may delete it. The point is that all these changes and modifications create inconsistency. Many voices do equate to more knowledge, but a lack of unity. For this very reason, often a single expert author can provide a more compelling, informative piece.

Ego is a huge issue at hand. Everyone wants a say. Everyone wants to feel like they’ve contributed. Ironically, the best way to participate may simply be to not participate at all.

I came across this very problem during my studies at university. Group projects create this dynamic. Everyone is assigned a section and all sections are amalgamated at the end. The problems with this approach are numerous. Most notably, different individuals possess different writing styles. Moreover, some points may be skipped over or reintroduced due to a lack of communication.

Google Docs and Wikipedia are two poignant (perhaps obvious) examples that come to mind.

My stance on this topic is relatively neutral. I acknowledge both the advantages and disadvantages to collaboration. I do, however, lean cautiously toward a positive take on the situation. Nevertheless, I understand that there is no perfect solution. I would wager that most agree that the benefits outweigh the downfalls, but that’s not the point. Education and awareness need to take center stage. Most are ignorant and oblivious that disadvantages even exist with respect to Wikipedia and other such systems. Acceptance isn’t the hard part. Putting your ego aside and overcoming denial is.

What is your take on wikis and collaboration? Do you think social media is the greatest thing since sliced bread or do you think it is fundamentally flawed?

Yesterday’s post brought up an interesting topic. What is the definition of a “startup”? In other words, when does a startup progress to a “company”?

Is it defined by:

• Time? i.e. Less than a year old?
• Revenues? i.e. Under $10 million in revenues?
• Profitability? (Self explanatory)
• Traffic? i.e. Less than 20 million page views per month?
• Staff size? i.e. Staff size smaller than 50?

This topic is particularly interesting because many believe Flickr, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, etc… are still startups. I don’t believe so. Facebook, for example, has:

• Been around for 4 years
• Revenues in the hundreds of millions
• Billions of page views per month
• A staff of a couple hundred

Can you still consider it a startup? I’m not convinced…

On an ambiguous note, Wikipedia defines a startup as “a business with a limited operating history”. So basically, I’m no further ahead than when I first visited Wikipedia.

I’ve been thinking about a term to use to describe the aforementioned boundary or limit. I’m not certain whether a given term exists or not, so I’m going to coin one anyways. The startup threshold will now be known as the point when a business transitions from the startup phase to a full-blown company. The exact metric or number has yet to be established, but I’d like to get feedback from readers.

How do you think a startup should be defined? What number(s) do you think are most important? What would you consider the startup threshold?

In light of all the recent prediction posts for 2008, I present to you my list:

1. Google misses an earnings estimate; the stock drops a couple hundred bucks a share in one day.

2. An increasing number of mainstream musicians drop their record labels and sell directly online.

3. The term “web 2.0″ is outlawed.

4. The “semantic web” and start-ups in the space continue to stumble.

5. Twitter is acquired.

6. Facebook continues to set the bar and dominate the social networking space.

7. Technorati continues to suck.

8. Open ID takes off; more sites embrace the standard.

9. Google launches a job site (or acquires one… SimplyHired? Indeed?).

10. Wikipedia gains widespread credibility and acceptance.

Bonus: 37signals is acquired (long shot).

What do you think will happen in 2008? Am I on target or way off?