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.

I’ve written several articles about the problems that web 2.0 is facing if it is looking to break into the mainstream. A small number of companies, most notably Facebook, are doing a good job of ushering in these technologies without scaring regular folk with complicated terminology.

So what’s the next step?

Let’s talk benefits, not technologies. Once the benefits are apparent, the ‘intimidation factor’ of web 2.0 terms will be eliminated. Subsequently, non-savvy users will be more likely to adopt the technologies and take advantage of their potential.

In other words, tell me how I can:

• Make cheaper phone calls. Don’t tell me about VOIP.
• Create my own personalized channel of content. Don’t tell me about RSS.
• Collaborate on projects or documents with colleagues. Don’t tell me about wikis.
• Add functionality to my blog or website without any technical knowledge. Don’t tell me about widgets.

Like I say, people will eventually acknowledge the terms, but for now, the benefits are what need to come to the forefront. Once this can be accomplished, useful web 2.0 sites can climb into the spotlight and showcase their value.

An interesting point to note is that a large number of Internet users are already taking advantages of these web 2.0 technologies and they don’t even know it.

Historically, if you’re looking for a mortgage, you head to your local bank to get the best available rate. Next you may visit several other competitor banks to find out their rates. Some people even make use of a mortgage broker. In any case, the purchase of a home is usually the single biggest purchase in a given individual’s life. For that very reason, the research and due diligence leading up to the decision cannot be taken mildly. In many cases, people don’t put enough time and effort toward the cause and end up with an inflated rate that puts a severe damper on their finances for years to come.

SmartHippo wants to change the way we think about and deal with mortgages. The goal of the company is to bring transparency to the financial services industry by providing an unbiased look at mortgage rates. How so? Essentially, the site is powered by users. These individuals post rates depending on their profile and geographic location. Banks and mortgage companies can also post rates (SmartHippo becomes a marketing outlet for them). When a user wants to ‘compare rates’, a snapshot of current conditions is generated based on the user’s geography, credit score, equity, etc…

So how does one know if a rate is accurate? Rates receive votes and comments by the community, akin to Digg submissions. Assuming a community-controlled system works, the bad rates will be weeded out and the good rates will rise to the top.

Users can also ‘get a quote’. This is different from comparing rates. In this case, a user enters their criteria and contact information, and instantly gets matched with up to four lenders who will contact them with a personalized offer. Strict security and privacy policies are present site-wide. This allows users to remain anonymous at all times if preferred.

Because the site is geographically-sensitive, users can discuss their experiences with other local mortgage hunters. A forum provides a great place for vent or recommend a given financial service company.

I had the pleasure of chatting briefly with the CEO, upon which I had one issue in particular. It went something along the lines of this: for the most part, people only buy one house during their lifetime. Assuming they use SmartHippo to capitalize on rates and the purchase has been completed, why would they want to come back to the site? In other words, SmartHippo no longer serves a purpose to that individual. “Not so fast…”, he tells me. The company is planning to diversify in other financial services areas, including insurance, stocks, mutual funds, etc… This helped answer my question concerning repeat visitors and site “stickiness”.

Interestingly, the service is free to use. If I’m not mistaken, revenues will be generated via targeted advertising. In addition, SmartHippo is only available to US consumers at this point in time. Ironically, the company is based out of Montreal. Plans have been made to enter the Canadian market in the near future, although the US provides a much larger base at the present time.

I think SmartHippo is a great idea that merits further scrutiny. I look forward to a time when it available in the Canadian market and I can make use of the service. The concept and basis are very new and fresh. It will be interesting to follow adoption and acceptance of the service as the industry progresses from a traditional model to a more current, innovative one.

New start-up LingoZ has an ambitious goal in mind. They’re looking to build a dictionary from scratch. Thanks to the new concept of crowdsourcing (or user-contribution), LingoZ plans to harness users in an attempt to redefine the traditional ‘dictionary’ space.

Why would anyone want to enter an area dominated by such big names as Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster? Simply put, they don’t plan on competing in the same way. The traditional players function in a stagnant manner. They are not dynamic. Obviously, definitions do not change much over time, but context, slang, and new words are appearing all the time. This is the reason for being for LingoZ. As the company puts it:

“We aim to prove that a user contributed dictionary who is subject to the community moderation can be as accurate and of high quality as a “regular” dictionary, while evolving and being updated faster than any other source.”

Registered users can do one of a number of things, including:

1. Add a new term
2. Define an existing term
3. Vote on definitions

Currently, the site supports 8 languages. They include English, Hebrew, Portuguese, French, German, Spanish, Italian, and Dutch.

So why would anyone want to edit or contribute to the site? Notoriety is key. As is the case with most sites that do not offer monetary compensation, LingoZ has done a good job of outlining the main incentive of participation:

“Users who are highly praised will gain credibility and enjoy visibility within the LingoZ community.”

The way I see it, LingoZ is to dictionaries as Wikipedia is to encyclopedias. Both will hail their criticisms, due to sourcing from so-called amateurs. Opinions and personal angles may be taken, but a community-controlled and -patrolled system should essentially weed out all the discrepencies. What’s also interesting to note is that SEO will probably be a main traffic driver, somewhat akin to Wikipedia as well.

Negatives aside, many will embrace these new dynamic mediums. Definitions, phrases, and references do change from time to time. Furthermore, new additions and words are appearing all the time, especially in this new era of technology and science. A reluctance to accept or accommodate for these trends may ultimately lead to the demise of traditional giants.

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.