Do all top websites need a forum or blog

Do you really need user participation to make it big?

[jmorgan]

Looking at all the top websites, and most, if not all of them either have a forum or some way for their users to interact with the site (and other users of the site) through adding comments, etc.

Just wondering if anyone has actually managed to have a site with heavy traffic based purely on static content?

[rogerd]

While it is certainly possible to have a static, non-interactive website that has huge traffic, you have to ask yourself if it will lose some of that traffic to more interactive sites.

I'd recommend reading O'Reilly's definition of Web 2.0. Then, ask if the site you have in mind could be improved by some of those functions.

[jeremy goodrich]

None of the "really big" clients we've ever worked with had a purely static site. Some have been small start ups, fresh out the gate, and others top tier internet companies, publicly traded, etc.

I think once you get to a certain size, you're missing out on a large opportunity if you don't give the audience something to interact with.

[ken_b]

...once you get to a certain size...

How big is that, and how do you measure "size"?
And what and how much is a site of that "size" missing out on?

If a static site gets a couple hundred thousand unique visitors a month, each looking at several pages per visit, in a topic where sharing information is a big part of the common interest, what's the potential for turning enough of them into posters to make offering a forum or blog beneficial to the long term viability and growth of the site?

Does the potential benefit out weigh the potential hassle?

If so, can the unique count be lower, or does it need to be higher than 200,000, if so, what's a likely to be worthwhile, minimum?

[Blogologist]

I think you have to come back to business objectives. There are a million good features you *could* put on a site (of any size)... but that doesn't mean you should.

The question is more: What makes sense to do in light of our key business objectives, in different timeframes, etc.

To generalize though, it is true that the "Web 2.0" values of interactivity and deep-participation are rubbing off on everyone. Just look at how the depth of user participation has evolved over the last year on Amazon, for example.

The premise of Web 2.0, as I understand it, is that the "asset value" of an online property can be tied very legitimately to user contributed content.

So Flickr, then, has huge asset value, because of the extent of the user contributed content, and similarly with YouTube. In fact, these sites would be nothing at all without user contributed content.

But depending on your site and its business purpose, you will make different decisions from the next guy about where, how and to what extent users can contribute.

But if you don't include any of that... you'll be accused of being so 1999, no matter how good the "static" content is!

All the best with it.

-Alister