Forum Moderators: phranque
Well, I did, but the real heavy duty trend and movement in the Web where users generate stuff and where communities are build and services exchanged and people become stars over night in the virtual world has knocked me out of my orbit.
So busy was I in improving my sites and those of my clients to be efficient machines that could convert, that I completely did not see the Web 2.0 come about. At first, I thought it was all ridiculous stuff based on jingoism and marketing pitches, another 2001-type bubble.
But in my quest to improve my Web real estate, I noticed that I am completely deficient in the 2.0 world.
My question is simple. I don't want to compete against Web 2.0. I missed that boat already. I want to compete in Web 3.0. This time I will be ready (I feel like Bill Gates in 1999). Do any of you know what lies ahead? Can any muster any thoughts or is it too secretive and important to your own future success to share a few hints of where seasoned Webmasters can look for the next trends?
So far here is what I can envision.
I believe that an existing and solid 1.0 Web real estate can survive in the 2.0 ocean. I'm not sure all users want to be in 2.0. I think that many like their privacy and are still not interested in generating stuff, no matter how much all the 2.0 guys force it out of them.
At the same time, the 2.0 stuff will mature too and soon, it will become another standard that will blind that generation of Webmasters, the same way I have been blinded by the conversion years, following 2001.
Although not all niches have converted to Web 2.0, I eventually many will. My problem with this is that I don't want to be part of the crowd anymore. I want to be at the forefront with my Web real estate.
I think that for many seasoned Webmasters who miss the boat, there's not point trying to compete against 2.0 guys. Let them have their cake, while I bake the new stuff ahead.
In my view, the conversion years after 2001, were like a contraction of the industry where results mattered. You had to prove your worth with actual figures that generated income. So everything we did, including SEO (which became a bigger thing then) was to improve those results.
With 2.0, the focus on sound management has lessened. Hits and user lists are valued as currency again - mind share. Conversion matters still, but the end goal of that conversion is not the same. It's not about income, it's about contents.
Currently, some sites are setting themselves up as compilers and eventually, I guess, editors of good user generated contents.
The only trend beyond 2.0 I can foresee is that some of those editors will eventually "train" these users to generate professional contents. But that has happened before 2001. Therefore I don't know how much of a trend it is.
But looking ahead demands lots of imagination and insight. It's still hard to pick up what is strictly 2.0 and what could be something else.
Sorry for thinking out loud here, but I really want to get a serious discussion started. Let us start the brainstorming!
Extreme TV integration. Contextual TV advertising, where those who have contracts with the TV companies will win the most.
Having said that I believe web 2.0 is just a catch phrase, gimmick. The web is evolving, as everything does.
So look at what is around and about now but is not yet ready for primetime.
My vote would go to alternate access methods: web on TVs, phones, PDAs, media players(?), consoles etc. Will your website be accessible to these people?
But looking ahead demands lots of imagination and insight. It's still hard to pick up what is strictly 2.0 and what could be something else.
It exists to separate sites which have excited media interest froms sites which have not. The web 2.0 sites , so called, tend to have a very high artistic production values. Inshort, a lot of money has being thrown at the user interface.
I think the trend will continue, and some folk will throw more an more money at making a beautiful user interface
But, human beings, being contrary by nature, will probably always have a need for the plainer so called web 1.0 sites
I mentioned the television for another reason. That graphic interactive device is ingrained within a culture, so you can almost be certain that the future web will need to embrace it's technology in order to be a real hit. YouTube is giving us a hint that people want to be more than guided thru links, they want to be creative and interactive.
One thing that I've noticed for Web 2 stuff is that people HAVE TO REGISTER and as others have mentioned, that's a bummer. Personally, I'm tired of being forced to register for everything. I just want to get the experience, no strings attached.
So in a way, if one can figure out a way of enabling users to interact with stuff without over tracking them through analytics, a user account or forcing them to contribute contents, their could be a way for 3.0 to be an upgrade of 1.5 (Post 2001 Web, focus on conversion).
Part of me still think that the entire economic model is as shaky as it was in 2000 and that it will eventually crumble.
One problem with search engines, is that people are looking for stuff. Some sites, like the Yahoo Answer or Wiki Web 2.0 stuff, allow users to get the answer they're looking for quickly, elsewhere than through search engines. I think it's a popular model.
However, the content is usually user generated of and a certain quality. How about if I could predict the contents that people will search for and have it generated before they even look for it? How about if it was of a respectable quality and of serious entertainment and educational value?
Could Web 3.0 be going into that direction? Predicting what the niches require, generate that high quality contents, and forgoing the entire must go through user generated contents before I can find what I'm looking for? How would that affect the science of analytics and even search engines.
For example, how about if I could predict that folks will want to know about Ana Nicole Smith on Thursday and what they would want to know about her. How could I prepare this content for them so that when Smith suffers through her drug overdose, my site or whatever platform the Web will turn into next, is ready to to perform, and at the same time rank or appear where my users are looking for it?
When I think Web 3.0, I think about scenarios like this one.
For example, how about if I could predict that folks will want to know about Ana Nicole Smith on Thursday and what they would want to know about her. How could I prepare this content for them so that when Smith suffers through her drug overdose, my site or whatever platform the Web will turn into next, is ready to to perform, and at the same time rank or appear where my users are looking for it?
It would seem this type of process would be tailor-made for the web. Keep files on public figures. When one of them makes news, add it to the file there and then - when something really big happens, like a serious arrest or a death, everything's updated and ready. You'd decide which celebrities to keep track of depending on your audience or the tone of your site.
[edited by: Beagle at 8:14 pm (utc) on Feb. 13, 2007]
You make some great observations. I think it's very important to anticipate and predict what the web holds. However, I really believe that we are only now in the midst of web 2.
From what I can gather, static websites were web 1. Well, now, we're seeing web 2 by simply someone putting a forum on their site. When I think of Web 2 I think 'community' ...a website that users either determine or contribute to the content. Currently, for the majority of webmasters, I think we're all thinking of how to get our users more involved in our websites.
Unfortunately, I believe that many projects that are seen as web 2 are actually web 3(beta). Typically, these sites are ones that implement AJAX. And the site that I'm seeing as making the most progress towards web 3 is Netflix. It's simply becoming more of an application...which is what I see web 3 becoming. I add a movie, and through AJAX it tells me that it's added my movie and then offers suggestions by looking at my past selections and ratings. And through time it's getting better and better at determining what I would like. I eventually see when I log on to netflix that I will never leave the index page. It will be more of an application for choosing movies, getting suggestions, and adding my own opinions.
What I'm trying to get at is that I see web 3 as websites as a fully integrated application that you browse to rather than a website. Think of Photoshop...with web 3 I believe that you could go to Adobe and get most of the features of Photoshop right on your browser (as long as your're registered...unfortunately, I see no end to registrations).
Does this mean an end to web 1 and web 2 sites. Hell, no. Great information is great information. Honestly, as a small publisher, I in no way see any of my sites becoming a web 3 site. At most, my sites are very much web 1. And overall I think people will always go to the web to find great content, whether it's static or dynamic. However, if you want to be something that people that would go to daily...that they depend on...start thinking of you sites as applications that they will need to use daily.
I go back to the Photoshop example, just think of how many people would access the web 3 Photoshop application...along with all of the advertising to accompany it. There's definite money for those persuing this route.
Best of luck, Harry
Google base seems to be a sleeper, but should be a good source for extracting semantics. So will Web 3.0 involve a move away from text based sites and involve semantic data sources?
I get asked by my clients all the time now "is our site a Web 2.0 site?" I thought it was funny at first but am a little annoyed at how the term is being marketed as something new and improved when it isn't.
I agree with Status 203 about alternate access methods. I have a GPS on my running watch to calculate distance down to the last step. What if I had my user profile on there via some Web application to be invented (or maybe it already is) based on my exact point on earth I can access the local newspaper headlines, or grab a coupon to a restaurant if I'm in close proximity. Some companies are already doing that on people's cell phones via subscriber based email marketing campaigns.
If all these new types of data cannot interface easily with human beings with a 70 IQ, forget about it.
[edited by: cmarshall at 3:16 am (utc) on Feb. 16, 2007]
Much as I might complain about MySpace, and its new "September that Never Ended," you can't argue with the bottom line.
Google was a success for two main reasons: One, it has a good engine. Not Earth-shatteringly superior, but a damn good execution of an innovative indexing system, and two, it had a very, very well-designed and planned user experience: A box and a button.
YouTube was a success, chiefly because they offered an infrastructure for a medium that finally had the bandwidth to support it.
etc.
I don't think that you can point at any of these and say that their use of AJAX or pastel gradients was key to their success.
I use the "Web 2.0" fluff from time to time when it is the best way to serve the user, but I'm not losing five minutes of sleep over whether or not I'm "ready for Web 3.0."
ANother thing is the "semantic web". Web 2.0 focused more on the present, but the semantic web (from latent semantic indexing that Google is supposed to have but not yet has.. (i.e. recognizing that if I talk about an "Audi" I am actually talking about a "car" and so is someone searches for "cool cars" maybe the Audi would show up? (OK I put things very simply now). Second however is how all the information on the web can be connected and understood in a better way. Definitely web 3.0 material.
A third thing is devices and interfaces as already mentioned before by some.
I love the google toolbar for filling in forms when I'm registering or buying something. I'd love to see something like a universal "identity" where I could just click an "identify me" button to use features on a site without having to register. Just give the owner of the site my basic demographics (age/gender/location) but not my private details.
If I then decide that I want more information or more features from the website I'll give them more personal information (name/address/email etc.).
I'd love to see something like a universal "identity" where I could just click an "identify me" button to use features on a site without having to register.
Web2.0 to the rescue... OpenID [openid.net]
Seriously though, Passport was a great idea. I just wasn't implemented well. The proprietary model really killed its chances of being a globally useful tool. I guess MS thought they could keep the Windows 95 pace up.
OpenID
Well, we'll see how it goes. As Paypal, and many, many online banks, are showing, anything that has something of value, like money or access to money is subject to some pretty inventive fraud and trickery.
If OpenID takes off, it will only be a matter of time before it's hacked and spoofed, so we'll see what happens then. Paypal has basically been shifting their business model to a more traditional e-commerce/merchant system since they went eBay. Without that, they were sunk.
