Forum Moderators: phranque
Innovative home grown original sites bought over by others and turned into promotion vehicles that are now virtually useless, paintings for sale on the Web for sale that were sold 3 years ago. Massive numbers of 404's that clog up search engine results. Small publishers failing to keep useful sites running cause they just can't afford it.
Most points touch on problems we discuss here broadly. the move to PPC on Search engines, decreasingly useful SERPS, duplicate content.
<start neo-Marxist rant>
It's the down side of a Web that started as a fast, lean communication medium for all, and is turning into a plaything of massive corporates - consumers be damned..
The main players don't have an interest in the Web per se - to giants like Time Warner and the publishing oligarchy investing in the Web can also be strategically a loss leader - gum up the Web so much that it becomes unusable, driving people back to these conglomerate's own world which they can control much better - the mainstream traditional vested-interest publishing world made up of the idiot box, hard copy books, magazines, journals and newspapers. It's only PART of their business portfolio - not ALL of it.
That can be controlled much better and the players are known. Their cosy little kingdom of the Information Age was threatened by the Internet - but not for much longer..
It's the same cosy world where Time (of the AOL/Time/Warner comglomerate - a leading player of this oligarchy) can make Guliiani person of the year as the "person who most influenced the world in 2001". Hmm.. really? We all know the real scumbag who made the world change in 2001 - and it wasn't Gulliani.
<end neo-Marxist rant>
It's a broad trend that is insidious and dangerous for us all. While we all in our own small way here try to make a living from the Web individually, less obvious is that the whole shebang is just becoming less useful to the average Jo we depend on for our living.
As my boss says ...Let me read yesterday's newspaper crap while sitting on the dunny anytime.... <blush>
Edited to add TV (the idiot box) to the list of communication media above. Forgot it!
True, the internet does not work well. It could work better. But there is a whole lot of good things going on in the niches - this bulletin board being one - hands up who doesn't find the internet useful?
It aint perfect, probably never will be....but it's far from dead. Perhaps it's potential has always been overstated?
Allow me to pull a parallel with evolution. The "new" idea in evolution is that instead of evolving continuously we evolved in plateaus. That is, we looked and acted the same for several thousand years then a sudden genetic change threw a group far ahead then the rest, become dominant and again settled into a plateau.
Those left behind scrambled to survive and some found a small niche were they could make it (crocks, invertebrates, sharks, etc.) but in general they died out (dinosaurs).
I look at the Internet (or more precisely the WWW) as a plateau.
We had the BBS and Fidonet style communications before that, then we had Usenet, Freenet, gopher and even telnet site stuff.
Then came WWW, which killed BBSes, gopher and to a certain extent Usenet.
There are some niche points for past technology, and of course technologies closer in time frames (those killed of yesterday vs. those killed of 500 years ago) will have more uses in current environment.
So, WWW might die, but it will be replaced by a different technology. Will it be better? Who knows, maybe it will be a dead-end in the technology evolutionary chain, maybe not.
>> In another recent thread, I was not entirely surprised to read the disdain for those who are somewhat "internet challenged". Some referred to their parents, others referred to their customers. The point was that they had no time or patience for those in the upper age brackets who are not internet or computer savvy
Hmmm, I suspect I'm in the "others referred to their customers" category. In my defense though, its not disdain, its frustration. I LIKE people who don't know much about the Internet, they keep me in work. But (there's always a but) why am I still having to spend half an hour telling people to how to save a Word doc and attach it to an e-mail to send to me?
Far too many of my clients (and the computer using public in general) learn how to do things by rote, and never think about the questions "WHY?" and "HOW?" and therefore learn about the principles, so gaining the ability to do new things with an old package, or old things with a new package
I know we cant all be experts on everything, but I am constantly surprised, nay shocked, at the dreadfully low level of competence I find out there. I've not had any formal training in computer technology since school (who remembers the RM nimbus then? :)), and it shows in the gaping holes in my knowledge, but crucially IT HAS NEVER STOPPED ME FROM LEARNING. I don't just throw my hands up in horror, declare it all to be "too complicated" and hope it will all just go away. IMHO that is the attitude that causes the problems (and my frustration)
It is exactly the same attitude that causes Y! and Hotmail to consistently appear close to the top of the weekly search query reports. People have found a way of finding what they are after, and there the matter rests. They dont understand what they have done, and it appears not to occur to them that there could be another way, let alone a better way
From Dvoraks article
And what will such a collapse leave us with? A closed system such as AOL will be all that is sustainable. Shoot me now.
Why is AOL so popular? Because its easy. You never have to think about anything, you never have to learn something that isn't spoonfed to you. It really isnt all that hard to learn to do a few simple things on a computer, nor is it overly onerous to try a few experiments on the web, maybe check out a couple of SEs other than Y!, MSN, AOL etc
A lot of the 404s out there come from the same root cause, people who set up a site months and months ago using FP or something, and have now run out of enthusiasm or whatever. Because they don't understand the potential of the Internet, they don't see it as worth their time and effort. Similarly, if people knew how to block spam more effectively, some of it would disappear
I dont think the Web is dying, I think its growing up. I think it'll fragment into 2 basic clusters, those who can, and those who don't care. AOL and their descendants will absorb the latter group, and I think those of us who want to try for the higher standard will find a way of leaving them behind, and doing things our own way. I see the Internet as the ultimate Darwinian environment.... and right now, way too many people are failing the test
The crux of that post was:
>If you design something which is so technologically advanced that your target audience can't make use of it ... then you have a wonderful thing-a-ma-jig which your mother will boast about and her friends will admire you for, but will rarely (if ever) use.<
You know your target audience and if we (old folks) or (non-techies) don't belong in your demographics ... that's fine. I was only pointing out that *if* you want our money, its a good idea to make it easy enough for us to give it to you! ;)
No ONE person was singled out in my previous post, it was just a general observation on my part ... so no need to defend yourself.
(added)
>Why is AOL so popular? Because its easy.<
I rest my case! :)
Not quite IMO. I want to do the next bit by analogy, so it won't be precise, but its close
I drive a car :o. Now, I'm not a mechanic, so I don't know a huge amount about the internal combustion engine etc, but on the other hand, I do know the fundamentals of the 4-stroke cycle, and I know how to do easy stuff like changing a wheel, changing the oil. I wouldn't dream of trying to change the gearbox, or rebore the pistons, because I'm not a professional. If something goes wrong though, I don't just sit there and cry, I at least try to work it out. One day, I hope, I'll become a fair mechanic
If people carried their Internet attitudes over to driving, so many of them would try to turn on the windscreeen wipers like this:
1) Jack up the car
2) Drain the sump, then refill
3) Spray the wiring loom with WD40
4) Turn on the radio
5) Hit the control for the wipers
because thats the sequence they followed the first time they got it to work.
Its got nothing to do with being techie or non-techie. You need know nothing about the vast majority of the car to get the wipers to work, you just need to understand a little bit at a time, and work up from there, but you have to put the effort in, and lots of people can't be bothered it seems
AOL is sort of the equivalent of getting a full service every 3000 miles, and going to the garage to get your tyre pressure checked
Is it better to let the garage do everything.... or to have some idea of what to do yourself?
This I think is true of practicaly everything! People are lazy and do not want to learn something new on the off chance that it could be useful.
People don't read books because it looks so daunting - all those pages, having to concentrate. If they actually tried then they might find that the book was amazing and you have a convert.
The net is exactly the same, so much hype, unrealistic films and techno speak that people are put off and don't want to plunge into something they know nothing about.
My Grandad -in-law only has to look at my desktop to get confused "ooh, ahh" thinking you have to be from NASA to operate a computer.
But there are people that are interested and will experimet and these people are only going to grow in number. Just think how many people can't programme a VCR.
If you want to catch people old and non-techie then you have to hold them by the hand and lead them through cyber space.
I think that to learn effectively you have to be interested. I have one friend who does like the web and uses it effectively, but really only learns what she needs when she needs it, because she's really not interested in any part of the technical aspects. On the other hand she's an accounting genius just because she likes it. I can't even focus on that stuff enough to do my own taxes. It puts me right to sleep, even though I know I'd be far better off knowing more about it. Whereas techie stuff..even if I don't understand 90% of what's being discussed is endlessly fascinating to me.
Ignoring older web users is a huge mistake. U.S. culture, at the very least, is youth obsessed and practically oblivious to the demographic time bomb represented by the aging of the baby boomers. Consider these realities which may astonish some of you:
The highest concentration of online buyers on the web is the 50 to 64 bunch - 27%. Overall, 68% of online buyers are over 40. Older consumers in the 55 to 64 demographic spend the most. Despite what the media would have you believe, thirtysomethings are actually outspent by 65 to 74 year olds.
Although many seniors have to learn how to relate to computers, once they overcome resistance, “they become the most enthusiastic, energetic users you’ve ever seen,” according to Sandy Berger who hosts the AARP’s computers and technology site.
A recent survey done by SeniorNet.Org showed that while keeping in touch with family and friends remains seniors' top reason for using the Internet at 93 percent, making electronic purchases is becoming an increasingly popular use. In fact, 45 percent of those surveyed report online-purchasing as their third most common activity.
By 2003 its estimated that the number of seniors online will rise dramatically to 27.3 million, up from 10.7 million in 1999 according to Jupiter Communications, an internet research firm.
I could go on and on, but my eyes begin to glaze over after reading too many stats.
Seniors want simple, easy to understand information. Glitzy websites will not carry the day. Simple, easily navigable design, free of clutter, is more appealing and sticky with older people. You’re not trying to dazzle teens or twentysomethings.
Your grandparents offer a mother load of web traffic. They’re more affluent than you and have time to magnify the web experience to fulfill a myriad of requirements. They’re energetic, enthusiastic and grateful web users once they’ve been bitten by the computer bug. Abandon your cultural stereotypes!
Give me a 55 year old post soccer mom looking for a wristwatch made by Cartier. Have I got a deal for her!
Hey, don’t go west all you hip young web savvy people. Go mine the “Grandmother Load” instead.
The people that are too scared to use the web simply put are not interested, as pat_s said:
>>I think that to learn effectively you have to be interested.
But when does lack of interest become ignorance?
For example you could argue that someone who does'nt know who the president of the United States is just not interested in politics. I would say they are ignorant, there comes a point when you should make yourslef interested in things that affect you or the society in which you live.
The Internet is a very big part of our society and people are gonna have to get used to it sooner or later.
It doesnt matter if you're rich,poor, old or young. People should be trying to educate themselves, not to be grand masters just to be competent users.
I think that is what winds advanced users up, not because they are stupid and dont have the brainpower but because they do have the brainpower - they just don't seem to want to use it.
We are certainly in a time of upheaval on the Web, but IMHO this is the time for all us little guys to impact the future course of the Web and increase our market share.
Use this time to build, and build well, while the corporate giants are still looking for a consultant and a focus group to tell them what to think.
We have it within our power to effect our own destinies: if we worry about Yahoo freezing out the small guy; or if we worry about becoming too reliant on Google we /can/ change that. We can start our own search engines or lend our support to others who dare too. We can build good quality content and then provide a means for anyone to find it. It takes some will, and some skill and some new thinking. :)
mivox - Right on!
Cry Havoc and release the sleep-deprived wackos! :)
The force behind the rarity of truly independent voices in other media is the cost of the printing press and distribution network, or the transmitter tower and production studio. You can become a voice on the web for the cost of a desktop computer and a hosting account, and immediately have the same international reach as the distribution network of any traditional media conglomerate's output. What an amazing opportunity!
To quote another seasoned WMW veteran Mivox..
You can become a voice on the web for the cost of a desktop computer and a hosting account, and immediately have the same international reach as the distribution network of any traditional media conglomerate's output. What an amazing opportunity!
Exactly right Mivox, at least in the early days of the Web when the traditional media laughed off the Web with derision as a threat to their monopoly (I have worked for a publishing company before and saw day by day how thier attitudes changed) (I love the bit from Pare Count's Registrar link - "people who keep you fully entertained and half informed") Later they did realise, as Mivox did, that the Web DID indeed constitute a threat to their monopoly of information. Their solution was try to "take over the Web" as they did with other forms of media.
However much I agree with Mivox on the opportunity of the Web for the lone voice to distribute without a publisher, massive promotion budget, and mates in high places, also important is to realise how we may also be crowded out - by massive advertising budgets themselves, as well as control of the hardware behind the web. It is not as easy as 4 years ago to get decent exposure on the Web once publishers and commerce realised they had to compete with us.
That's not being pessimistic, its just saying that we should all, like idiot Girl, be forging new directions on the basis of our understanding of how traditional monopolistic media plans to reduce the power of the internet for "disparate voices", especially through its major and over-rated vehicle of the moment - the WWW.
(Sorry if this is repeating myself - I did try to bow out of this thread for around 10 days!)
First, back up to the original quoted author. I've watch John D evolve over the years. I first thought we were going to lose him off the deep end of the microsoft camp. That large contingent of the press who will publish anything about ms, as long as it is good and keeps the advertising revenue rolling in. For many years, this was the status quo at many trade magazines.
He wrote a very [url=http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2636521,00.html]similar and prophetic article[/url] a year and a half ago. It was the one article that changed my mind about him entirely.
As all this happens, the simple nature of the Web and the Web's user-friendly character will be killed even before we see the tenth anniversary of the first GUI browser, which was released around 1993. It will be prettier when it works. But with increased complexity comes increased inefficiency and lots of bugginess. A slow, buggy, complex, daunting Web awaits. I'm not looking forward to it.
I couldn't agree more. That simple paragraph has been the cornerstone inspiration for every site and page I've built since I read it.
People all point to the build it and they will come - we'll all get rich full blinders on syndrome as the root cause of the webs financial decline. I don't think that is entirely the truth. Yes, lots of venture capital firms spent mountains of money on what was then expensive low powered hardware. Google built a 10k box system for what Excite spent on a 1000 box system.
The other part of the picture is the web itself. Some statistics suggest user usage rates in the US and time online rates have been falling (say it aint so). I believe that is in part due to the increasingly complex requirements to use a browser, and a cumulative "entropy".
Things such as:
- confusing javascript forms that even pro's have to study to figure out.
- gratuitous usage of flash that take forever to download.
- dom menus that popup only by accident.
- links that are unidentifiable as links.
- security.
- a never ending stream of virus warnings.
- traditional medias fear mongering.
- surfers running into adult content by accident.
- spam.
It's almost a case of battle fatigue for surfers. There was once the joy of discovery in surfing the web at random. Now it's like driving on bad road trying to avoid the potholes.
In that environment, Joe and Sally User have learned, they need to stick to the familiar - the tried and the true. I think it is why Yahoo continues to do so well. Easy to use, fast, no tricks, or no surf gimmicks to be found. I also think that is why Google does so good. When it is a site used daily, ease of use is not just a good idea - it's mandatory.
