14:59:30 Richard Seltzer: All -- its just about time to start. Please introduce yourselves and let us know in what way you are interested in Web 2.0.
15:00:02 sujamthe: Hi Richard
15:00:09 Richard Seltzer: Kat -- Can you please give a quick definition of Web 2.0, and let us know why you think this terminology is important.
15:00:23 Richard Seltzer: Hi Sudha. We're just getting started.
15:00:38 sujamthe: Good, Hi Kat
15:00:42 Kat Ortland: Hi all, I'm Kat Ortland, project manager for SEOmoz.org and creator of the Web 2.0 Awards (web2.0awards.org)
15:01:11 Richard Seltzer: Kat -- along with a definition of Web 2.0, could you please tell us what "Web 2.0 Awards" is?
15:01:38 sujamthe: Richard, you sould share you summary of O'Reillys article on web 2.0, that will be a good starting point
15:02:02 Kat Ortland: For the purpose of this chat, I'd like to define Web 2.0 as a web trend that represents a move toward user-created content and user-empowerment on the web as a platform for all things
15:02:04 Richard Seltzer: At this point, all I know about Web 2.0 is what I read in the O'Reilly article. That leaves me wondering -- what's new?
15:02:45 Richard Seltzer: From the O'Reilly article, I understand that Web 2.0 implies such principles as:
15:02:54 Kat Ortland: The Web 2.0 Awards was a project we began at SEOmoz out of curiosity for what was happening in the web space that had so recently caught people's attention
15:03:06 Richard Seltzer: no central control: that was the fundamental design principle of the Internet, long before there was a Web
15:03:25 Richard Seltzer: second point -- main benefit of the Internet comes from letting people connect to people: that has always been true
15:03:26 Kat Ortland: we decided to collect the most well-known, best, and newest "Web 2.0" sites, categorize them, and rank them
15:03:46 Richard Seltzer: third point -- allow everyone to become a publisher -- an actie participant -- instead of a passive consumer: that has always been the best approach
15:03:52 Rand Fishkin: I think we've really seen that Web 2.0 means a lot of different things to different people at this pont
15:04:01 sujamthe: Kat, when did you get exposed to the term web 2.0? What were your initial thoughts?
15:04:06 Kat Ortland: that's true, Rand
15:04:08 Richard Seltzer: fourth point -- allow natural order to emerge from massive chaos
15:04:34 Richard Seltzer: Kat -- yes, we'd like to define this "web space ath caught people's attention"
15:04:38 Kat Ortland: I became familiar with Web 2.0 sometime in the fall of last year
15:04:54 Richard Seltzer: It sounds like the original Internet, before it got distorted.
15:04:58 sujamthe: Kat, there are lot of awards on the web, your web 2.0 awards is a class apart. Well researched and I love the interviews of real people.
15:05:05 Kat Ortland: I had already noticed a shift in Web trends but last fall was the first time I heard the term
15:05:21 Kat Ortland: thank you, suhamthe, we had a great time putting it together
15:05:23 Rand Fishkin: Web 2.0 is really defined by all the people who are attempting to leverage it (companies, too)
15:05:39 Rand Fishkin: Kat's right - the trend started and I think folks were out for a name
15:05:41 Richard Seltzer: Kat -- what shift? that's what's confusing to me.
15:05:49 Kat Ortland: a lot of people seem to think that Web 2.0 implies some sort of new technology on the web
15:06:02 sujamthe: Rand, well put! That was the conclusion me and Richard came to too!
15:06:15 Kat Ortland: but it's not really about technology, per se, it's about people
15:06:27 Kat Ortland: the Web has always been about people, it's true
15:06:41 Rand Fishkin: Richard - I think the biggest shift was awat from top-down control and towards user control of content and function
15:06:52 Kat Ortland: but the shift is away from a more corporate-empowered web environment to a more user/consumer empowered environment
15:07:03 Rand Fishkin: The web may have always been about people, but never before could users do all the things they can do now
15:07:07 Richard Seltzer: Kat -- yes, it has always been about people, and the early winners like eBay, Amazon, and Google understood that long ago and have remained true to it
15:07:11 sujamthe: I heard of Web 2.0 last fall as I noticed startup funding picking up and noticed many of the new companies were comebacks of the old, again some consumer plays funded with no b-models.
15:07:29 sujamthe: Kat, AJAX and better UI is associated with web 2.0, right?
15:07:31 Richard Seltzer: Rand -- so what can they do now that they couldn't do before? I don't see that.
15:07:36 Doug Cubell: Hi all. Doug here.
15:07:39 Matthew: web 2.0 is a terrible name for it, "second dot com boom" or "web renaissance" would be more indicative of what it actually is
15:07:48 Rand Fishkin: AJAX and the UI are absolutely parts of the trend
15:07:59 Richard Seltzer: Kat -- please explain what you mean by architecture in this context
15:08:05 Kat Ortland: sujamthe: yes, Web 2.0 has certain design and technological associations like AJAX and UI
15:08:15 Rand Fishkin: Kind of like the trend you see with how Hybrid vehicles in the automotive world have a certain "look"
15:08:32 sujamthe: Kat Did you find new technology as part of the web 2.0 companies?
15:08:38 Kat Ortland: Richard: by architecture I mean a "new" way of conducting software and business
15:08:38 Rand Fishkin: What can they do now?
15:08:59 Richard Seltzer: I get the sense that RSS, P2P etc. make some people-to-people things easier than before; but such software doesn't seem necessary for the main thrust to remain true (there's more than one way to do people-related things on the Internet)
15:09:00 Kat Ortland: I put "new" in quotes because it's not something that was just invented but rather something that has taken off
15:09:17 Richard Seltzer: Kat -- once again, what's new?
15:09:23 Rand Fishkin: The leap is really in terms of what's being offered - I could never before see other people's bookrmarks and photos (del.icio.us and Flickr)
15:09:55 Rand Fishkin: I could never before contribute to the creation of editorial content - wikipedia
15:10:07 sujamthe: Doug, we are just discussing whats web 2.0, how its different from the old web
15:10:21 Richard Seltzer: Matthew -- I agree that "Web renaissance" sounds closer to what's going on -- a return to the roots of the Internet, with a boost from new technology
15:10:34 Kat Ortland: sujamthe: we're seeing technolgies like tagging (folksonomy), open-source APIs, complete on-web AJAX applications (like word processing, etc) that we haven't seen before
15:10:37 Doug Cubell: Thanks Su. These new applications were enabled by the new technology? Could they have been developed without it?
15:10:51 Rand Fishkin: Yes - all good examples, Doug
15:10:57 sujamthe: I think theres lot of buzz, and it seems to be inflated to bring back optimism of investers and entreprenuers
15:11:05 Kat Ortland: I agree
15:11:11 Rand Fishkin: The "Web 2.0" name may not be the preferred one, but at this point, we're stuck with it
15:11:20 Vic: Is there a way to add a blog to a site, without having to use blogspot, or something similar?
15:11:28 Kat Ortland: it's a bit of a frenzy, but it's good to see optimism returning to the web business environment
15:11:28 Kat Ortland: it's a bit of a frenzy, but it's good to see optimism returning to the web business environment
15:11:31 sujamthe: But thats a nice combination - liquid money and innovation and thats where all the new technology is all cming from.
15:11:39 Rand Fishkin: As for buzz - yes, a lot of folks are seeking to capitalize on the financial side
15:11:52 Rand Fishkin: And you're right, sujamthe - it's generally a positive thing
15:11:54 Kat Ortland: I'm happy to see people inspired and creating so many new and fun ideas
15:11:57 Richard Seltzer: Rand -- There have been many efforts involving collaborative authoring. Wikipedia makes it easier and does it on a massive scale, but the concept was on the Web on day 1.
15:12:15 Kat Ortland: the great part about most Web 2.0 applications, even some of the very successful ones, is that they require very little in the way of startup capital
15:12:36 Rand Fishkin: One thing we see on the investment side that's generally different from the initial dot-com boom is that investment is at smaller, more focused levels into companies that already show technology and profit
15:12:42 Kat Ortland: so even if this is a "bubble," as some people like to say, small projects risk little in attempting to break into the market
15:12:53 Richard Seltzer: Vic -- if you have your own Web site, you can simply add free software like WordPress. If you want to use free Web space, you need to piggyback.
15:13:03 sujamthe: There does seem a attitude shift - last session we discussed about blogs, but people seem to be communicating and authoring more on the web in this new web 2.0 mode
15:13:06 Rand Fishkin: Richard - I see what you're saying and I don't disagree. It isn't that Web 2.0 is all that revolutionary, it's just a trend
15:13:11 Vic: Thank you Mr. Seltzer
15:13:48 Rand Fishkin: Albeit, one that's gotten very popular
15:13:53 Kat Ortland: That's true, sujamthe
15:13:58 sujamthe: If its a bubble, I like this bubble. People have the past to look back into to learn from mistakes and there were so many unfulfilld promises left when the last time market crashed.
15:14:15 Kat Ortland: One of the revolutionary things about Web 2.0 is the move toward "web as a platform"
15:14:23 Richard Seltzer: Kat and Su -- optimism is good; and it's good to see many new companies, business models etc. -- but once again, that's just a return to the way it was 8-10 years ago.
15:14:27 Kat Ortland: using the internet as a platform, rather than the desktop
15:14:30 Rand Fishkin: Absolutely - I find myself wishing Kozmo.com was back in business 3X a week :)
15:14:51 Richard Seltzer: Kat -- "Web as platform" was a familiar buzz word back in 1995-1997.
15:14:56 Matthew: kozmo was awesome
15:15:10 Rand Fishkin: Richard - we do have fundamental differences here, having been through both time periods, I can say that this is a very different approach
15:15:37 Rand Fishkin: "Web as a Platform" was never deliverable until AJAX and similar technologies though
15:15:38 Kat Ortland: yes, nevertheless, we are still moving toward a time where everything, I believe, will ultimately be connected by the web
15:15:46 Doug Cubell: this is the second time I've spoken about Kozmo this week. makes me crave Red Bull and Ben & Jerry's. ;-)
15:16:02 Kat Ortland: and that's what the AJAX apps are really doing well, as Rand says
15:16:11 Rand Fishkin: And bad movies delivered at 2am :)
15:16:18 Richard Seltzer: Rand, as a trend it's very good that sound principles are now considered "in". The bubble and bust happened largely because investors didn't have a clue, and forced startups to go in unnatural directions in order to win funding.
15:16:32 Rand Fishkin: Precisely
15:16:39 sujamthe: Richard, 8-10 yrs back, the web opened lot of opportunities, everyone looked at it from where they came and saw something out of it. I thik we didn't realize even 10% of that promise, the over optimism was the bad part, still rest of the promise is pendin
15:16:42 Richard Seltzer: Doug -- pardon my ignorance -- what is Kozmo?
15:17:00 Rand Fishkin: There was also a real "bubble" because investors didn't think they needed a great idea, just a good enough idea to go public or get acquired
15:17:10 Rand Fishkin: No one thought about having a profitable business model
15:17:16 Kat Ortland: is the problem then with the startups, or with the over-eager funders?
15:17:18 sujamthe: I don't mean to be so abstract, but I knoweveryone here knows what we went thru from the last round of web 1.0
15:17:36 Rand Fishkin: Now, that's largely changed, although many fear that it might return should the economic climate of irrational investment return
15:17:37 Kat Ortland: some people say the same thing about web 2.0 businesses
15:17:41 Doug Cubell: Kozmo was to 7-Eleven what Peapod or Webvan wanted to be for grocerie stores. 7x24 junk food and soap.
15:18:01 Matthew: kozmo delivered food, movies, even electronics
15:18:02 sujamthe: Now, there are lot of startups funded, again with no b-model but the hope of a merger with one of the big players, mostly google.
15:18:09 Rand Fishkin: Kozmo offered delivery of most grocery and video store items via courier
15:18:12 Richard Seltzer: If I'm hearing right, "Web 2.0" is a terminology that gives people who understand the basic strengths of the Internet a way to point out good businesses and distinguish them from foolish ones, and helps them convince investors of the importance of those p
15:18:34 Rand Fishkin: In a way, yes, but it also describes a whole set of technology and principles
15:18:38 Kat Ortland: if only it were that obvious
15:19:00 Kat Ortland: the problem is that "web 2.0" was a term coined by pundits, adopted by the people, and then pasted on businesses
15:19:07 Richard Seltzer: Rand -- I guess Kozmo never made it to the Boston area. We had half a dozen different grocery-delivery companies, all of which eventually failed (despite the logic of what they were trying to do).
15:19:08 Rand Fishkin: If I say Web 2.0, most folks know I probablt mean the "look and feel", the functionality (tagging, blogs, RSS, AJAX, APIs, Mashups, etc)
15:19:18 Kat Ortland: when businesses began calling themselves "web 2.0" without really knowing what it means, it dilutes the power of the trend
15:19:27 Rand Fishkin: along with many other things
15:19:37 Doug Cubell: I don't feel like I have a good grasp of the definition of Web. 2.0. I certainly would like to be able to recognize when 3.0 arrives. ;-)
15:19:49 Rand Fishkin: Kat - perfect - "was a term coined by pundits, adopted by the people, and then pasted on businesses"
15:19:51 sujamthe: no kozmo is boston, but we had grocery-to-go out of MIT, they even had a Hood partnership for delivery!
15:20:00 Kat Ortland: for the purpose of the Web 2.0 Awards. we defined Web 2.0 as:
15:20:28 Kat Ortland: a set of principles you may view here
15:20:32 Kat Ortland: http://web2.0awards.org/web20-zeitgeist.php
15:20:33 sujamthe: I think web 2.0 again means different things to diff people.
15:21:01 Richard Seltzer: Kat -- can you summarize what's found at that URL?
15:21:02 Kat Ortland: the most common definitions focus on user generated content and a movement of power to the user rather than big companies
15:21:06 Doug Cubell: Thanks Kat.
15:21:08 Kat Ortland: certainly
15:21:11 Richard Seltzer: what are the principles?
15:21:14 Kat Ortland: here are our points:
15:21:22 Kat Ortland: 1) User generated and/or user influenced content
15:21:35 Kat Ortland: 2) Applications that use the Web (versus the desktop) as a platform, in innovative ways
15:21:37 Richard Seltzer: Okay 1 have been around since day 1.
15:21:41 Doug Cubell: Kat, so that describe Craigslist as well as MySpace?
15:21:45 Kat Ortland: 3) Similar visual design and shared functional languages
15:21:47 sujamthe: In fact, venture capitalists take more risk than the stock market by investing in people with ideas that they believe are going to make it, so the buzz factor is to their advantage and will be there, so its not just about web 2.0
15:21:48 Rand Fishkin: http://web2.0awards.org/web20-zeitgeist.php#whatis - the top paragraph is pretty good, nice writing there, Kat
15:21:50 Richard Seltzer: 2) also has been around since day 1
15:21:56 Kat Ortland: 4) Leveraging of popular trends, including blogging, social tagging, wikis, and peer-to-peer sharing
15:22:02 Richard Seltzer: kat -- "similar" to what?
15:22:04 Rand Fishkin: sujamthe - yes, an excellent point
15:22:04 Kat Ortland: 5) Inclusion of emerging web technologies like RSS, AJAX, APIs (and accompanying mashups), Ruby on Rails and others
15:22:12 Kat Ortland: 6) Open source or sharable/editable frameworks in the form of user-oriented "create your own" APIs
15:22:40 sujamthe: Kat- Bu web 2.0 seems to have more of a content play than web 1.0 - with blogs, RSS, wikis
15:22:45 Rand Fishkin: Richard - we've seen very, very few companies leverage UGC (User-Generated-Content) until the last 2-3 years
15:22:56 Kat Ortland: at that URL http://web2.0awards.org/web20-zeitgeist.php), which is our "zeitgeist," you can find an article on the history of Web 2.0, some definitions, and interviews with folks who have varying opinions of the trend
15:22:56 Richard Seltzer: 4 sounds pretty vague. (p2p has been around for about 6 years or more, and there's not much new about blogging.
15:23:13 Kat Ortland: Doug: Yes, we think so
15:23:14 Rand Fishkin: It's not that this stuff didn't exist, it's that it wasn't part of the common "trend" or "theme" of investment-worhty businesses
15:23:34 Rand Fishkin: Richard - disagree again. Blogging may not be new, but it is finally taking off
15:23:46 Kat Ortland: In retrospect, Craigslist is probably not the best example of "web 2.0" but it still embodies a lot of the trends
15:23:47 Rand Fishkin: Blog readership is set to surpass large media readership next year
15:23:51 Doug Cubell: Interesting since CL is one of the least obviously technical sites. No AJAX there.
15:24:01 Richard Seltzer: Rand -- I saw a lot of them -- like isyndicate and other smaller syndication companies, all of which went under when everything went bust.
15:24:03 sujamthe: Rand, we should ideally take about SEO in a separte topic by itself. Do you see SEO , driven by Goog has contributed to any of the new technologies or trends or is it a overstretch?
15:24:09 Kat Ortland: indeed
15:24:25 Kat Ortland: that's why, in large part, web 2.0 is still an amorphous definition
15:24:27 sujamthe: Rand, at one point when I heard about web 2.0, it seemed to all center around Goog, hence my question
15:24:55 Rand Fishkin: Richard - precisely my point - the Internet population was not ready for these systems (or no one had done them right), now, you can make a million dollars a year off a blog - see Richard Calcanis
15:25:17 Richard Seltzer: Rand -- for me the question is why is blogging taking off? What is there about blogging that makes it so popular. (Not just lots of people publishing their ideas, which they could easily enough do with the old personal websites of Geocities, etc.
15:25:35 Kat Ortland: that's why I'd define Web 2.0 more as a business architecture trend than a technological definition
15:25:45 Rand Fishkin: It's a good question. There are a few answers, but one is that you've got a new generation online
15:25:52 Kat Ortland: many of the sites we'd call Web 2.0 don't fit into a concrete technological or design set of criteria
15:26:03 Rand Fishkin: You've also finally got broadband penetration above 60% in the US
15:26:18 Richard Seltzer: Kat -- I must admit I'm still confused. I don't know what a "business architecture" is much less in what way Web 2.0 is a business architecture.
15:26:44 sujamthe: I thinkthe 2.0 in Web 2.0 is because its a new release of the web - better way to solve the same problem but improved processes and technology
15:26:49 alexandyr: Richard - as simple as it may be, I think ease of UI is one of the largest reasons why blogs have taken off far beyond static websites
15:27:14 Rand Fishkin: It's a way of structuring your business model to profit from the increased use of your website (popularity). A model like Zillow.com is a perfect example
15:27:35 Rand Fishkin: It also contrasts well with Rich Barton's previous venture - Expedia, which was based on entirely other principles
15:27:44 sujamthe: I know of good wireless companies who did'nt make it because 802.11 was not prevelant, now entire cities are setting up wi-fi access, so those ideas will make a comeback.
15:27:50 Doug Cubell: What is Zillow's business model? I know the site.
15:27:58 Richard Seltzer: Kat -- I suspect that Web 2.0 is more intuitive than technological (or even business architecturre.) It's like "quality". You know it when you see it. And the sites/businesses that have this "quality" tend to have some characteristics in common, but do
15:28:07 Kat Ortland: it's a business model that focuses on participation, contribution, user-owned data, and so on... thereby giving the power to the end users, rather than the corporate "head"
15:28:19 Rand Fishkin: Many of the entrepreneurs see Web 2.0 as a nother chance to take a crack at fixing inefficient sectors of business by opening up the information
15:28:46 sujamthe: Ad revenues seem to be ruling this time, I'd like to know of more b-models
15:28:48 Kat Ortland: Richard: that's correct
15:29:11 Rand Fishkin: Ad models do have a lot of power, but so does "freemium" models
15:29:13 Kat Ortland: I dislike to say "I know Web 2.0 when I see it" but there's a lot of truth to it
15:29:35 Richard Seltzer: alexandyr -- I agree that it may be small technological changes bringing about large behavior changes. I suspect that it might be more useful to define "Web 2.0" or the current generation of Web-based businesses based on user behavior, rather than on arc
15:29:49 Kat Ortland: sujamthe: a lot of companies are focusing their business models around ads and paid upgrade accounts
15:30:18 sujamthe: There seem to be some businesses that integrate many data sources and offer better access to users -eg. zillow.com for real estate, zoominfo.com for peoples contacts
15:30:31 Kat Ortland: Web 2.0 is a power shift
15:30:36 Rand Fishkin: LinkedIn for business contacts
15:31:09 sujamthe: Kat, I enjoy reading thru your awards and each time I start, I seem to go into different directions and its never-ending. So, youmay have it in there, so bear with my question:
15:31:11 Rand Fishkin: It's very similar to what eBay did with auctions, but it finally has a shared language and a name
15:31:25 Kat Ortland: sure
15:31:31 Richard Seltzer: Rand --- There's a different mind-set behind widlly succressful Internet-based businesses, as opposed to tradiational businesses. Chris Locke, David Weinberger, Howard Rheingold and others were talking about these matters 10 years ago -- but back then we
15:31:37 alexandyr: but the power shift is largely there because these companies have created systems that substantially lower the barrier to entry for average users
15:31:57 Doug Cubell: LinkedIn is great. Not sure it helps with our privacy. Wonder if the SEC will use it to bolster their cases the way the police have with MySpace.
15:32:12 Kat Ortland: heh, and LiveJournal
15:32:38 sujamthe: Kat - Do you see new intermediaries evolve with web 2.0? meebo.com is in effect creating a layer on top if disparate IM systems. Any new intermediaries beyond technology integration, to create business process efficiencies?
15:32:40 alexandyr: who can now focus on generating content instead of troublshooting hypertext syntax
15:33:12 sujamthe: alexandyr: that may explain more content play now
15:33:17 Richard Seltzer: One other major change is the sheer massive number of new businesses and new approaches and the rapidity of change. It's simply impossible to keep up with it all. We having Web 2.0 awards and other lists and guides to the most interesting sites/models i
15:33:26 Kat Ortland: sujamthe: can you be a little more specific?
15:33:35 sujamthe: But theres definitely an attitude shift of people to share.
15:34:15 Rand Fishkin: A lot of investors cite two big reasons why this "Web 2.0" trend is taking off:
15:34:43 Rand Fishkin: #1 - Internet Pentration (everyone has broadband, everyone spends much more time online, etc)
15:35:10 Kat Ortland: sujamthe: I apologize, but I'm not sure what you mean by "intermediaries"
15:35:36 Doug Cubell: is Web 2.0 more transferable to the mobile world?
15:35:41 Richard Seltzer: On the other side of the coin, spam, viruses, phishing, etc. are making it every more difficult to do business on the Internet and are undermining the confidence of the general consumer.
15:35:59 Rand Fishkin: #2 - Innovation on the technology side, the marketing side and the business model side (you can make money in different ways)
15:36:03 sujamthe: I used to try my diff homepages versions earlier (somw I wish were not cached on the web, its o primitive), but withj blogs and web based apps like irows and writely, its more intuitive, I find myself thinking of hosted solutions for everything I want to
15:36:46 Richard Seltzer: Many of the interactive and content properties of "Web 2.0" were handled at one time or another in one way of another with news gropus and email. Perhaps one source of impetus in the "new" direction is the degree to which those basic applications are now
15:36:50 Rand Fishkin: Richard - I'd disagree. Despite all the problems with spam and phishing and viruses, adoption shoots up every year, as does trust of online retailers and trust of web content in general
15:37:07 Kat Ortland: hosted solutions are indeed making it easier for people to work in a mobile environment
15:37:27 Rand Fishkin: Yeah - people have certainly become more accustomed to using the web for all these processes
15:37:31 Doug Cubell: almost seems like new aps have to have a mobile story
15:37:46 Rand Fishkin: Doug - mobile may eventually be Web 3.0
15:37:50 Richard Seltzer: Rand -- the question is "adoption" of what? Of the Internet as a whole? Most people have heavy-handed filters on their mails and relatively few people now use newsgroups.
15:37:50 Richard Seltzer: Rand -- the question is "adoption" of what? Of the Internet as a whole? Most people have heavy-handed filters on their mails and relatively few people now use newsgroups.
15:37:54 sujamthe: Kat - intrmediary is like a middleman, a business that cut some layer of access to users by using the web. eg travel sites are intermediaries direct to users instead of travel agents holding all the information.
15:38:01 Kat Ortland: and with applications like jotspot, basecamp and others, you don't even have to install server-side project management or wiki software to foster corporate collaboration
15:38:27 Doug Cubell: Rand, good point. Any ap, anytime, anywhere
15:38:35 Rand Fishkin: But 85% of Americans are online weekly, and 75% daily, 50% for more than an hour each day (those could be old nu,bers now)
15:38:56 Richard Seltzer: I dont' see mobile as separate. If anything, I believe new software solutions can and should make delivery of information and interaction independent of the device on the desk or in the hand.
15:39:27 Doug Cubell: Yup, lots of sitting down. I like the idea of the PC powered by a treadmill. Want to be online? Get moving! ;-)
15:39:48 Rand Fishkin: I mean adoption as a whole - everyone is online more often and using the web for increasingly complex, secure and basic tasks (no dichotomy intended)
15:40:12 Rand Fishkin: Going to have to bail on the conversation - need lunch and I've got a conference call later on
15:40:27 Kat Ortland: take it easy, Rand
15:40:27 Rand Fishkin: Thanks for hosting, Richard! Lots of fun
15:40:39 sujamthe: Doug, theres a new startup offering we access from a threadmill for health conscious customers to make purchases based on their threadmill readings, no its not a joke, its real.
15:40:42 Richard Seltzer: Rand -- I agree that more and more people are using the Internet. I just believe that they are adopting applications like blogging and are using sites like Wikipedia in part because they can't get or can't trust the information they get through email and
15:41:15 Richard Seltzer: Rand -- thanks for joining us.
15:41:28 Doug Cubell: I had read about something like that, but not with the e-commerce angle.
15:41:58 Kat Ortland: I think trust is certainly moving more toward the average user
15:42:12 Doug Cubell: Can't leave the dating sites out of this. Lots of business there. New ones every day.
15:42:14 Richard Seltzer: Kat -- many of the good things that are made easier by new applications, have been possible (and desirable) for years, done in other ways (by hand, when automation wasn't avaialble).
15:42:46 Kat Ortland: it's the sort of school of thought that "all of us is smarter than one of us"
15:42:57 sujamthe: Most of the web 2.0 companies seem to be content and community play. ecommerce has been left out to amazon and surving old players. They too are integrating tagging and blogs for authors etc.
15:43:12 Kat Ortland: that's also at the heart of Web 2.0 and the user-empowered and open-source apps
15:43:43 Richard Seltzer: Kat -- eBay was probably the pioneer in building trust: trust based on a massive, and very effective feedback system; where users contribute to one another's reputation. Wikipedia thrives based on a similar principle -- as opposed to "brand name" and corp
15:43:54 Kat Ortland: Richard: very true. I admit that even though I know several web-based to-do list softwares, I still use paper sticky notes
15:44:01 Kat Ortland: call me a creature of habit
15:44:27 Kat Ortland: Richard: yes, Amazon is another good example of that
15:44:57 Kat Ortland: I believe those sites inspired the popularity and strength of the Web 2.0 trend
15:45:19 sujamthe: Kat - true. Open source apps have created a web-wide infrastructure for others to build more apps on top without the need for the base infrastructure. My current startup is an ecommerce storefront and I could get it up without venture money to a cash posi
15:45:19 Doug Cubell: Seems like one day everything will be tagged, priced, and available for review or sale. So much public info and it just takes the right person to grab it. Zillow is a good example. Not selling your house? Well, here's an offer anyway.
15:45:25 Richard Seltzer: Yes, Amazon too, with its user/reader evaluations and reviews; and yes, now it's blogs (which it calls "plogs" -- I have one of those and am experimenting, but so far it seems rather useless).
15:45:43 sujamthe: I mean cash flow positive state in 6 months, building on open source apps.
15:45:48 Kat Ortland: I haven't tried amazon's blogs-- what are they about?
15:46:31 Richard Seltzer: Su -- yes, content and community; and yes, reputation based on the opinions of the masses.
15:46:54 Kat Ortland: Doug: there are also a lot of Web 2.0 shopping, coupon, and comparison sites
15:47:36 Richard Seltzer: I see an opportunity for an aggregator of "feedback"/"reputation" -- combine the feedback systems of numerous small vendors and big ones like eBay to get overall ratings of individuals and businesses.
15:48:18 Kat Ortland: One of my favoite Web 2.0 blogs is Dion Hinchcliffe's Web 2.0 Blog http://web2.wsj2.com/)
15:48:47 sujamthe: Richard, isn't amazon plogs only for authors? I had heard of plogs as people's blog an open source community called plog.net to maintains a persons life journals.
15:48:55 Kat Ortland: he's a member of the Web 2.0 workgroup, a great collection of writers and bloggers with thoughts about the trend
15:49:03 Richard Seltzer: Kat -- Published authors can run "plogs" at Amazon. But so far, there's very little traffic to them -- mostly people who have already bought your books. The model is too constrained.
15:49:19 Kat Ortland: and always writes very thoughtful posts about business and technical aspects of Web 2.0
15:49:21 sujamthe: Kat - thanks, gotto check web 2.0 commerce companies.
15:49:59 Doug Cubell: based on my security background, I am concerned that one day Googling someone will be old-hat and you will be able to use tools to get a rediculous amount of information on an individuall
15:50:21 Kat Ortland: I think another base trend of Web 2.0 is a move toward increasingly social spaces
15:50:30 Kat Ortland: like Doug was saying, dating sites and MySpace and whatnot
15:50:52 Kat Ortland: it goes hand in hand with characteristic user-empowerment and user-generated content
15:50:58 sujamthe: Richard - I love the idea of chatting with an author, but restricting to book buyers doesn't seem helpful to grow it as a concept in early stages.
15:50:59 Richard Seltzer: Su -- Amazon could do a lot more with its plogs. First they could make it a lot easier for visitors to explore them and search through them. Second they could open them up for readers, instead of just limiting them to published authors. Anybody who has
15:51:26 Doug Cubell: yes, people want to work and play online. sometimes at work, sometimes at home.
15:51:34 Richard Seltzer: Su -- As of now, also, ridiculously, they don't want authors of plogs to include book reviews in their plog content.
15:52:26 Richard Seltzer: Su -- As the plogs are set up now, there is no "chatting". there's very little interaction -- few readers and very very few replies/comments.
15:52:50 Kat Ortland: Doug: that's a legitimate concern, there are now sites where you can get paid to submit other people's contact information
15:53:18 Kat Ortland: Jigsaw, for example http://www.jigsaw.com/)
15:53:26 Doug Cubell: Kat, really? That's terrible.
15:53:27 Kat Ortland: and you may not remove contact information once it's submitted
15:53:38 Richard Seltzer: I can imagine a content/information space that is aggregated by users rather than by publishers or commercial middle-companies.
15:53:40 sujamthe: Richard, it seems a nice concept, but Amazon may not value customer generated content and the ownership users take to be part of something that hosts their content.
15:54:06 Kat Ortland: Michael Arrington is a major voice in the Web 2.0 sphere and he writes about it on his blog, TechCrunch, here: http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/23/jigsaw-is-a-really-really-bad-idea/
15:54:25 sujamthe: We had similar discussion as I built out harcourt.com, content vs commerce discussions as though user needed content and the company needed commerce.
15:54:46 Richard Seltzer: We've seen self-aggregated content in a variety of forms from the earliest days -- at its most primitive the bookmarks/favorites lists; and applicatiosn piggybacked on that that made it easy for you to assemble your own online "daily newspaper".
15:54:52 sujamthe: Kat, I've emailed Mike and lets see if we can bring him to this blog sometime.
15:55:05 Doug Cubell: some good VC backing for Jigsaw. I guess they would say that web sites don't hurt people - people hurt people.
15:55:41 Kat Ortland: personally, I like the idea of not having to buy expensive software (such as Microsoft Office, etc) and simply having to pay for broadband in order to work and play online
15:56:34 Doug Cubell: that does seem like the future, Kat.
15:56:48 Richard Seltzer: Compbining search and blogging and tagging, people can and will basically create their own subset of the Internet, that is the content space that they want to use -- in the form and in the ways that they want to use it -- grabbing pieces of Web pages and
15:56:55 Kat Ortland: IT Redux keeps a neat list of what they call "Office 2.0" applications that enable a small business to work entirely on web-based applications
15:57:21 sujamthe: kat, agreed. I believe its just time before everything we ever want to do is hosted and we don't think of access and uploads and just be able to use things. I do believe for software but paying on-demand or by subscription seems to be way to go.
15:57:45 Kat Ortland: This is their Office 2.0 database, which features a big list of categorized products and information about them (similar to the Web 2.0 Awards but with a different bent): http://itredux.com/office-20/database/
15:57:53 Doug Cubell: I am sure Staples, AMEX Small business, etc. won't mind paying for advertising on those sites.
15:58:09 Kat Ortland: all web-based software that could be useful for an office
15:58:19 Richard Seltzer: All, we're getting close to the end of the hour. Please post your email addresses and URLs so we can keep in touch.
15:58:55 sujamthe: Kat, we had a chat about web based databases couple sessions back. we barely scratched the surface of webtops and hosted software play.
15:59:03 Kat Ortland: Thanks, Richard, I can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org and you can see the Web 2.0 Awards at http://web2.0awards.org
15:59:21 Richard Seltzer: I'll post an edited version of all we've said here today at our blog and also as a static Web page. If you have followup comments and things you wanted to say but didn't have time for, please email them to me at email@example.com and I'll include that
15:59:44 Kat Ortland: Su - I'm pleased with hosted solutions but I think not even I feel safe leaving all my files on someone else's server :)
15:59:59 sujamthe: I know ads are hot now, but I believe theres got to be confidence in some other b-models or the entire web industry to sustain itself. Ad play of ok for large players.
16:00:19 Doug Cubell: there is sure trust element there. Pretty big one.
16:00:41 alexandyr: thanks all, very interesting, though I'm mostly a spectator in this space - email is firstname.lastname@example.org if for some reason you want to get in touch with me
16:00:44 Richard Seltzer: su -- yes, I'd love to hear of business models that don't depend on ads. Users will always do whatever they can to avoid ads.
16:00:47 Kat Ortland: But even print media make a large amount of their profit from advertisers, so it is a rather traditional model
16:01:05 Richard Seltzer: You want a business model based on what people want, rather than on what they would even pay to avoid.
16:01:12 Kat Ortland: it does seem like there should be something more "evolved" for the web
16:01:32 Kat Ortland: paid accounts are another growing option, but I avoid those as well
16:01:59 Richard Seltzer: Kat -- yes in traditioanl media, readers can't avoid seeing ads on printed pages. But online, users will use popupblockers and will pay for software that eliminates other kinds of advertising.
16:02:17 Doug Cubell: I am a veteran business development and channel sales guy with experience in the Wi-Fi hardware and software and information security industries. I am currently out looking for my next job here in Boston. email@example.com. Thanks!
16:02:29 Kat Ortland: I don't mind tasteful on-page ads, but I don't think those provide as much financing
16:02:32 sujamthe: Kat -for argument sake - do we think mch about our credit card statements on our bank site? Our tax returns ging ove rthe net? We'll trust our files if the benefit is large enough and its not all controlled by one player
16:03:07 Richard Seltzer: Remember that reputation is a form of payment, a form of value -- for companies and for individuals. When reprutatin becomes generally aggregated (instead of just limited to single sites), that could become another form of "currency."
16:03:20 sujamthe: Doug, you have so much bandwidth, I dont' think yo'll find any difficulty in finding your next job, good luck :-))
16:03:37 Kat Ortland: Sujamthe: very true, but there's also something to be said for long-standing business credibility, which web 2.0 businesses often lack
16:03:43 Doug Cubell: in the same way that large companies are datamining large databases, there are better and better tools to do the same thing on the internet. Scary.
16:03:45 Doug Cubell: Thanks Su!
16:03:47 Richard Seltzer: Thanks to all for joining us today.
16:04:00 Doug Cubell: By all!
16:04:01 Richard Seltzer: And thanks to Sudha for picking this topic.
16:04:01 Kat Ortland: Thanks for inviting me, Sujamthe and Richard
16:04:08 Kat Ortland: It's a pleasure chatting with you
16:04:12 Richard Seltzer: And thanks very much to our guest speaker -- Kat.
16:04:29 sujamthe: thanks kat, wish you could come back again
16:04:35 Kat Ortland: You're welcome!
16:04:41 Kat Ortland: Let me know, I can swing by any time
16:04:47 Richard Seltzer: Alfred -- you seem to have appeared at the very end. Please send me email with your related thoughts so I can include that int he transcript.
16:05:16 Alfred Thompson: Sorry I missed things. Work gets in the way. :-)
16:05:17 Richard Seltzer: All -- please send Su or me suggestiosn for future topics and speakers.
16:05:31 alexandyr: Thanks, Kat! and thanks all. Back to work for me also.
16:05:46 Kat Ortland: Please feel free, all, to also visit my work website in addition to web2.0awards.org ... it's seomoz.org and I have a profile page linked there
16:05:47 Richard Seltzer: Thanks again. (signing off and capturing the "history" of this session).
16:05:54 sujamthe: Thanks alexandyr, Bye everyone