Wednesday, May 31, 2006

2 June 2006 - 3pm EDT chat "Ecommerce in Web 2.0"

Our next chat will be this Friday (not Wednesday) from 3-4 PM Eastern Time (noon to 1 PM Pacific Time).
Our guest will be Venkat Kolluri, CEO, Chitika, Inc. http://www.chitika.com/
Co-host Sudha Jamthe notes: “In this new era of Web 2.0, has commerce on the net changed? We hear a lot about communities in everything. With searches and ad revenues as king of e-business, has old fashioned e-commerce changed? Is merchandising on a web site the same as before? Are there are new tools and techniques for doing traditional tasks? Are there new tasks that need to be taken care of?
“Chitika is the industry’s leading impulse merchandising company. Chitika was founded in May 2003 and is based in Massachusetts. Chitika (pronounced CHIH-tih-ka) helps web publishers generate revenue using innovative publisher-side advertising and merchandising solutions and services.”
Venkat Kolluri Bio: Venkat is co-founder of Chitika and has served as President & CEO since the company’s inception. Venkat oversees all of Chitika’s operations, including it’s strategic direction and product planning, as well as corporate development. Previously, Venkat worked at Upromise, leading the Partner Services group in the Database Marketing & Analytics division. Prior to Upromise, he worked at Lycos as the Principal Technologist in the Marketing Services group and spearheaded the development and launch of several innovative Advertising and Marketing Automation products and services across the Lycos Network.
Please join us at iblogcom.blogspot.com
When you arrive at that blog, click on the diamond on the right to join the chat.
Richard Seltzer

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Transcript (unedited) of May 9th chat - Participatory Media Communities with Paul Jones

15:00:21 Richard Seltzer: It's now 3 PM (Eastern Time). Let's get started. Paul, please introduce yourself and give us a quick overview of ibiblio.
15:00:58 sujamthe: I am back here
15:01:33 Richard Seltzer: Welcome, Ruby, we're just getting started. Please introduce yourself.
15:01:53 Richard Seltzer: Paul -- what's the main purpose and function of ibiblio?
15:02:35 Paul Jones: oops away for a moment
15:02:54 Richard Seltzer: I see that ibiblio used to be known as sunsite.unc.edu Are you still connected with the U. of North Carolina? Is your operation an education non-profit?
15:03:04 sujamthe: Hi Ruby
15:03:07 Paul Jones: ibiblio develops and serves people and group who want to share information freely
15:03:15 Richard Seltzer: Welcome, Jeff Smith, we're just getting started. Please introduce yourself.
15:03:30 Ruby: Hi, I'm Ruby Sinreich. I am the creator/editor/boss of a local politics blog in Chapel Hill. http://OrangePolitics.org Just here to soak up some of Paul's wisdom...
15:03:40 Paul Jones: ]we began as sunsite.unc.edu the first sunsite in 1992
15:03:40 Jeff Smith: Hi Richard. Hi Everyone
15:03:50 Paul Jones: halloween officially and aappropriately
15:03:56 Paul Jones: trick and treat
15:04:05 sujamthe: I am a startup advisor and one of the organizers of this chat. Hi Richard, maybe you can intro yourself too :-))
15:04:25 Richard Seltzer: Paul -- that's a very broad definition. There's all kinds of information sharing int he world. Do you specialize in text or audio or video or software? And what is your business model? Is this an all-volunteer non-profit operation? Or do you make money s
15:04:28 Jeff Smith: I'm Jeff Smith; technical director and search optimization specialist at Matrix Media Technologies in San Diego, CA
15:04:45 Paul Jones: sunsite/metalab/ibiblio are part of the university of north carolina
15:04:49 sujamthe: Hi Jeff
15:05:05 Richard Seltzer: Welcome Sayan, please introduce yourself and let us know your interests.
15:05:07 Paul Jones: particularly the school of information and library science and
15:05:17 Jeff Smith: Hi Ruby
15:05:17 sujamthe: Pal, as sunsite it was not a community, like ibililio today, right?
15:05:17 Paul Jones: the school of journalism and mass communication
15:05:34 Richard Seltzer: So, Paul, are you an employee of UNC? or what is your role?
15:05:36 Sayan: I'm Sayan and I am a graduate student at the School of Information & Library Science here at UNC
15:05:36 Paul Jones: also for a long time part of the information tech services
15:05:55 Paul Jones: i'm faculty in both schools - journalism and info science
15:06:29 Richard Seltzer: I remember way back sunsite.unc.edu was one of the first and largest nodes on the Internet, and a great resources for public domain etexts. Even now don't you still serve as web host for the Gutenberg Project?
15:06:30 Paul Jones: i invented the sunsite program and the first site to be sunsite back a long time agao
15:06:32 Paul Jones: ago
15:06:51 Paul Jones: now we do much more as you can see by visiting ibiblio.org
15:07:08 Paul Jones: among the sites we facilitate by hosting and by development
15:07:13 Ruby: By way of introduction, I am also a consultant to nonprofits who want to utilize social networks and network-centric strategies into their advocacy. So I'm in terested in the topic of "Participatroy Media Communities" from many angles.
15:07:13 Richard Seltzer: Paul, interesting. I've seen the term "sunsite" many times. But I'm not sure what it means (aside from some connection with Sun Microsystems). Can you clarify?
15:07:36 Paul Jones: on SunSITE. it stands for something like
15:07:45 sujamthe: I remember older online communities where it waas newsgroups and lot of mailing list, there were quite a few with local groups attached as part of the old Boston Computer Society
15:07:55 Paul Jones: SUN Software, Information and Technology Exchange
15:08:19 Richard Seltzer: I've visited ibiblio, but still am not sure of the scope of waht you do -- some links are to other sites and some are to files at your site; and I suppose some are to non-profits hosted at your site. What's your overall goal?
15:08:24 Paul Jones: we started as a way not only to share software but to share other formats
15:08:33 sujamthe: Paul, was it a community when it started? How has it changed as ibibilio?
15:08:42 Paul Jones: in what were then developing protocols
15:08:50 Paul Jones: let me catch up a bit
15:09:08 sujamthe: ok, I'll wait
15:09:21 Paul Jones: yes over 15 years we've changed but not so much in some ways
15:09:25 Richard Seltzer: So what is your connection with Gutenberg? Are you just the host offering them Web space? Or are you responsible for making their 15,000+ books easy to find and easy to download?
15:09:45 Paul Jones: we've had funding independent of Sun for about half our life now
15:10:04 Paul Jones: we do more formats and more ambitious projects and more software development
15:10:28 Paul Jones: also we've gone from just proving a sandbox
15:10:46 Richard Seltzer: Paul -- getting to Su's questions; I'm curious too, in what sense is ibiblio a "social community"? And did it get that way on purpose, or did you wake up one day and find that that was the case?
15:10:51 Paul Jones: to providing a place while still experimental is also an archive
15:11:18 Paul Jones: waaaay back we set up a portal called launchpad
15:11:32 Paul Jones: that gave access to the newsgroups etc that su mentioned
15:11:33 Richard Seltzer: I see lots of linux related archives at ibiblio, also lots of RSS feeds. Is linux a major project for you?
15:11:45 Brian Russell: hello. I'm a podcaster and blogger at AudioActivism.org which is hosted by ibiblio.org
15:11:47 Paul Jones: we allowed annonymous reading for example
15:11:55 Paul Jones: which seemed important
15:12:00 Richard Seltzer: Welcome Brian. Please introduce yourself and let us know your interests.
15:12:32 Paul Jones: we also provided access to all of the GNU software and eventually, once it was invented, Linux
15:12:40 Brian Russell: I live in Chapel Hill, NC and work at UNC.
15:12:51 Richard Seltzer: Jeff -- I'm curious. Is there a connection between social networking/online communicties and the kind of search engine optimization work you normally do?
15:13:00 Paul Jones: so we had a software community and an active creative community
15:13:08 Richard Seltzer: Brian -- are you connected with ibiblio?
15:13:15 Brian Russell: I'm interested in bridging the digital divide, helping others learn how to make their own media.
15:13:28 Brian Russell: No. I am not connected with ibiblio. Just a fan and a user.
15:13:41 Paul Jones: brian put on the podcastercon.org here with help from ibib
15:14:03 Paul Jones: do we want to talk about community?
15:14:07 Jeff Smith: Absolutely. The search engines are always looking for was to base rankings on less and less manipulatable data. Usage statistics are one metric that is very difficult to manipulate on a large scale.
15:14:10 Brian Russell: PodcasterCon is an unconference created by participants.
15:14:32 sujamthe: unconference?
15:14:46 Paul Jones: http://podcastercon.org
15:14:52 Brian Russell: an unconference is basically an event where the particpants determine the content
15:14:57 Richard Seltzer: Paul -- so is the heart of your "community" software developers invovled in GNU sowtware and Linux? And is your main social activity making it easy for them to share and comment on and improve on that open source software? In other words, is this a piece
15:15:00 Brian Russell: we used a wiki
15:15:10 Jeff Smith: So, creating social functions on sites is a great way to convey a high degree of user satisfaction (ie visitor stays on site longer, visits more pages after finding it via search results)
15:15:31 Paul Jones: in ancient days yes. but now we're involved in many comminuties
15:15:43 Paul Jones: say tape traders at etree.org
15:15:50 Paul Jones: say video bloggers
15:15:59 Jeff Smith: Also, as links are the main ingredient to high rankings now we're looking to more social (viral) ways of doing link development. Much better than sending out reciprocal link requests!
15:16:05 Paul Jones: distributed editting at gutenburg
15:16:10 Sayan: book readers at librivox.org
15:16:24 Paul Jones: GPS explorers at confluence.org
15:16:45 Paul Jones: we are involved in supporting and developing communities of all kinds
15:16:50 Richard Seltzer: Jeff -- in other words, you want to work with sites that are online community hubs in some way? If so, how would you like to work with them? For instance, what business model could come into play with a site like ibiblio?
15:17:06 sujamthe: Jeff: what do you mean by social ways of link development, how its is different from viral, refer 6 friends for a service?
15:17:22 Paul Jones: http://lyceum.ibiblio.org is an open source blog sphere for example
15:18:00 Richard Seltzer: Jeff -- I perceive that some of the very best community sites operate in association with universities and are, for the most part non-profit. Are there advertising models that could be non-invasive adn consistent with the site's goals and that could help
15:18:02 sujamthe: Paul, its amazing, I saw etree.org, didn't realize so many other communities
15:18:04 Paul Jones: at present we don't do social linking like say digg or annotated links like del.icio.us
15:18:11 Brian Russell: lyceum is based on wordpress
15:18:14 Brian Russell: btw
15:18:17 Paul Jones: most are communities
15:18:36 Paul Jones: yes on lyceum. it's WP as install once run many blogs
15:18:44 sujamthe: Pl tell us about this public domain community trend - who are these people. techies only? what makes the groups self-governing?
15:18:53 Paul Jones: most are communities of practive
15:19:20 Paul Jones: k. amongst the groups we've been involved with early on is creative commons
15:19:31 Richard Seltzer: Paul -- do you do anything special with public domain books in etext form? or do projects like Gutenberg just use your computing capacity to make their stuff available?
15:19:38 Paul Jones: the icommons.org international group is their latest
15:19:52 Paul Jones: yes and yes on books
15:20:15 Paul Jones: so we pretty much give tech support to gutenburg, but
15:20:16 Richard Seltzer: Paul -- I'm not familiar with all the current buzzwords. Can you define "communities of practice" and "creative commons", please?
15:20:56 Paul Jones: yes first this. with documenting the american south or folkstreams.net we are more handson
15:21:06 Ruby Sinreich: Those are not buzzwords.
15:21:21 Ruby Sinreich: They are standards for online community building.
15:21:23 Paul Jones: "communities of practice" = folks that get to gether to do something specific
15:21:24 Richard Seltzer: Are all the sites and projects that you help and support "non-proft"? Often there are small and on-person operations on the web that have goals similar to non-profits.
15:21:32 Ruby Sinreich: http://CreativeCommons.org
15:21:41 Paul Jones: say surfing, say knitting, say gps explorations
15:22:23 Paul Jones: creative commons goes international with http://icommons.org
15:22:55 Richard Seltzer: Ruby. I'm still not clear on this. "Community" is a rather general and vague term. How do you define it? (I presume that you ahve to define it precisely in order to develop "standards" for it).
15:23:25 Paul Jones: but also for your amusement see larry lessig speaking in 1998 at unc at http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/speakers/lessig
15:23:46 Ruby Sinreich: I don't mean standards like things you measure, but like things that are standard or basic.
15:23:55 Richard Seltzer: Jeff -- can you give an example of a "more social way of doing link development"? is this someone, like me, with a small business/personal Web site could do?
15:24:03 Paul Jones: well the nature of communities is that they tend to define and redefine themselves
15:24:32 Paul Jones: so a group may start out as info about, literally, tibetan human rights and democracy
15:24:37 Jeff Smith: Richard - there is probably not a way, with advertising restrictions being what they are, that .edu sites can work in that way.
15:25:06 Paul Jones: and then some members decide they need to create an AIDs related site for Tibetans and visitors to Dharmasala
15:25:28 Paul Jones: the some others will work on that say
15:25:32 Richard Seltzer: Paul -- thants for the links/references. I'll track those down afterwards. (No time now). FYI -- I'll post an edited version of the transcript of this chat so we can go back and check such things, and point other people to the discussion who weren't ab
15:25:39 Jeff Smith: Jeff- Ok, here's an example of a social way of doing link development: We're developing a site, just like myspace, but for a large specific niche. The main differences are that we make some of our users money and we offer more of a rating based system.
15:26:23 Jeff Smith: The social link part is that we offer them code they can place on their blog, site, other sites' profiles, etc to get themselves "ranked" elsewhere and that links back to us.
15:26:27 Paul Jones: how about a site called FaceSpaceDiggilicousrrr
15:26:30 Jeff Smith: Sorry, didn't mean to put "Jeff-"
15:26:45 Brian Russell: I think Jeff has hit on precisely why not for profit sites (individuals and groups) are on the forefront of social networks. Commerce isn't clouding our innovation.
15:27:00 Paul Jones: it would combine face book, myspace, digg, flickr, flappr, and delicious
15:27:08 sujamthe: Ruby, I just saw your site and curious, whats network centric activism?
15:27:16 Brian Russell: because not for profits usually don't advertise we concentrate on movement buildign and education
15:27:39 Brian Russell: IMHO
15:27:43 Jeff Smith: So, what we would have paid thousands of dollars for we end up getting for free AND we've been able to give users a way to promote themselves and add unique content to their own sites.
15:27:46 Paul Jones: jeff how would that work on a highly hetrogenous site like ibiblio?
15:28:05 Jeff Smith: Brian, I'd have to say that MySpace is on the forefront.. would you?
15:28:12 sujamthe: Jeff, isn't it same as the prior model of companies asking to link to them as "powered by so and so"?
15:28:20 Ruby Sinreich: Well I don't want to fork this discussion even further, but network-centric advocacy is an an approach that puts activists first, allowing them to build and use their own social networks,a nd to lead movements from the bottom up.
15:28:20 Richard Seltzer: Brian -- interesting. I always throught of commerce as providing incentive for innovation, rather than clouding it. There are always far more things that you could do than you have time and resources to do. Commercial helps you sort out which to focus o
15:28:38 Jeff Smith: Suja - Similar, however this is dynamic content.
15:29:02 Jeff Smith: Our control panel makes it like AdSense
15:29:14 Brian Russell: jeff - in the mainstream MySpace may have the most users. Not sure if this equals forfront or not
15:29:18 Jeff Smith: they can customize everything to match and select which types of pictures to display, etc.
15:29:20 Paul Jones: i see
15:29:23 sujamthe: jeff, whats changes dynamically?
15:29:39 Richard Seltzer: Jeff -- do you have a Web page on which you explain your concept? It's a bit too complex for me to grasp on the fly like this.
15:29:41 Jeff Smith: Paul - I'm not exactly sure; it depends on teh goals of the site.
15:29:45 Paul Jones: not all innovation is driven by profit motive as even Jeff is telling us
15:30:06 Ruby Sinreich: Yes, Paul!
15:30:09 Paul Jones: see in particular Yochai Benkler's Wealth of Networks
15:30:10 Ruby Sinreich: Amen.
15:30:18 Jeff Smith: Richard - Actually, the site will be on our testing server in about 7 days. It should go live in about 3-4 weeks.
15:30:22 sujamthe: Paul, true, but profit motives is what brings in capital to scale it.
15:30:40 Paul Jones: Yochai talks intelligently about non-market production
15:30:49 Ruby Sinreich: A lot of key social technologies don't need capital.
15:30:50 Jeff Smith: Paul - Absolutely agree. It just requires resources.
15:30:53 Paul Jones: which is not opposed to market production
15:31:01 Jeff Smith: Different organizations obtain them different ways.
15:31:10 Ruby Sinreich: Resources = not just money.
15:31:11 Paul Jones: but is situated beside and interacting with the market
15:31:16 Ruby Sinreich: Are you all familiar with open source software?
15:31:24 Jeff Smith: Ruby - correct
15:31:29 Jeff Smith: Yes
15:31:30 Richard Seltzer: Paul -- It's my sense that there are several different stages to innovation. There's the early brainstorming phase, when you want untrrammelled creativity. Then once you have a thousand ideas on the table, you need to sort through them to determine whic
15:31:37 sujamthe: Agree, open source movement has diff motivation.
15:31:41 Ruby Sinreich: they have developed some amazingly powerful tools using non-monetary resources (ie: smart peopel who wantto help each other)
15:31:43 Paul Jones: yes OSS is one example in which non-market and market interact
15:31:43 Brian Russell: Richard - by clouding I mean priorities on commercial sites are different than not for profit sites and set you down a different path of decisions.
15:31:55 sujamthe: I am amazed at what motivates social communities like the ones Paul hosts?
15:32:31 Paul Jones: we've gotten a bit from ibibl
15:32:47 Paul Jones: hang on i've got a call from Khartoom
15:32:49 Paul Jones: literally
15:33:12 Richard Seltzer: Ruby -- for instance, open source projects like Linux, can go far in terms of development. But to take it to the next stage, to make it available for use by the non-technical public, you need a commercial incentive -- that's where companies like Red Hat
15:33:16 Paul Jones: back
15:33:34 Paul Jones: things don;t look to market driven there at the moment ;->
15:33:58 Richard Seltzer: Paul -- Khartoum? That's impressive. But a call? A physical phone call? You could have done that a little classier... :-)
15:34:02 Paul Jones: i would avoid deterministic frameworks like stages
15:34:05 Ruby Sinreich: What about Firefox?
15:34:06 Paul Jones: skype
15:34:17 Brian Russell: thunderbird
15:34:32 Brian Russell: Open Office
15:34:33 sujamthe: Riuby, sorry I missed if you already explained netcentric campaigns
15:34:34 Paul Jones: yes market opportunities arise from non-market
15:34:40 Ruby Sinreich: OSS can bu just as user-friendly and accesible as commercial software. cometimes more so.
15:34:45 Paul Jones: byt not necessarily in stages
15:34:52 Ruby Sinreich: I did, Su. Scoll up. :-)
15:35:02 Paul Jones: skype to khrtoom
15:35:10 Richard Seltzer: Paul and Ruby -- I'm getting the sense that when you talk about "community" you primarily mean a community of software developers working on open software projects. Is that the case?
15:35:21 Ruby Sinreich: that's one kind of community.
15:35:35 Ruby Sinreich: i often think of the community of people who participate on my local politics blog.
15:35:47 Ruby Sinreich: or the community of friends I have on flickr, for example.
15:35:49 Paul Jones: only one type of community of practice
15:35:53 Paul Jones: folks that do something
15:36:02 Ruby Sinreich: Yep.
15:36:02 Paul Jones: and build something
15:36:08 Richard Seltzer: Paul and Ruby -- if you experience is primarily with sosftware developer communities, are any of the lessons you have learned from that community development applicable to profit-making businesses and non-technical users of the Internet?
15:36:13 Paul Jones: and yes there are market opportunities there
15:36:48 Paul Jones: well, the cluetrain folks have the more or less early take on web 2.0
15:36:59 Ruby Sinreich: I'm not interested in profit-making businesses, personally. My primary experiences are with nonprofits that advocate for certain causes.
15:37:17 Paul Jones: so that is one interaction between
15:37:22 Paul Jones: profit is fine by me
15:37:25 Ruby Sinreich: Ditto, Paul. http://cluetrain.com
15:37:27 Richard Seltzer: Paul and Ruby -- when you think of a "community" how many people are you talking about? less than a dozen? more than a dozen? hundreds? thousands? millions? are different capabilities important for supporting communities of radically different size?
15:37:48 Paul Jones: both can interact and benefit
15:38:02 Paul Jones: getting a darfur report in the background
15:38:09 Sayan: and they can scale up from being small to hundred...
15:38:24 Ruby Sinreich: there is no limit to how small or lareg a community can be, it depends on what its function is.
15:38:38 Ruby Sinreich: social networks usually top out around 150 and then get unweildy.
15:39:14 Richard Seltzer: Ruby -- My take is a bit different. I think of a "non-profit" as basically bureaucracy driven -- starting from the bureaucratic hoops one has to jump through to satisfy government tax-related definitions of non-profit. Small operations (say one-person c
15:39:29 sujamthe: Interesting enough, the cluetrain folks were here at the older version of this chat in Feb 2000 http://www.samizdat.com/clue.html
15:39:48 Paul Jones: well tha;s one way to do it
15:40:00 Ruby Sinreich: "non-profit" is a description of an organization's tax status, but doesn't really describe what it is.
15:40:24 Paul Jones: but remember america always amazed europeans because we all volunteer so much
15:40:34 sujamthe: Paul, what are the market opportunites you see?
15:40:39 Ruby Sinreich: a nonprofit or nongovernmental organizaion is simply a collection of people who want to incorporate for an altruistic purpose instead of making money.
15:40:39 Paul Jones: and we always form and join organizations
15:40:40 Richard Seltzer: Yes, the principles of Cluetrain are basic princiiples of interaction on the Internet and good business practice on the Intenret and respecting customers and doing what you can to serve your audience. Nothing non-profit about it.
15:40:50 Paul Jones: in OSS for example
15:41:07 Paul Jones: you saw Cygnus early on interacting with GNU
15:41:25 sujamthe: I see this trend of communities evolving beyond the OSS world, and can think of market opportunities for specific businesses if they took it in the spirit of the community
15:41:34 Ruby Sinreich: I think of teh Cluetrain Manifesto as network-centric marketing.
15:41:39 Paul Jones: you see many interactions with Linux from Red Hat to Ubantu
15:41:40 Paul Jones: the last being almost a humanitarian project
15:41:54 Ruby Sinreich: Nonprofits can adapt cluetrain ideas by replacing the work "customer" with "supporter"
15:41:57 Paul Jones: marketing is message communitcation
15:42:07 Richard Seltzer: Ruby -- the key word there is "incorporate". Small companies don't need to do that, don't need to tie themselves up that way. (Sorry. Personal prejudice of mine. I see too many traditioanl non-profits wasting lots of time and energy raising money, when
15:42:16 Ruby Sinreich: sorry, the wor_D_
15:42:21 Paul Jones: IBM interacting with Apache is another example
15:42:43 Ruby Sinreich: i don't see what incorporating has to do with it. some communities do, some don't.
15:43:04 Ruby Sinreich: BTW Richard, your posts are getting cut off after 2 lines.
15:43:13 Brian Russell: Nice chatting with ya'll. I need to go back to work.
15:43:17 Brian Russell: :)
15:43:26 sujamthe: incorporation is more for legal protection where money is involved.
15:43:30 Paul Jones: i agree incorporating is one way to deal with problems and challenges
15:43:35 Richard Seltzer: Ruby -- thanks for letting me know about the cut offs.
15:43:36 Paul Jones: yes
15:43:54 Richard Seltzer: I see all of what I type here on the "host" page I'm using and didn't know others didn't.
15:43:57 sujamthe: Thanks for coming Brian, you can come back and read the transcripts, Richard will edit so we can read diff threads of discussions.
15:44:02 Paul Jones: but one can still make $$$ unincorporated as many third world economies prove
15:44:09 Richard Seltzer: Of course, my greatest insights appear on line 3 :-)
15:44:10 Paul Jones: and BTW underground economies
15:44:17 Ruby Sinreich: :-)
15:44:50 Paul Jones: can we post images here? (big sandstrom in khartoom
15:45:05 Richard Seltzer: I'm still a bit fuzzy on the word "community"
15:45:25 sujamthe: no images, send a url for it
15:45:32 Paul Jones: that's because you want a solid def of a negotiated meaning
15:45:41 Richard Seltzer: Paul -- No. We can't post images here. But give me a URL and I'll include a link (or even the phicture) in the transcript.
15:45:45 Paul Jones: not online so later if appropriate
15:46:01 Paul Jones: the perils of multitasking
15:46:09 Richard Seltzer: Paul -- you could email at photo at seltzer@samizdat.com
15:46:36 sujamthe: I am trying to get to some key understanding of whats changed now to cause these communities to form?
15:46:39 Richard Seltzer: I sense that there many different degrees of community interaction.
15:47:03 Richard Seltzer: Basic is letting people ask questions and posting their questiosn and your answers on your Web page.
15:47:14 Richard Seltzer: The automated form of that basic interaction is a blog.
15:47:35 Sayan: suja.. i think the tools to interact within and outside the community have become available, easy to use and usually free
15:47:35 Richard Seltzer: Next is a chat or forum, when more than two people interact on the same subject.
15:47:36 Paul Jones: ibiblio isn''t limitied to commiunities thos
15:47:49 sujamthe: I've been part of Bostobn Computer Society and know people can volunteer passionately and do wonderful work. But creating something thats sustains itself, doesn't it require a company? whats the variable that makes these communities survive and perform
15:47:50 Paul Jones: passionate individuals also have projects
15:48:02 Richard Seltzer: Next is a series of interactions -- the same set of people returning with some regularity to talk about the same subject.
15:48:11 Paul Jones: for example 10 years ago Roger McGuinn started putting
15:48:20 sujamthe: Thanks sayan, you mean, I can setup a wiki and allow a community to build?
15:48:37 sujamthe: I have an example of a successful community gethuman.com
15:48:37 Richard Seltzer: Next is goal-oriented continuing discussion -- where the people involved are actually coming to a decision and will take action of some kind together.
15:48:51 Paul Jones: a different folksong on the net every month
15:49:06 Paul Jones: now he has over 100 songs
15:49:19 Richard Seltzer: Next is something like "continuous devleopment: or "continuous improvement" as with open-ended, growing software and political projects.
15:49:22 Sayan: suja.. if u already have friends as seed members of a community , instead of writing individual mails... u can start contributing to a blog/wiki
15:49:29 Paul Jones: and he sells CDs and sells out concerts
15:49:31 sujamthe: my friend paul english started a cheatsheet to get to the operator in 800 numbers and its evolved into a community volunteer driven and maintains the list.
15:49:54 Jeff Smith: Suja, that gethuman.com ?
15:49:56 Paul Jones: yes on community. the tech only facilitates the people
15:49:59 sujamthe: It appears motivation is access to those short-cuts, but theres something more.
15:50:11 Richard Seltzer: Su -- Can you give a quick definition of a wiki and how that relates to "communityh"?
15:50:15 Paul Jones: imagine a blank craig's list!
15:50:21 sujamthe: Do you see anything else common ora driving factor forming these communities?
15:50:31 Richard Seltzer: Paul -- in what sense is ibiblio related to "wiki" style development?
15:50:35 Paul Jones: passion
15:50:49 Paul Jones: passion as an answer to su
15:51:04 Richard Seltzer: It's possible that a more concrete definition of social community would focus on the software it is built around.
15:51:10 Paul Jones: now to richard. wiki is a specific tech
15:51:18 sujamthe: wiki is a tool like a blog, but allows users to come edit a web site.
15:51:38 Richard Seltzer: I'm thinking forum/chat, blog, etc. And maybe "wiki" now (if I had a clearer idea of what that meant).
15:51:45 Paul Jones: wikis are on ibiblio but they really do require an active core of people to keep alive
15:51:48 sujamthe: passion for a cause thats the initial goal of the community?
15:52:16 Paul Jones: not a goal but a driver to the goal
15:52:22 Sayan: yes
15:52:22 sujamthe: Richard you know wikipedia, wiki tools are available for people to allow others to write.
15:52:23 Richard Seltzer: What' makes a "wiki" work? What makes it grow to a community?
15:52:37 Paul Jones: if you wanted to create a community of folks interested in cream of wheat
15:52:55 Paul Jones: and no one cared enough to post or work on the site etc
15:53:01 Paul Jones: then you get zip
15:53:01 sujamthe: Many user groups have wikis to allow members to post their bio and if they'd attend a meeting, remember the Boston Innovation Group wiki?
15:53:08 Richard Seltzer: I understand that wikipedia grew up around the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britiannica, with volunteers adding to that, and then refining one anothers contributions.
15:53:09 Paul Jones: you may have all the goals you want
15:53:32 Paul Jones: if people if only a few if only you say are passionate about cream of wheat
15:53:39 Richard Seltzer: Do you need a large and useful document, and a group of people who really care about that document, to built a wiki community?
15:53:49 Paul Jones: passionalte enough to work and contribute and build
15:54:01 Paul Jones: you may attract others who share that passion
15:54:10 sujamthe: Paul, good point. Thats where many companies who adopted chat and forum failed as they couldn't build community.
15:54:27 Richard Seltzer: Paul -- I understand the need for passion. But don't you also need core document to begin with?
15:54:34 sujamthe: Even today most think of community as the people already on their site.
15:54:36 Paul Jones: not really.
15:54:40 Ruby Sinreich: Richardm i don't think you need a docuemnt. Just people who have passion and knowledge or ideas.
15:54:46 sujamthe: Paul, a pratical question -
15:54:55 Richard Seltzer: Don't you need a seed? (and isn't a large useful text the most natural seed?)
15:54:59 Jeff Smith: Depending on the commerciallness of the topic of your wiki or the topics covered in your wiki you need more moderating.
15:55:00 Paul Jones: as jenny preece says in her Online Communities book:
15:55:08 Ruby Sinreich: No, just a topic.
15:55:21 Paul Jones: you need people (i'd say passionate people), purpose, and policy
15:55:37 Jeff Smith: "Just people who have passion and knowledge or ideas." Aggree
15:55:39 Jeff Smith: Agree
15:55:40 Sayan: topic and a willingness to build up from scratch if need be
15:55:41 Ruby Sinreich: Rivhard, it seems you are assuming users are only re-active, they can also be pro-active.
15:55:51 Richard Seltzer: Jeff -- I'd think that a core document and wiki style adding and editing might accomplish your goals.
15:55:58 Paul Jones: that helps a lot but sometimes it will develop in the interactions
15:56:04 sujamthe: Richard and I have been organizing this chat since 1996, I am more involved now in this blogchat format. We have a loyal base of users who are on our mailing list, some come if it suits their timing to the chat, many come and read the transcripts -
15:56:10 Paul Jones: if you are looking for a wiki cookbook
15:56:20 sujamthe: Richard religiously edits so the threads are readable.
15:56:22 Paul Jones: then youcan say that
15:56:38 Paul Jones: thank gawd for richard!
15:56:40 sujamthe: For some topics, people email ahead of time with comments if they can't make it.
15:56:43 Richard Seltzer: Ruby -- No. I imagine a wiki community consisting of many very interested and active people. it's just easier for me to imagine them sticking together and working together is there's a core document.
15:56:45 Paul Jones: typing is not writing
15:56:52 Paul Jones: speaking is not writing
15:57:05 Jeff Smith: I think for starters you need a goal with a Wiki. If you define a goal then the users can help shape the wiki to meet that goal.
15:57:14 Paul Jones: this highly interactive commnuication is good in this form but
15:57:23 Jeff Smith: IE to have the largest recipe database online.
15:57:25 Jeff Smith: ,et c
15:57:27 Paul Jones: reading it later it's hard ot make sense
15:57:44 Sayan: some wikis start off with just a blank structure,,, which people fill in the gaps and add content
15:57:55 sujamthe: Paul, now, is this a community? Is it possible to make it a wiki or some other tool based system to let a community drive its goals. Currently Richard and I set the goals on learning web trends and evolvng b-models, can this be a self-driving community?
15:57:57 Paul Jones: right jeff. purpose, policy, people
15:58:08 Richard Seltzer: Paul -- Okay. This will be a challenge, to reconstitute the threads of this discussion in readable from. But that's what we always do.
15:58:23 sujamthe: Whats the formula to make it happen? More to decide if it fits the participatory community model?
15:58:28 Richard Seltzer: I only hope I can do it well this time, because the discussion has been very intersting.
15:59:08 Paul Jones: how to describe a commnuity model is a lot like describing the ideal government
15:59:17 Paul Jones: it varies by culture
15:59:23 Richard Seltzer: I guess what I'm looking for is a model for building a useful and productie community. I suspect wiki based, and with a core document.
15:59:37 Paul Jones: but preece's 3 ps are fairly useful
15:59:44 Richard Seltzer: Paul -- and many people have tried to describe the ideal govenment...
16:00:02 Paul Jones: plato is the worst
16:00:19 Paul Jones: no one has it perfect but they keep tuning
16:00:36 Richard Seltzer: In any case, we're at the end of the hour. Thanks to all. Please post your email addresses and URL so we can stay in touch.
16:00:47 Paul Jones: i suspect we're not done getting government right
16:00:50 Paul Jones: ;->
16:00:52 Richard Seltzer: Thanks very much Paul in particular, as our guest speaker.
16:01:03 Ruby Sinreich: Thanks Richard & Su for putting this together.
16:01:04 Paul Jones: hope you can read my typing
16:01:11 Richard Seltzer: Please let us know if you have topics and speakers you'd like to suggest for future sessions.
16:01:14 Paul Jones: thanks for inviting me. it's been fun
16:01:20 Paul Jones: will do
16:01:24 Jeff Smith: Thanks everyone
16:01:27 sujamthe: Thanks everybody. Thanks Paul
16:01:30 Paul Jones: sorry to miss su in cambridge
16:01:32 Sayan: this was very interesting and fun ! thanks !
16:01:38 Richard Seltzer: Thanks to all. Do please post contact info before leaving.
16:01:44 sujamthe: Paul, pl tell people about your conference topic and time at harvard
16:01:57 Paul Jones: http://ibiblio.org/pjones/blog
16:01:59 Jeff Smith: Jeff Smith jsmith@matrixmt.com
16:02:02 sujamthe: I am so soooooooory I'l miss it :-(
16:02:09 Ruby Sinreich: You can find me at http://lotusmedia.org. there are links there to my other things.
16:02:14 Sayan: Sayan Chakraborty c.sayan@gmail.com www.sayanc.net
16:02:16 Richard Seltzer: Richard Seltzer seltzer@samizdat.com http://www.samizdat.com
16:02:18 Paul Jones: beyond broadcast http://beyondbroadcast.net
16:02:32 Richard Seltzer: Thanks again.
16:02:39 Paul Jones: friday and saturday at the berkman center at harvard law
16:02:56 Paul Jones: paul jones <jones@unc.edu>
16:03:02 Ruby Sinreich: Bye y'all.
16:03:16 Paul Jones: sea ewe l8r
16:04:01 Sayan: Bye !
16:04:18 sujamthe: Pal, say hi to Bill Gannon, and tell him about this chat, I've xchanged emails with him and would like to invite him here sometime in future.
16:04:32 sujamthe: Bye everybody

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Open Phone movement for community built phone

MercuryNews.com 05/10/2006 New can-do club wants to build better cell phone

Thought this was a nice addition to our chat y'day about participatory media communities.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Click below to join our chattoday

Sunday, May 07, 2006

May 9th noon PDT chat - Participatory Media Communities

What: Blogcom chat "Participatroy Media Communities"
Guest: Paul Jones, director of Paul Jones director of ibiblio http://www.ibiblio.com known as “The Public’s Library — a large contributor-run digital library.” Paul also has on-going research interest in Open source and Sharing Communities and Information policy issues.
When: Tues May 9th 3pm EDT

Web 2.0 sure has an unique trend that people seem more empowered and are interacting as online communities.

The open source movement has been around for while and its more than online communities with a disciplined set of smart people developing ad building upon each other work building out the public domain. Now we can find equivalent of every possible commercial software in the open source world.

We hear lot of talk about social communities following friendster and myspace.com It seems to be teens or young crowd of a certain profile.

Whats not be talked about much, is the public domain communities that have taken the open source model and built out participatory communities on topics ranging over a wide spectrum. Its a community of geographically diverse people and they follow the discipline of formingand adhering to the rules of the community in forming online content.

wikipedia, ibibilio.com, several other wiki based communities all form under this category.

Whats their magic? What do they teach us? What is the change that has caused people to galavanize such communities online and where is it going? where is it taking us?

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Looking for a good hosted wiki solutions

These are the top two hosted wikis Schtuff and Writeboard.
Details about each here -Two great free hosted wiki services - thanks to The Bumble Bee

I came across Schtuff accidently when I fund about hosted wikis about a year's time back. Unfortunately I could not remember the site name again to go back till I stepped on it accidently today.
One of our blogcom users told us about Writeboard. Richard and I share a writeboard and explored it afresh not thinking it was a wiki. The problem with it is that it expects me to remember some crytic URL assigned to my writeboard, which is automatically generated name and impossible to remember.

I like twiki and many of the wiki softwares.
Can someone please please tell me about a hosted wiki that as good as twiki? I don't mind paying for it if it has smooth usability.

Thanks, Sudha

Transcript (unedited) of Apr 19th chat - Web 2.0 with Kat Ortland

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 kat@seomoz.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 seltzer@samizdat.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 alexs@garagegames.com 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. doug@drcweb.net. 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

Events Calendar - Upcoming chats

We update the calendar on our web based spreadsheet on irows.com and it updates the calendar here. (Thanks Yoah of irows)