Recently I've been reading too many articles on Web 2.0 failures. Seems like the media and bloggers have set their mind to see Web 2.0 go down the drain. I don't blame them because I am of the same view.
I am sure many of you probably have heard of Friendster. Now it has not been too long since that hype but nobody that I know mentions that name anymore. What happened? Well too slow and too arrogant to change because they thought they had it all. Yes it was first of its kind to create a social network but what happened? Was it the wave of MySpace or was it just an example of an inexperience CEO?
I think there are too many VCs with no knowledge of Web 2.0 that want to finance these new entrepreneurs because they believe there is something to gain in there. Then there are entrepreneurs who think they can code and manage a group of developers but have no knowledge of real coding other than copying some HTML source code from fancy web sites. Even after that there are companies who have conviced VCs to give the first round of money and now want even more with no real results. Do they know when to give up and move on? Why would they double their capacity if they know that their current system is crashing daily? Seriously why would they do that?
Here are few sites that I've been following (yes with my advice to them):
1) www.squidoo.com
Talk about a Web 2.0 failure. Almost all tech people on the web should of had heard of Seth Godin at one point or another. Well he started this site only 5 to 6 years later. If Squidoo had started in the late 90s or early 2000 then it would have been a hit. Why? Because why would you want to create a page for your self now with full of links and images? Isn't that what Geocities did back in the days? Remember? Well Web 2.0 and the knowledge of Seth didn't make this fly. When there are too many wiki sites and free hosting sites there is no need for a Web 2.0 site like Squidoo unless you just want to create a page and link it to another site to get free links. Yes these sites are good to build you links.
2) www.digg.com
I have to give you credit for your work. You are among the ones that are surviving this social tagging world. Keep it up but here are some advices from me.
Okay I understand that you had this real good idea to allow users to be the editors to bring up news to the front page but have you thought about keeping those very users for a long time? Do you have a plan or are you working on one? Let me suggest, look at sites that your very own diggers has made joke about. e.g such as www.netscape.com and www.techtagg.com. Netscape for example told people to submit stories and they will pay them for that support. Techtagg is already giving their users the benefit of placing their own Google Adsense ads for the stories they submit. This is one and only main thing that you should consider. How will the user benefit at the end for being on your site? Let’s not make Digg an example of Friendster. Give back to the community that makes you shine.
Second, try to be a bit open and transparent about the way you do your ranking for each stories. Maybe let users know why some stories are buried and why some make it to the front page with just 20 votes. That would be a good start. Don't ban a site because it asked people to digg a story because this is going against your own promotion technique. Almost all the blogs and articles that are submitted to your site now have a "digg this" button on their page. Are you banning them too? Follow what Netscape and Techtagg are doing. I like how Techtagg rank users and based on the user's own karma they get to enjoy more privileges in the site such as editing, removing and moving stories. That is still considered user powered system but with a bit more transparently. Also if enough users give negative points to another user’s stories then their karma should go down because it simply means that their contribution is not really worth looking at. Therefore their votes shouldn’t be taken seriously as well.
3) www.edgeio.com
Well I don't really have to say much about this because I am sure the founder Michael Arrignton of www.techcrunch.com is already feeling that. Rumors have it that he is now distancing himself from this Web 2.0 crash site.
Simple question here basically is why would sellers go to a site with much less audience when they can simply go to eBay or other sites where they can get rid of their product faster?
4) www.technorati.com
Well this is one of my latter reasons above for Web 2.0 failure. Why would you keep asking for more money if you can't sustain the current system? After multiple rounds of funding and years of development, Technorati still hasn't got the grip of a blog search engine. People trust in a site that does not crash and be up and running 24/7. Well I don't think much people would say the same for Technorati other than the bloggers themselves who like to track certain things about their very own blogs. With the number of blogs constantly growing, I think it is best to fix up what you got and make sure it is working first.
5) www.netscape.com
I have to say this even though I pointed out to one of your own success point above. Why would you want to go into this business when you clearly know that you are going to damage your own reputation? People remember you as the browser guys who were fighting with Microsoft and for the newbie you are nobody. People love the www.digg.com concept because they are the first one. I have to give it to them but you are not going to gain those diggers unless you really pay those diggers a good sum. I think they will love that too. Or you can follow the www.techtagg.com and the long lasting www.digitalpoint.com wisdom of sharing the wealth with the users. That may get you somewhere other than tech stories.
Now what does this mean? Don't start a Web 2.0 company because all these entrepreneurs are doing so because it will hurt you and it will hurt the people who fund you. Also Mr.VC, do your homework before you look into another Web 2.0 site. See if you can figure out what AJAX stands for and if that AJAX has been used elsewhere before you sign that document.
