Visit my new blog at CN Reviews and ElliottNg.com

I am now blogging at CN Reviews and Elliott Ng. Please visit me there!
Showing posts with label web20. Show all posts
Showing posts with label web20. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Everything is a game

I have a weakness for powerful, confident, reductionist theories that seek to explain everything through one single factor or dynamic. In college, it was Marx, Freud, Durkheim, Smith, Mill, Weber and deTocqueville. Now, its all about the fundamental game dynamics that drive all successful applications.

Here are some posts about China:
Living is China is like a Role Playing Game (RPG) - Sinosplice
Travel in China is like a Fantasy Novel - VioletEclipse

Here are some posts about social applications:
Ebay and MySpace are Games - BusinessWeek about Amy Jo Kim
In fact, every great consumer social application is a Game - See Amy Jo Kim's eTech preso at Shufflebrain.

Today, I was talking with an entrepreneur about some exciting mobile ideas...everything is under NDA so I can't share! But I find myself evangelizing this insight that I originally got attending Kevin Werbach's Supernova 2006.

UPDATE: Just found a link to Wired's guide to Second Life. I've been wanting to go to Second Life for a while and this might give me the impetus to go explore there.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

The 95-5-0.5 rule of social applications

Via Hank Horkoff of Network Sense and ChinesePod (I met him via Adam Bornstein), I saw an post by Jakob Nielsen on participation inequality in social applications. Well, the 80-20 rule and even "long tail" have become conventional wisdom, but I think this post highlights the extreme nature of this rule in social applications. I first saw this when I was running ClickRewards, a 5 mm member loyalty program (not really a social application). Getting customers was easier than we thought, but activating them (driving engagement) was more difficult. This applies to blogging and social applications in an even bigger way.

Some examples that drive home the point:

Inequalities are also found on Wikipedia, where more than 99% of users are lurkers. According to Wikipedia's "about" page, it has only 68,000 active contributors, which is 0.2% of the 32 million unique visitors it has in the U.S. alone.

Wikipedia's most active 1,000 people -- 0.003% of its users -- contribute about two-thirds of the site's edits. Wikipedia is thus even more skewed than blogs, with a 99.8-0.2-0.003 rule.

Participation inequality exists in many places on the Web. A quick glance at Amazon.com, for example, showed that the site had sold thousands of copies of a book that had only 12 reviews, meaning that less than 1% of customers contribute reviews.

Furthermore, at the time I wrote this, 167,113 of Amazon’s book reviews were contributed by just a few "top-100" reviewers; the most prolific reviewer had written 12,423 reviews. How anybody can write that many reviews -- let alone read that many books -- is beyond me, but it's a classic example of participation inequality.

I met Jimmy Wales when I was at Intuit where he really put a point on this. Its really 1000 people who really drive the entire engine at Wikipedia!

Is this your blog? or your membership program? or your loyalty program? or your mmorpg?

Here is Jacob Nielson's prescription:

  • Make it easier to contribute. The lower the overhead, the more people will jump through the hoop. For example, Netflix lets users rate movies by clicking a star rating, which is much easier than writing a natural-language review.
  • Make participation a side effect. Even better, let users participate with zero effort by making their contributions a side effect of something else they're doing. For example, Amazon's "people who bought this book, bought these other books" recommendations are a side effect of people buying books. You don't have to do anything special to have your book preferences entered into the system. Will Hill coined the term read wear for this type of effect: the simple activity of reading (or using) something will "wear" it down and thus leave its marks -- just like a cookbook will automatically fall open to the recipe you prepare the most.
  • Edit, don't create. Let users build their contributions by modifying existing templates rather than creating complete entities from scratch. Editing a template is more enticing and has a gentler learning curve than facing the horror of a blank page. In avatar-based systems like Second Life, for example, most users modify standard-issue avatars rather than create their own.
  • Reward -- but don't over-reward -- participants. Rewarding people for contributing will help motivate users who have lives outside the Internet, and thus will broaden your participant base. Although money is always good, you can also give contributors preferential treatment (such as discounts or advance notice of new stuff), or even just put gold stars on their profiles. But don't give too much to the most active participants, or you'll simply encourage them to dominate the system even more.
  • Promote quality contributors. If you display all contributions equally, then people who post only when they have something important to say will be drowned out by the torrent of material from the hyperactive 1%. Instead, give extra prominence to good contributions and to contributions from people who've proven their value, as indicated by their reputation ranking.
So I think 95-5-0.5 has a more clumsy mouthfeel than 80-20. I used to tell people that "you will have the 80-20 rule in your top decile" which means something to direct marketers but few other people! So maybe 95-5-0.5 it is then.

UPDATE: I posted on various aspects of China social applications on my new blog at CN Reviews. I also posted about China microblogging as part of my overall coverage of CNbloggercon.

Monday, September 04, 2006

What's interestng today in Web 2.0 land

A nice succinct post on what's interesting on Web 2.0 (with companies):

1. Internet TV
2. Webware
3. Aggregators
4. Places
5. Recommendation-based music
6. Mobile 2.0
7. Lightweight project management
8. Open IM
9. Presence
10. Shared calendars
11. Structured data
12. Classifieds
13. Toys
14. Customization

My favorites:
1. Places (2L, WOW)
2. Presence (Plazes, Twttr...I see the potential but nothing that useful so far)
12. Classifieds (except I'm thinking about B2B, and specialized search to discover listings/business information out on the edges, also labor marketplaces)
14. Customization (Cafepress, Etsy)
15. Search as a platform, vertical search (e.g. Rollyo)

Or check out Matt Cutts' faves.

Saturday, September 02, 2006

Edgeio vs Craigslist

Here's a Bob Wyman post I discovered via Edgeio's blog that talks about the trend toward structured blogging, microformats, and the openness of Web 2.0. I'm not totally convinced that everything will move out of publishing environments like Craigslist, but the Edgeio model bets on the breakdown of "marketplaces" like Ebay and Craigslist where sellers and buyers both go, to the broader Web as an open marketplace where listings are discoverable.

Here's the critique of CraigsList and eBay:

On the other hand, the legacy, "old-web," "walled-garden" sites like CraigsList and eBay only provide service for data which is published behind their walls and in their proprietary systems. Data which is published within one of them is almost inevitably not published within any other service or on the open web. Thus, there is no opportunity for publishers and users to benefit from the kind of vibrant competition that forces innovation on the open web. Closed, walled-garden services essentially steal "network effects" from the open web and use those network effects to their own benefit. People use CraigsList and eBay not because they are the most excellent services, in terms of features or ease of use, rather they use these services because they have pulled the most data and the most users off the open web and into their closed, walled-garden systems...
Here's Bob's vision:
In the world of Structured Blogging, you compete not by "capturing" people's data within your proprietary system but by providing better service to data published on the open web and accessible to all your competitors. The source of competitive advantage is in providing the best service, not in building high walls around other people's data. Let's all hope that many others follow Edgio's example in helping to exploit and build this new, innovative and open web of structured data.
There are similar themes in what I'm exploring (stealth mode start-up). And some fairly similar criticism from the blogosphere on the incumbents (albeit without the Web 2.0 lens).