For Internet companies sitting in the US, news reports that chronicled the President's every move in China were a visible reminder of the business opportunity that may seem a click away.

So, why not export social media to China just like KFC and American Idol? After all, seeing Yao Ming, arguably China's grandest international star, on Facebook and Twitter, one naturally figures, aside from the language and periodic blocking of websites, "What's the diff?"

But Facebook has gained little traction in China (with only 390,000 users), and tweets have virtually ground to a halt since the government started blocking Twitter, and these factors point to the "diff."

Simply flinging an American product into the Chinese market won't succeed, because every social media category has a Chinese equivalent that is tuned to the particular needs of the mainland Chinese market.

One of China's "Facebooks," Kaixin001.com, has already secured over 40 million users since launching only last year. The platform gained its initial popularity through applications that you would recognize from the real Facebook, such as "Friends for sale" and "Parking wars" - but with a Chinese twist.

Take, for example, the application called "Xingming Yuanfen," in which you type in a friend's name to test your "yuanfen" (i.e. your predetermined relationship with that person). Another application explains who you were in your previous life. It turns out I was a bandit, much to the chagrin of my parents.

These "fortune-telling" applications enjoy incredible popularity on computers and mobile phones. While fortune-telling jars Western sensibilities, it remains a part of Chinese culture.

The B-B-what?

But the best example of China walking to the beat of its own drummer is the continued popularity of the BBS.

That's not a typo.

That is the same bulletin board system that went by the wayside in the US with dial-up modems and US Robotics. Chinese students - who, like their counterparts in the US, are more open to experimentation than other segments - established the foundation for BBS' to flourish in China.

All major universities operate their own BBS. Peking University and Tsinghua University (which are the Harvard and MIT of China) host the Weiming BBS (named after Weiming Lake at Peking University) and Shuimu Tsinghua BBS, respectively.

With 10+ years' worth of graduates who grew up on BBS' now driving the Chinese Internet market, these same people have fueled a range of BBS sites tied to their interests and professions. According to the latest CINIC (China Internet Network Information Center) report, roughly 30% of Chinese Web users spend a significant amount of time on a BBS. So, these sites certainly transcend geekdom.

55BBS, for example, is an online community where users share discount information, coupons and other creative ways to land a good deal. Users also share news of what they got from their latest shopping spree, showing off a photo of skin care products as if it were a trophy.

Perhaps the most unique phenomenon in China is Tianya, the #1 BBS, with almost 30 million users.

What is Tianya? Think of it as a gathering place for an eclectic blend of intellectuals, journalists, freelancers, professors, researchers, gadflies, etc. Users write on and comment about sensitive social issues that may be off-limits to mainstream media. People also head to this forum to gossip about celebrities (okay, some things don't change between cultures).

A Chinese word has been coined for BBS evangelists: "Da'rens," which roughly means "people who really know how to do something." We're now starting to see some "Da'rens" parlay their popularity into commercial success. The famous makeup Da'ren known as Arora started out writing about cosmetics on a BBS before launching a blog for the mega-portal Sina.com.

From a Chinese perspective, the fundamental difference between a blog and BBS is that a BBS allows for anonymity, which appeals to the introversion of many Chinese. Blogging is also more of a solitary activity, with readers chiming in with comments later. The BBS, on the other hand, is more of a collaborative undertaking, which also appeals to the Chinese.

This all means that Internet companies from the US looking to crack the mainland Chinese market need to do their homework and tailor their products accordingly.

Here's an easy litmus test when planning your market entry in China: "What's the difference between the US and Chinese version of your product?"

If the answer takes more than 60 seconds to explain, then you've got a fighting chance.

Wei Wang is a digital consultant with The Hoffman Agency, a communications consultancy with offices in Beijing (where Wei is based) and Shanghai, as well as throughout Asia, the US and Europe. She can be reached at WWang@Hoffman.com.

In the latter parts of the study, the company looked specifically at social network membership data for users of the AOL, Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo webmail services. Not surprisingly, the study found that Facebook was the most popular network across the board. What's more interesting is how well MySpace fared in some cases. On both the Hotmail and Yahoo webmail services, Facebook only had a small lead. Here, around 20% of all Hotmail and Yahoo webmail users were found to be on Facebook and MySpace. What does this reveal about the Hotmail and Yahoo user base? That they're a little more behind the times? Or that they've been around on the net longer and at one time had created (and possibly now abandoned) their MySpace pages? Unfortunately, the study can't provide us with these sorts of answers.

The study also showed that Twitter is far more popular among Gmail users than anyone else. In fact, on the other services, it's 4-5 times less popular than Facebook. We would like to think that's because Gmail users are just more web-savvy and cool, but it's possible that it's because they're just younger than everyone else.

Not surprisingly, LinkedIn is the least popular social network, but as Rapleaf points out, many LinkedIn users may have registered with their business email instead.

Participation Levels - Hotmail Users have Most Profiles, Gmail Users Better-Connected

When it comes to how the webmail users participate on social networks, Rapleaf found that the majority of the users have only one social media profile. But the service where the average number of profiles is the highest might surprise you - it's Hotmail. There the average is 2.5 profiles per user. Hotmail is followed by Yahoo, then AOL, and it's Gmail users who have the least number of social media profiles. That finding seems odd considering that Gmail users are younger and more likely to use Twitter in addition to Facebook. In fact, it almost seems like this data doesn't even fit with the rest of the study.

However, the discovery that Gmail users are better-connected than the other users makes more sense. On average, Gmail users have the most friends on social networks with 46.2 friends while Yahoo users have the least with 40.0.

Since again, Gmail users tend to be younger than the rest, it goes to reason that they would be in a demographic where their peers are more likely to have social membership profiles. Older webmail users, meanwhile, are still signing up for these sites. Although baby boomers and other middle-aged folks are joining sites like Facebook in droves these days, social networks are still dominated by the young.

Methodology

For the Rapleaf study, the company sampled 120,000 webmail accounts from users with @aol.com, @gmail.com, @hotmail.com and @yahoo.com email addresses. They then looked into the users' age, gender and social networking data by collecting information from public social media profiles. Obviously, in doing so, they've skewed their findings a bit, as the company notes in their original blog post. However, the sample size is large enough to form some conclusions about the members of these services, even if it relied on a particular subset of users.

Internet Use and Social Media

That's not to say that there aren't some technology addicts that aren't social isolated - around 6% of the adult online population would fit in this category, having no one with whom they can talk about those important matters and who say they don't have anyone "especially significant" in their life. However, this figure (the 6%) has not grown as access to technology has grown over the years - it has remained virtually unchanged since 1985. This points to the fact that perhaps those who are socially isolated individuals would be so anyway, regardless of what sorts of tools are provided to them, be those mobile phones, PCs with internet access, etc.

For the majority of the online population, technology - and especially social media - has led to more diverse networks than we've ever had before. The report notes that those who participate in social networking services such as Facebook for example, are more likely to interact with people from different backgrounds, different races, different political parties, etc. Specifically, blogging and general internet use was tied to having more racially diverse networks while online photo sharing was tied to having more diverse political discussion partners.

Those who use the internet tend to have 15% more network ties who aren't family members and those who use instant messaging services have 19% more non-kin members in their core networks.

Mobile Phone Use

Along these same lines, the ubiquity of mobile phones hasn't led to decreased face time with family and friends, but just the opposite. On average, a person spends 195 days of the year having mobile phone contact with others, but face-to-face interactions occur on about 210 days per year. In addition, mobile users have around 15% more family members with whom they can discuss important matters and tend to have 25% more core network members who are not family members. Overall, those who use mobile phones have core networks that are 12% larger than those who don't.

Despite all this good news about how technology leads to having larger, more diverse networks, the researchers also found that our networks' size has actually shrunk over the years. Since 1985, there has been a decrease of about 1/3 in their size. The researchers don't suggest any specific reasons for this shrinkage, but they do point out that they can now rule out one possibility for sure: technology.

Currently Brizzly is in private beta, but ReadWriteWeb has scored 2000 invites for our readers to test it out! (see the bottom of this post for the code).

Features, Including New Facebook Support

Brizzly is a self-described "social media reader." It's a browser-based service, like Blogger.com. Today Brizzly added Facebook as the second service it supports, after Twitter. Facebook users will be able to view and update their status, wall posts, comments and likes using Brizzly.

Brizzly is similar to Twitter clients such as TweetDeck, Seesmic and PeopleBrowsr (not all of them currently support Facebook though). However power users won't see much reason to switch, as Brizzly doesn't have the advanced features of those products. And that's the point.

The feature set of Brizzly aims to make microblogging a simple and seamless experience for users. For example instead of having to click links to view media such as photos and videos, Brizzly puts those items inline in the user's stream. Another example: Direct Messaging via Twitter has a UI (user interface) very similar to Instant Messaging, which many mainstream users will be familiar with.

Brizzly in 2009 = Blogger in 2003

Brizzly shares much of the same philosophy as Blogger. It's simple to use and aims to make microblogging easy to understand and use by a mainstream audience. This seems like a great strategy. Back in 2003, blogging was at a similar stage in its adoption as microblogging is today - passionately used by early Internet adopters, but not fully understood by a wider audience.

The popular Twitter clients circa 2009 include TweetDeck, Seesmic and PeopleBrowsr. Those are great apps and no self-respecting Web geek would be caught without at least one of them. However it's unlikely that your brother or sister, let alone Mom or Pop, is using those products. Brizzly wants to be the service that introduces your family and friends to the world of microblogging and social media.

Jason Shellen, who RWW readers may also recognize as a creator of Google Reader, was at The ReadWrite Real-Time Web Summit in October. Jolie O'Dell interviewed him about about filtration and discovery on the real-time web. Shellen mentioned that mainstream users probably won't use hashtags to tag their tweets. He noted (at about the 3 minute mark in the video) that "most people are not going to do that [hashtags], so it needs to evolve into a different type of filtration." One of Brizzly's goals is to make hashtags and other "geeky" social media concepts simple for mainstream users to understand.

Less Noise

Regular people often struggle to see the value in Twitter and other social media apps. Web app developers need to find ways to convince people that behind the noise of social media, there is tremendous value.

So how does Brizzly compare to the now Facebook-owned FriendFeed, an aggregation service that early adopters love but most others think is information overload? I spoke to Jason Shellen at the RWW Summit about that. He told me that Brizzly won't blend services together like FriendFeed. It will keep them separate (Twitter, Facebook, other services that are added over time), in order to maintain simplicity.

Conclusion

All in all, we're impressed by the vision of Brizzly and we think it has a good chance of hitting the same wide user base that Blogger.com so successfully tapped. It's fair to say that power users will probably be a little disappointed by Brizzly - but you're not the target audience.

INVITE CODE: ReadWriteWeb readers can access the private beta of Brizzly by signing up using the code "rwwsentme" or clicking here. There are 2000 invites available.

But social search is not something to be afraid of. It's really just an extension of behaviors that we're used to in the real world, brought online, thanks to the advent of real-time social computing.

First, people have sought help from others for search problems and information-seeking tasks for a long time. Prior to the Internet, this was our primary way of getting information. We either asked a librarian to help us find something or, prior to that, we spoke to each other to spread information and seek help. We can reasonably treat this current trend in social search as a return to that familiar state.

Secondly, social search is no scarier than the Web itself. Social search will not make you easier to find. If you're the type of person whose social network data appears in search results, then you're already incredibly findable on the Web. Your tweets may reach more people than you want, but this also means that your ideas will be exposed to a wider audience, extending your reach and influence and presumably improving your brand. As before, if your tweets are currently open to the public, you're already reaching more people than you know.

The very real issue of relevance, though, comes up when dealing with social search. Noise, false information and spam could dilute a set of search results and distract users from their quest. But spam is context-sensitive. Well-targeted ads aren't regarded as spam; in fact, many people don't even know the difference between Google ads and the main set of results. Same with search. A Twitter post linking to an article on diet supplements may be perfectly relevant in a query on "dieting tips and tricks" on Bing. In any case, finding spammers on Twitter should be relatively easy judging by the follower-following ratio or similarity of tweets.

Social search is also not a fad. It's an improvement on limited algorithms that only index static pages. Chris Messina and Jyri Engeström remind us that we're in a transitional state from a Web of documents (in which algorithms were sufficient for surfacing relevant data) to a Web of people (in which PageRank no longer captures what's happening right now or happening among your group of friends). Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg reiterated this at the Web 2.0 Summit, saying that there is a "shift going on from an information economy to a social economy."

Social search is one mechanism for leveraging the value in this shift.

So, as you get used to how companies like Google and Bing implement social search, think about how your community of Facebook friends, distant acquaintances in your Google contacts, nearby friends from location-based services and publicly bookmarked items might help you search better.

Guest author: Brynn Evans is a PhD student in Cognitive Science at UC San Diego who uses digital anthropology to study and better understand social search.

According to eMarkter's report, 56.8% of online retailers maintain a Facebook presence, 41.4% are on YouTube and 28.6% use MySpace. Twitter comes in at #4, as only 20.4% of all online merchants actively maintain a Twitter account. As eMarkteter points out, Twitter is a 'hotbed for experimentation,' where companies can promote deals and interact directly with their customers.

For the majority of companies, however, Facebook is the most lucrative place to meet current and potential customers. Facebook's platforms give retailers ranging from 1-800-Flowers to Papa John's Pizza the ability to create e-commerce applications and provide users with services right on Facebook.

According to an earlier eMarkter report, almost 99% of all US Online Retailers plan to have a Facebook fan site within the next year (up from 86% today), and 85% plan to use Twitter within the next 12 months.

Consumers Want Online Retailers to be on Social Networks

This trend, of course, isn't new, but it's also clear that online retailers will have to continue to follow their customers to where they are - and today, that means social networks like Twitter and Facebook. We also know that consumers want to interact with brands and online retailers through social networks, so any company that isn't using these tools is bound to miss out on potential sales.

These customers are also highly likely to spread the word about a product - good or bad - on these social networks, so smart retailers will not just have a presence on these networks, but also use them to reach out directly to their customers.

In attempts to balance communication, transparency, and operational security, the military has encountered both practical obstacles and general criticism. In a recent podcast, Carey said, "Most social networking tools come with no rules of the road. As the Internet moves towards user-generated content, we thought there was a void we could fill... to mitigate some of the security risks associated with social media."

Generally, military organizations have the options to reach out directly to large IT companies to configure customized security profiles and inherent OPSEC protection for personnel; traditionally, however, social networks such as Facebook and Twitter have not been particularly receptive to working within that type of culture or framework. From the sharing-and-access social media pole to the security/military pole, both sides are resistant to different approaches to shared and social information. Still, Carey is an advocate for the usefulness of these tools, even behind a military firewall.

"We must remain a learning organization. As the Internet evolves, so must our workforce and its associated skills. To that end, we must be able to embrace change," Carey wrote in his blog post. "Many of our processes are rooted in the Industrial Age and will need to move toward the Information Age to remain relevant in the coming years."

With specific regard to social media and the American military, Carey stated, "Social media is an inherent part of the toolbox for members of the millennial workforce, while baby boomers are just adopting it. Social media tools should become the standard by which we can share and collaborate on information inside and outside the network boundaries."

He also highlighted green initiatives, mobile working, and the use of modern technological tools in recruitment efforts.

To see Carey's office's Policy and Guidelines for Secure Use of Social Media by Federal Departments and Agencies, click here for a full PDF.

While Carey's optimism is to be applauded, one wonders what our military-minded friends will have to say about OPSEC vis-a-vis social media. The battlefield isn't really Foursquare-compatible, and the military might actually have the last plausible use case for censorship. Every servicemember is probably aware of existing regulations for Internet and social media use; how do you think Carey's goals and statements will affect the state of affairs on the ground, and do you feel such a shift is needed or welcomed? Let us know your opinions in the comments.

Although the dining selections for this service are currently limited, the convenience and flow of this site is phenomenal. In addition to the group ordering feature, DiningIn offers users online catering, a la carte orders and a meal concierge dial-in service for corporate customers. While companies like GrubHub and Foodler offer similar delivery services, only DiningIn allows users to avoid the order-by-committee scenario. To test the service visit Diningin.com.

At a kickoff event tonight in Richmond, Virginia, I got to participate in a panel discussion and hear questions from an audience of college students and professors. One of the questions posed was how those in academia can best put the social web to work for themselves. Far beyond Facebook and LinkedIn, how can this community harness the Internet to be smarter, more efficient, and more productive? Read on for our top five ideas.

In almost any field of study, from sociology to physics to arts to media, educators and students can find a group of experts on Twitter, engaging in debate, posting relevant links, sharing their most recent work, and answering questions. With its asymmetrical follower model, this network allows you to keep up with leaders and organizations in your industry of choice without their having to follow you in return. There are lots of tools for finding topic-specific experts on Twitter. WeFollow and Mr. Tweet are two popular applications, and Twitter app store oneforty can provide even more resources for discovering an existing network and staying up to date.

2) Use feeds to stay informed about news, events, and conversations.

Once you've found your network, you may notice that a lot of these individuals and groups maintain blogs. Do a Google search, and focus on finding blogs that speak specifically to your field of interest. For every niche, no matter how obscure, someone out there is curating content. There are wind turbine blogs, turtle breeding blogs, biomedical engineering blogs, economics blogs - you get the gist. Staying updated in your field is as simple as spending 20 minutes a day online once you know how to use feeds.

For those users with a good grasp of RSS, feed readers such as Google Reader can bring clarity, organization, and efficiency to the formerly painful process of staying informed. But even if you don't know RSS from a hole in the ground, there are sites that will allow you to simply put together lists of websites to track, or even bring you news feeds just based on a particular topic. We recommend checking out Lazyfeed and Guzzle.it for getting news by keyword or topic, and for the visually oriented, we also suggest these two dead-simple visual feed readers.

3) Build your website.

If there's one thing students in particular need to worry about, it's Google. Social accounts are fine and dandy to have, but prospective employers are searching for candidates by name when making interviewing and hiring decisions, as was made abundantly clear by a professional recruiter on tonight's panel. Right now, Facebook might have a search engine monopoly on your name; unless that account is the best representation of you, a FirstNameLastName.com website might be a good idea. Here's our list of four what-you-see-is-what-you-get website builders that don't require much or any coding knowledge. You can also use some of the blogging resources mentioned in the next section. Once your site is up, link back to it from all your social profiles to help boost your site's place in search results.

4) Create content.

Now that you know your network and its key players, you're staying informed in your field, and you've got a decent start in representing yourself online, it's time to start giving back. Whether you've got expertise to share or simply more questions to ask, you should be creating content. Tweeting is a great and engaging place to start; many professional and mentoring relationships have begun with a simple @reply. But you also need to blog, create videos, and/or post images or audio to your website.

Not only is this good for SEO, which will help when the aforementioned recruiters start Googling you; it's also essential for deeper participation in the conversation happening all around you online. If visual arts are your thing, for example, a Flickr account is a must, and it's probably a good idea to post any images you create on a separate blog, as well. Ideally, your content should tie in with your FirstNameLastName.com website. Depending on the type of content you choose to create, you might want to look at WordPress, Blogger, Tumblr, or Posterous. Post content regularly, and check out this Slate post with tips from some of the most famous bloggers online.

5) Be an early adopter and refine your digital toolkit.

Finally, once you're comfortably participating in the conversation and you're part of a very real community of experts, educators, and students in your field of interest, realize that your journey toward technological proficiency has just begun. The Internet is in a constant state of flux, and learning how to leverage the social web for academic benefit is an ongoing exercise. There are many resources for finding new weapons to add to your digital arsenal; we're sure lots of helpful pointers will come from others in your community. But also, keep an eye on the techies, who are always testing and recommending new products and apps.

Check sites such as ReadWriteStart, AppUseful, and oneforty every now and then to see if there's a better mousetrap than the ones you might currently be using. Stay open-minded and flexible; be willing to try anything three times.

The social web means so much more to academia than finding out which students were really sick on exam day and which just went to a kegger the night before. It also means a lot more than a static resume and a stagnant list of useless "connections." Social web apps, when used intelligently, can make us all as brilliant and resourceful as the brightest stars in our networks, fostering real-world value and reinforcing learning.

Instead of trying to establish a new userbase from scratch, Spiffbox integrates with the social networks Facebook and Twitter. They even have their own Facebook application so you can interact with other Spiffbox members while logged into Facebook.

However, unlike those two popular social networks, which are designed to connect you with people you know or admire, Spiffbox wants to connect you with others who fall outside your social graph. That is, the site wants to help you make new friends.

Spiffbox is also different in the fact that it's not entirely meant to be just for socializing - it wants to help you promote your career as well as ask for and receive advice from other users.

How You Make Money

Of course what everyone wants to know is: how do you make money on Spiffbox? Basically, all that you need to do to start earning is participate. To earn points, users should create a profile, communicate with other members, respond to messages, and optionally complete surveys or take merchant offers. With each action, more points are earned and when you reach a certain threshold (min. 2,000 points/$20), Spiffbox puts a check in the mail. You may be surprised to learn that reaching that payout number is not as hard as it may sound. Accepting a chat invite earns you 28 points, accepting a friend request is 10 points, and so on. After spending some time really engaging on the site, you could easily start earning cash.

While we have to give Spiffbox credit for thinking outside the box on this one, the idea of paying you to socialize has us feeling a little sour. After all, remember how you used to rack up the "friends" on MySpace only to be left with a large network of random people you didn't know (or care to)? There wasn't actually any value in that. And besides, if everyone on the site is only participating to make money, socializing becomes more like a job than a fun activity. Can't you just see the chats now?

Them: Hi! Want to chat? I'm trying to earn points.

You: OK, me too.

Them: So how long do we have to do this to get credit?

You: I don't know, I think this is good.

Them: Great, thanks. Let's chat again later for more points!

You: Sounds good! Cya!

Oh, the horror. Frankly, most of us have better things to do with our time than trying to earn points for small payouts of cash. What Spiffbox needs to remember is that all the popular social networks caught on - without bribes, mind you - because they were offering something unique and interesting. Creating yet another social network without any truly new concepts behind it (except for the payola) isn't going to be enough in the long run to keep people involved.

However, that's just our opinion. Others feel differently. For example, CNET says that "once the site irons some of its kinks out and becomes a little more user friendly, then we could start to see some real widespread adoption" and "there could be a real future in this space."

What do you think? Does Spiffbox have a shot at becoming the next big thing? Or is bribery a bad choice? Let us know in the comments.

Update: We were informed by the company that the example chat in this post isn't exactly how Spiffbox works. It makes it look like both parties are earning money when really only one party would. The initiator of a message pays points and the receiver gets points, but only if they respond. Spiffbox itself doesn't pay you, members pay each other. However, we stand by our opinion that using financial incentives is not going to be a successful model for growing a social network, regardless of where the money originates.

According to new figures from Nielsen, the amount of time spent surfing social networking and blogging sites had tripled since last year, suggesting "a wholesale change in the way the Internet is used," says Jon Gibs, VP of media and agency insights at the company's online division.

Advertisers Taking Notice

While for consumers, hitting up Facebook for a daily dose of socializing is just par for the course nowadays, this change in consumer behavior has had dramatic impact on the online advertising industry. Where before, advertisers were somewhat wary of social media properties, they're now spending more than ever for prominent spots on social networking sites. Even as companies decreased their overall ad expenditures, they increased their spend on top social networks and blogs - up 119% from last year. ($108 million in August 2009 up from $49 million in August 2008). And when broken down by category, the increases are even more dramatic. The entertainment industry, for example, has increased spending by 812% year-over-year on social network sites and the travel industry increased spending by 364%.

When it comes to which sites advertisers choose, there's no doubt that Facebook is currently the king. Ten out of thirteen industries analyzed by Nielsen listed Facebook as advertisers' number one choice when ranked by display ad impressions. The only industries where MySpace still ruled were Entertainment, Financial Services, and Hardware & Electronics.

Those findings seem to mostly support what a study from earlier this year said about MySpace's demographics. Namely, MySpace users are more focused on entertainment than those on other networks and have the lowest average income (hence the need for financial services). However, it's LinkedIn users who are the most interested in gadgets said the study, so the Hardware and Electronic ad spend on MySpace is a bit surprising. We suppose that's simply because the number of MySpace users dwarfs that of LinkedIn. Well that, and the fact that these days "Entertainment" means TVs, game consoles, and other techie gadgets.

For a full look at the dollars spent by category, check out Nielsen's full report.

To conduct the research, Kostakos worked with a large sample of online ratings. As MIT's Technology Review reports, the researcher and his team studied hundreds of thousands of items and millions of votes across all three sites. In each and every case, they discovered that small numbers of users accounted for the largest number of ratings. For example, on Amazon, only 5% of active Amazon users ever cast votes on more than 10 products but a small handful of users voted on hundreds of items. Said Kostakos, "if you have two or three people voting 500 times, the results may not be representative of the community overall."

This is hardly the first time that the so-called "wisdom of the crowds" has been called into question. The term, which implies that a diverse collection of individuals makes more accurate decisions and predications than individuals or even experts, has been used in the past to describe how everything from Wikipedia to user-generated news sites like Digg.com offer better services than anything created by a smaller group could do.

Of course, we now know that simply isn't true. For one thing, Wikipedia isn't written and edited by the "crowd" at all. In fact, 1% of Wikipedia users are responsible for half of the site's edits. Even Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, has been quoted as saying that the site is really written by a community, "a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers."

And as for Digg.com, a site whose algorithm is constantly tweaked in attempts to democratize the votes of its users, it still remains a place where a handful of power users can make or break getting a news item to the site's front page.

Attempts to Address the Issue

It's not surprising then to discover that, when it comes to review sites, it's again small groups that are in control there too. Some sites, including Amazon, attempt to address this discrepancy by allowing users to vote on the helpfulness of reviews - a much easier process than having to write a review yourself. Also, local business finder and recommendations site Yelp implemented ways for business owners to respond to what they feel are inaccurate reviews by way of an owner comments feature. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, the small groups still remain in control of these so-called "popular opinion" features.

According to the article, another professor at CMU, Niki Kittur, suggested that sites create new tools for transparency. For example, there should be an easy way to see a summary of a user's contributions which would quickly reveal any bias. He also suggested removing overly positive and negative reviews.

Earlier this year, we looked at another user-generated review site which attacked this problem from another angle. Lunch.com, a new Yelp competitor, uses something they call their "Similarity Network" which matches you to other site users who share your interests. That way, instead of looking at a list of reviews which could originate from anyone with an agenda or axe to grind, you're focused on reviews from others like you.

Still, there is yet to be a perfect solution to the problem. Perhaps it's time we give up the idea that the "wisdom of the crowds" was ever a driving force behind any socialized, user-generated anything and realize that, just like in life, there will always be active participants as well as the passive passerbys.

Security researchers at Symantec recently uncovered a backdoor trojan whose spread is being dictated by commands hosted in Google Groups, Google's online discussion forums. The backdoor trojan, named Trojan.Grups, appears to be the first ever malware to use an online newsgroup as the "command and control" center for botnet communications. It's certainly the first time that Google Groups specifically has been compromised in this way. This new discovery points to what appears to be the latest trend in what you could call "Web 2.0 malware," that is, nasty computer programs that don't just spread in social networks, but actually use the infrastructure of the social networks themselves to do the spreading.

Botnets are groups of computers compromised by malware programs, often called "zombie computers," which are controlled by "bot herders," the person or persons responsible for remotely controlling the infected PCs, unbeknownst to the PCs' owners. Traditionally, a centralized server of some sort would issue the commands that instruct the computers what action to perform. In many cases, the zombie machines are used to send out spam, to perform click fraud, to aid in identity theft, or are directed to attack another web server on the internet, as was recently seen with the Twitter/Facebook/LiveJournal attacks of last month.

With this particular new trojan, the command-and-control center for issuing the botnet commands is not a single server on the internet. It's Google Groups itself. Using a private newsgroup, the trojan executes a command which logs it into the newsgroup and requests a specific page. The page contains the encrypted commands the malware is to carry out. The responses from the compromised machines are then sent back to Google Groups and are uploaded as posts to the newsgroup.

According to security company Symnatec's analysis of this new trojan, it appears that it is a prototype implementation meant to test the feasibility of using newsgroups in this way. The trojan is attempting to remain discreet and undetected, being used to subtly gather information and potentially determine its future attack targets. The researchers think that the trojan may have been developed for targeted corporate espionage where anonymity and discretion are priorities.

Using Web 2.0 as the C&C for Botnets

This latest trojan isn't the first to use a social network to aid in its spread. What is unusual about it, though, is that it actually uses the social network that is Google Groups to host the commands which control the malware's actions. This is a different sort of scenario than your typical social networking-based malware which simply uses popular online networks as the vector for the attack. This is using the network as the brains.

Another recent example of this sort of Web 2.0-controlled malware involves the recent discovery of a botnet which used Twitter.com to issue commands. In an arguably ingenious move, Brazilian identity thieves created a Twitter account for the sole purpose of sending out commands to its associated malware. Each command was posted as a status update to the Twitter account. As researchers noted at the time, this sort of setup could have used any number of web sites or services on the internet to do the same - all that was needed was an RSS feed. In fact, the same malware was later seen on both Jaiku.com, a Twitter-like service acquired by Google in 2007, and Tumblr, a simple blogging platform.

Given the open, "anyone-can-post" nature of Web 2.0 and social networking services, the online communities that have become the de facto standard on today's web, it was only a matter of time before that openness was compromised by hackers wishing to use the services for more nefarious purposes than just "sharing with your friends."

For now, there are still relatively few incidents where a botnet has been discovered as using a Web 2.0 service as the command-and-control center for operations. However, the idea must surely appeal to botnet operators as hiding these sorts of messages in the larger social networking infrastructures that house valid communications makes the botnets harder to identify and shut down. You can't simply blacklist the IP or URL once discovered - you have to rely on the social networking vendor to remove the malicious accounts. If any of these recent efforts at web 2.0-controlled malware are successful (and the Google Groups trojan has been - it's been around since November 2008!), then it's likely we'll begin to see even more programs like this in the future.

The lesson here is that while we're meant to "embrace the chaos" of audience feedback, it's best to look at the forest (or overall reactions) rather than the individual (and sometimes spiteful) trees.

While competitor Infegy displays relevant web chatter, UberVU goes one step further by offering developers a chance to create their own mash up and filtering tools. The ContextVoice API's new search functionality allows developers to measure public reactions within specified time frames. Explains the company, "A conversation with 10 reactions in the last minute may be hotter than one with 1500 reactions distributed over a month. But the hot conversation matters more, because that's the one that has the attention and momentum."

Suggested mashups include social media dashboards to measure outreach, memetrackers to get the lowdown on entire industries, community dialogue tools to pull comments back onto your site and comment tracking for stock trading purposes. To check out the search API visit the ContextVoice developer page.

Much like the original premise of Ning, Social Beans simplifies the creation of community websites.  However, since it is a portable format, a Social Beans site is not locked in to a single provider. In addition to the Grou.ps platform, the 0.1 version works with MediaWiki and WordPress. A Drupal plugin is also expected for October 2009. 

At this point, Social Beans is extremely experimental and while it's an interesting concept, the group's fate lies in 2 simple questions: Is it an easy enough template for non-technical users to adopt it? And perhaps more importantly, will developers build engines to run it? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.