Lloyd Sakazaki has written a good overview of recent trends in global websites. It is based on Alexa data, a stats source which comes under regular fire for its faults (most recently ex-Netscape boss Jason Calacanis took aim). Nevertheless, there are some interesting underlying trends in the Seeking Alpha article. Not new trends, but well stated.
Over a two year period (Nov 2004 - Nov 2006), there have been 5 new websites enter the top 15 of Alexa in reach - myspace.com, live.com, youtube.com, orkut.com, wikipedia.org. Two of those are now owned by Google, which of course has shown significant growth of its own accord over the past two years.
The overall trend is that user-generated content is the defining feature of all of the new top 15 sites - except maybe live.com, which is basically just a replacement (sometimes a duplicate) of other microsoft properties in Alexa. So whether you call this current era of the Web the Read/Write Web, or Web 2.0, or whatever - the proof of how it is different is right there in those alexa stats. Also as Sakazaki nicely points out, the success of search in this era is derived from the growth in user-generated content - since there is so much content nowadays.
Incidentally, behind the tired and tabloid-level communism references in this Register piece - lies a good point. Is Ajax a strong enough technology to take us to the next era of the Web? Perhaps not. But I agree with Ryan Stewart's assessment that, for all its faults, "Ajax has done a lot to raise the expectations of end users and gotten developers to think differently". Also I'd add, as the Google Docs & Spreadsheets developers suggested recently, that Ajax is still the most 'web native' way to develop interactive web apps. Although having said that, I don't believe myspace, youtube, wikipedia or orkut rely to any great extent on Ajax? So it's not like this era of the Web is dependent on Ajax. It's an enabling technology, but not the essence of the Web circa 2006.
Anyway, back to the high level trends. Seeking Alpha also notes that many of the fastest-growing websites are localized Google properties - showing two clear trends, the importance of Google and the internationalization of the Web. The former gets plenty of press and blog coverage, the latter less so. But both are of equal importance in my view.
Pic: Orli Yakuel (who got it from scifi.com)
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: R/WW Trend Watch: User-generated Sites Define This Era of the Web.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2878
Die Entwicklung des Webs: User-generated Content macht das Rennen. ... Read More
As you may know, Web 2.0 is full of buzzwords and nomenclature designed to befuddle outsiders while ingratiating insiders. Our goal in developing Offertrax was simple: We wanted to help people buy and sell more stuff. We've tried to stay... Read More
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Let me ask the obvious question... why is the digg glass on its side?
Posted by: shadilac | November 26, 2006 7:18 PMDigg drinks more.
Of course, I can't talk... Hey Richard!
I'd be interested to hear if people think there is a difference between services where the content is created by users and then fed to other users and when the content is created by users and then interacted with by other users.
The best example I've got is World of Warcraft where other users aren't just also in the site, but they actually play a key part to the experience. Almost User Generated Services.
Flickr did this also with groups like Squared Circle. I actually made content for the service, I didn't just add my own stuff independently.
Posted by: Mick Liubinskas | November 26, 2006 8:17 PMHahaha, nice answer Mick! I'm sure the digg lads wouldn't argue against that one.
The in-joke btw is that I was at a poker night recently in SF, in which Mick and a bunch of other aussie 2.0 guys were there. I will say no more.
Re is there "a difference between services where the content is created by users and then fed to other users and when the content is created by users and then interacted with by other users"?
Personally I don't see much of a difference - in both cases users are 'writing' to the Web, and there is always a lot of interaction even in the first case (with comments, discussions, networking, etc).
Posted by: Richard MacManus | November 26, 2006 8:30 PMCringely has an interesting take on these type of social apps and why they're being bought so readily. His specific example is YouTube, but it applies to CraigsList as well. I think CraigsList is rather interesting too. In fact, I'm about to sell my car on it. Though it may not have all the Web 2.0 sexiness, its awfully useful in its utilitarian way.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_20061123_001248.html
Posted by: John Milan | November 26, 2006 9:12 PMEarlier, I was the editor of a blog called HelloCompany and I got the designers to design the top banner as a collage of all the defining companies of Web 2.0 era.
Now I write for MediaVidea. I wonder why you haven't included Craigslist.
Posted by: Pramit | November 26, 2006 11:44 PMfunny you guys mention craigslist. its the best networking site out there...and it was started in 96 i believe...it just goes to show that web 2.0 is nothing more than eye-candy at best.
remember bulletin boards. AOL for example? i think the moniker web 2.0 is nothing but hype. the internet is the same game as it always was.
Posted by: lemon obrien | November 27, 2006 1:50 AMCraigslist wasn't mentioned because it is not in the Alexa top 15 (it's currently number 33).
lemon, I agree with you about web 2.0 - it is a marketing term. But I do think this current era is all about users creating their own 'media', sharing it, etc. That is proven by 4 of the 5 new entrants to the alexa top 15. So in that respect, the internet has changed over the past few years. It is of course an evolution, but the differences are noticeable (I think) in those new entrants to the top 15.
Posted by: Richard MacManus | November 27, 2006 2:01 AMI was thinking about adding another weighting to ranking social web sites. Alexa is good in terms of eyeballs viewing web pages, but what about the human connection factor? I would argue something like CraigsList performs the nigh impossible feat of connecting two strangers in a region face-to-face while most other social web sites make virtual connections, but people can still hide behind avatars.
Somehow CraigsList has achieved a mutual social contract that allows actual interaction, whereas virtual communities, while important, have a less binding social contract.
Now how to weight this? Beats me. How about +1 for every successful exchange of goods of some kind?
Of course, is being added to a friends list worth more than selling a used DVD player?
Posted by: John Milan | November 27, 2006 11:41 AMNothing for you to see here, please move along.
Posted by: Thijs | November 27, 2006 12:48 PMWhy is Digg's cup falling over and Wikipedia's cup the only one with liquid?
Posted by: David Mackey | November 27, 2006 9:18 PM