Andy Sorcini, long time Digg user and social media enthusiast disagrees. "I honestly don't believe that the Diggbar was conceived with any maliciousness toward stealing content producers link juice. I think the idea was to drive traffic to Digg, while at the same time facilitate access to Digg services from content producers sites."

So, is the new Diggbar evil or will it be remembered as one of Digg's finest moments?

Since then, there has been much discussion in the blogosphere about the wickedness of the new Diggbar.

And this is where our story begins. There are several issues here, but in the main, they involve the framing of content and the URL shortener which in turn bring up two main issues; potential copyright problems and potential SEO ramifications. But first, to better understand the issues surrounding framing, we need to take a step back in time.

A Brief History in Framing

Using frames on the Web is a technique that has been around for years and basically allows developers to split a single Web page into multiple windows, each of which capable of opening a different document.

You may remember this from a lot of sites in the nineties, where the navigation links of a site were separated from the main content. There was a major kerfuffle over framing at the time that peaked in February 1997, when 'The Gang of 6' headed by the Washington Post sued TotalNEWS and alleged that TotalNEWS was appropriating their content, using it within frames, and surrounding it with its own advertising.

Unfortunately, as a precedent, the suit was determined inconclusive, and according to Professor Stern at the George Washington University, mainly because "TotalNEWS felt unable to fund an expensive lawsuit to vindicate a principle about what legal regime ought to govern copyright and the Internet."

The Evil iFrame

Sullivan, in addition to a multitude of other SEO folk, has dismissed the Diggbar as good for nothing except misappropriating content from other sites and stealing link juice via the main culprit, the iframe.

"They [Digg] don't own this content; they haven't asked if they can put this content on the Digg Web site." Sullivan explained. "It would be the same thing if Digg went to your Web site, made a copy of your page, and pasted it into a page on their Website."

Let's examine this logic. Digg does not submit content to itself; content producers and the larger Digg community submit content to Digg. So Digg is not 'taking' your pages, it is only highlighting them; giving them more exposure than they would normally receive.

Additionally, and quite ironically, the majority of people complaining about this 'misappropriation' of content will often include a 'Digg this' or a 'Share this' button at the end of their posts in an attempt to reach a larger audience. Interestingly, Search Engine Land, Sullivan's own site, does this for every post. Would it not make more sense then, if a site did not want to share its content, to simply remove these buttons?

And therein lies the rub. Sites do want their content to be noticed by the Digg community; they want it submitted, voted up and content producers everywhere are constantly working on ways to hit the elusive front page. Landing on Digg's front page can bring anything from 2,000-250,000+ visitors to your site - and who wouldn't want that?

It seems like a typical 'I want my cake and I want to eat it too' scenario; content producers want the benefits of Digg, but they want them on their own terms.

The Evil URL Shortener

But it's more than the potential copyright issue that has Sullivan and quite a few other SEOs worked up.

According to Sullivan, the problem lies in Digg's use of a HTML 200 code rather than a 301 redirect.

"What Digg does is, when you make a short URL of somebody's page off of Digg, it sends out a code 200 that basically says, 'yeah I've got that code, it's right here,'" Sullivan said. "What we really want them to do is send out a 301 code which says, that page you're looking for, we don't actually own it, it's over here and that's where you can find it permanently."

So, what is the big deal about which code is sent?

According to Sullivan, the URL shortener Digg has implemented doesn't pass along the link juice because they're using the canonical tag. "If someone is reading your article and they decide to bookmark the page they're reading, they're actually bookmarking the page over at Digg."

"Suddenly," he added, "you've got thousands of links on the Web pointing to that page on Digg; not pointing to the original page, and those links don't somehow magically pass along [link juice] to the original page."

"They're [Digg] suggesting that because they're using this canonical tag that they're somehow redirecting to the search engines and all that link credit should be passing on - but that doesn't seem to be the case," Sullivan said.

When asked who has made the claim that Digg's URL shortener is not passing on link juice, Sullivan responded with: "Me, Greg [Boser], and I think Matt Cutts, but that's not clear."

A quick lesson about the canonical tag/element by Matt Cutts

However, in this video (embedded below), Matt Cutts explains that creating a 301 is not always an option and if you can't resolve your specific issues by using it, there are other alternatives.

"There's a very simple element, link element, where you can say: my canonical that means, my preferred or my primary or the clean, or the pretty version of the URL I want to use, is not this ugly URL with a tracking code or a session ID, it's this pretty URL right over here."

But Cutts is quick to add that this element is a suggestion, not a directive.

"We don't promise that we will abide by this 100 percent." Cutts explains, "But at least at Google, we see this as a very strong suggestion. Unless we see something where you're hurting your own site, we probably would expect to respect this tag. I think in most cases it will work quite well but we do have to reserve the final bottom line ability to say no, we don't think this is best."

What this does, is tell Google where the canonical version can be found. "It's a very simple open standard," Cutts explains.

But What Does DIgg say About all of This?

When we asked Digg's head of engineering John Quinn why they decided to use the 200 instead of a 301, Quinn explained that the answer is simple: Digg's shortener doesn't redirect.

Although Digg had investigated all options (including the 301) to ensure the search engines focus on the original content, it decided against using the 301 as it is typically used by services that will redirect you to another page e.g. TinyURL or bit.ly. "Services that provide a frame, like Digg, Facebook or StumbleUpon don't redirect and hence return the 200 code for a successful response," Quinn explained.

However, Sullivan does concede that Digg has been fair by using the NOINDEX meta tag which tells the search engines not to spider these pages at Digg. "There's a plus to that. It means potentially these pages aren't going to compete with the original page. You shouldn't be doing a Google search and find out that these shortened URL pages are doing better than your own page. They're not allowed to be in the index whatsoever."

Still, Sullivan isn't sure that the information Digg is posting about its new Diggbar is completely truthful.

"I don't know any SEO expert, with any credibility that would have told them to do it this way. Most SEO experts first of all would have been appalled that they'd gone out there and done this framing to begin with."

Unfortunately, many SEO folk have to sign non disclosure agreements so it is likely we won't be seeing any respectable SEO putting up his/her hand saying "Hey, we advised Digg." They take client contracts and NDA agreements seriously as I've witnessed myself through my own professional relationship with Silicon Valley SEO/SEM firm WebMama.

As for Digg executives not disclosing their dealings with SEO experts; that's their call. Kevin Rose himself has made it clear that he's happy to take on more advice.

And while Sullivan is not entirely happy that Digg is boasting about getting a 20 percent increase in traffic since it launched its Diggbar, perhaps that is the bottom line. As Muhammad Saleem pointed out in his post over at Mashable, "This is probably one of the best strategic business decisions Digg has made in the past four years."

It is clear that Digg is moving into a new chapter of its young life. It's attempting to reach the mainstream audience, implement more useful products into its service, find ways to serve better targeted ads to its users, and perhaps in the process become a stand-alone business that is able to sustain itself.

And the Diggbar, just as the recommendation engine Digg introduced last year, and the new search Digg rolled out last week, make up just a few of the pieces of the overall pie.

Of course, for that to happen, it's a given that Digg will lose some friends along the way; you can't please all of the people all of the time.

What do you think?

Disclosure: The author of this post hosts The Drill Down with Andy Sorcini, and works with WebMama on Web strategy.

Speaking to a standing-room-only audience at the Health 2.0 Conference in San Francisco this morning, Shirky explained that in going forward, we must focus on three things: information, co-ordination and collaboration. The idea expands on his recent article Health Information Technology: A Few Years Of Magical Thinking? (with Carol Diamond), which warns the health care IT establishment against the dangers of "magical thinking."

"The challenge of thinking of IT as a tool to improve quality requires serious attention to transforming the U.S. health care system as a whole, rather than simply computerizing the current setup. Proponents of health IT must resist "magical thinking," such as the notion that technology will transform our broken system, absent integrated work on policy or incentives."

The problem, according to Shirky, is that we are overestimating the value of individuals accessing information, and underestimating groups collaborating.

"Patients in aggregate behave very differently than when solo," Shirky explained today. "Think about what you do when you get a bad diagnosis - you fire up Google, find out who has what you have, and then talk to them. That ability, for patients to pool their resources, is a massive change to the health industry."

Information

"Back in 1974, when the Internet was a fraction of what it is now, the acorn to an oak, there were really only two applications," said Shirky, "Telnet, and FTP. When electronic mail was introduced, it dwarfed Telnet and FTP by 75% within three months."

This taught us something, Shirky told the audience, "The most valuable thing is not computers and machines; it's people."

"The classic mistake, when people start thinking about how data will affect field X, they tend to completely ignore group access to collaboration - and this is what is most important," Shirky continued.

"While engineers are busy building technology and talking about building trust, they forget that trust is not about machines, it's about people. And whenever people decide to trust one another, information will flow." He pointed to Yahoo! Groups, which has in excess of 180K groups about health alone. "This scale indicates an enormous demand for this conversation. These people are using basic tools; they're not waiting for technology. It's about trust; humans are the trust networks, not technology."

Coordination

"The Voice of the Faithful launched in January 2002," Shirky told us, "and started with 30 people. Today, they have in excess of 30 thousand members, spread over many countries - all recruited by other members."

The Voice of the Faithful was formed when the community learned that church officials had tried to cover-up clergy sexual abuse.

"The Archdioceses in Massachusetts freaked out. He wanted to gag people, telling them 'you can say anything to the person in the next pew, but you cannot talk to people in the next town," said Shirky.

"They tried to subdivide the population, but this of course, didn't work."

People do talk, and mainstream Catholics started talking as never before; to each other and to the world.

"And when it comes to health, patient centric medicine is not just about 'me, me, me' anymore; the Internet has made it about me - and - everyone I'm talking to," said Shirky.

While many argue that this type of system is too informal and shouldn't be happening, Shirky pointed out that "you have to remember we've always had informal conversations, we've just never had this type of connection. And the majority of these conversations are brokered by fellow patients; not by working professionals."

Collaboration

"Increasingly," Shirky explained, "what is happening everywhere is the ability people have to collaborate."

"In early 2008, Los Angeles surgeon Dr. Lawrence Dorr went to orthopedic joint manufacturer Zimmer and told them he'd noticed an alarming number of patients experiencing problems after routine hip replacements, who often needed a second operation," Shirky told the audience. "Zimmer took a look at the device, said it was fine and blamed the doctor who in their opinion needed further training."

Dorr didn't like this answer. He went and posted a letter online. Patients started copying and pasting this document across the Web. It ended up as a public relations nightmare for Zimmer and led to the eventual suspension of the product by Zimmer Holdings.

"Institutions are trying to prevent 2.0 from happening," Shirky said, but it isn't working.

He pointed to a service called Medical Justice, which claims it is 'relentlessly protecting physicians from frivolous lawsuits' and offers among other things, a contract that doctors can have their patients sign which is supposed to prevent the physician from being defamed on the Internet.

"The problem of course, is that while you may be gagged by this contract, your friends are not." Shirky concluded. "Much like Zimmer, they're selling the fantasy - that patients are solo."

What do you think? Should we continue focusing on the technology, or on the information and people?

In this latest post, a summary of the speech Haque had planned for the conference, he claimed that 21st century capitalism needs a revolution. As businesses focus solely on profits, large part's of the world's population still fight extreme poverty. And our wealth, he says, isn't even sustainable:

We're richer, but that wealth doesn't reflect durable, authentic economic value - which is hitting fast diminishing returns. The growth that we're pursuing is neither sustainable - nor is it, in many ways, real growth at all.

This manifesto for change comes at an important time, when a recent, but growing trend of Web 2.0 ennui is beginning to strike the citizens of the social media landscape. Even VC Fred Wilson was recently caught wondering if he was "bored with Web 2.0," saying:

But I am a bit jealous of friends who are working on finding and funding alternative energy or biomedical technologies that have the potential to address the serious problems facing the world. At times it seems that helping the web become more social, intelligent, mobile, and playful is not as impactful.

Looking For Meaning

Our recent obsessions of late with all the latest new shiny objects, while fun, often leave us with an emptiness that comes from participating in what's ultimately inconsequential behavior in a world that's filled with turmoil. Thanks to the non-stop information flow coming in from all areas of the web, we're acutely aware of the suffering that's going on in countries with political turmoil, of how the latest natural disaster has torn apart people's lives, and even what challenges the disadvantaged populations from within our own borders face.

While a healthy dose of social media is fun and sometimes informative, it rarely taps into our desire to feel as if what we're doing has meaning or purpose. Being "social" online tends to be a casual activity where you make friends or share news, and not one where you're fighting to solve the world's problems. (Although we did discover a few ways to use social media for social good not too long ago, they're often few and far between). Web 2.0 is is like Internet candy (well, maybe not as sweet as lolcats and YouTube), but it's definitely not, for the most part, a satisfying meal.

Maybe that's as it should be - there's nothing wrong with having fun - but perhaps it's time for a shift. The social tools we know and love won't go away, but do we need more and more of the same? In the end, Web 2.0 is supposedly not making any money anyway, so why not use our knowledge to build tools to better the world instead?

Ideas Exist, But Where's the Money?

The ideas are already out there. Take for example, this post by Paul Lamb on MediaShift Idea Lab. He envisions a mobile app that could empower poor communities through the power of technology.

The fictional app called LOCOBEAT makes social media and collaboration a real tool for change for empowerment. The app, designed for use by the overlooked, low income segments of the U.S. population would map the neighborhood to provide users with safe routes to work and school; send alerts which post to the map when new job openings are available; the social network of the apps' users would keep them connected so as to communicate to each other about possible job postings, like a mobile LinkedIn; the app's music sharing service would let users rate music, and that is used by the community to promote local artists; text messages from the grocer would be sent to alert users when items go on sale; etc.

Alexander Vanelas also reminded us about Muhammed Yunus's idea for Microcredits, small loans to help poor gain employment.

Those are just a couple of ideas, and LOCOBEAT only lacks the people willing to fund and develop it. But where are the rest?

Time To Change?

In a post on SeedWatcher, Marc Hustvedt responds to Haque's article and ponders "how can we use Twitter to fight global hunger?" However, the real question may be "can we use Twitter to fight global hunger?" Will the tools of change really be the Twitters and Facebooks of today, or will we need to embrace a whole new paradigm designed just for the purpose of change? Isn't about time we put our money where our mouth is and find out?

Image Credits: Boredom: ArSiSa7; Shift: emilyd10; Money: TWCollins]]> Discuss]]> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/bored_with_web_20_demand_chang.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/bored_with_web_20_demand_chang.php Trends Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:36:33 -0800 Sarah Perez We can't all eat, breathe, and live social media 24x7, as much as we might like to. Some of have day jobs that require a bit of our attention, too. And unlike the web-app embracing startups we read about, the policies at more traditional companies actually discourage mindless web surfing, tweeting, facebooking, and the like. However, there are still plenty of ways to fit in your social media addictions at work, without getting noticed by your nosy co-workers or getting blocked by I.T.

For every roadblock to using social media at work, there is a workaround. Maybe you've been nervous to try these things because you're not sure of how much you're being monitored by I.T., your boss, or even your colleagues. You don't want to appear as if you're goofing off all day, do you? That being said, even the most diligent office drone deserves a break from time to time, and these days, those breaks often include a little brain candy in the form of social media.

If I.T. has your PC so locked down, you can't add or remove anything, you can't download anything from the internet, and you hit blocked pages all the time, then good! I.T.'s doing their job. But here's how to get around that.

Bring Your Own Browser

Just because your PC is locked down, your USB ports are probably still available. Only the most paranoid of companies use software to disable the optical drives and USB ports. If you can open files saved on a keychain USB drive, then you're in luck - you can use your ports.

At home, prepare a USB drive with the PortableApps suite. The standard edition offers a web office to go, featuring portable editions of OpenOffice, Sunbird, Thunderbird, and AV.

But most importantly, PortableApps offers portable Firefox, which we all know no social media lover can be without. Now, just like your were installing Firefox on a new computer, prepare your portable version with all the toolbars, bookmarklets, greasemonkey scripts, and add-ons that you can't live without. Once back at work, just pop in your USB drive and it will be like you've never left your home PC.

Dying for IM

If your I.T. department blocks you from installing IM, you can try Gaim Portable that came with the Portable apps you installed.

If that doesn't work, you might find that a web-based alternative like Meebo meets your needs. You can try their Firefox extension, too.

However, savvy I.T. personnel have heard of Meebo and block it on the firewall. But there are a few alternatives that they may not have blocked just yet. These include MSN Web Messenger, Yahoo! Web Messenger, AIM Express, Kool IM, ILoveIM, Mabber, Snimmer, Google Talk Gadget, ebuddy, and Robin Good lists a few more. Plus, you might want to check out Gmail's integrated Gtalk client to see if that works.

Just be warned, if your company policy states IM is not allowed, being caught doing so could be serious. For companies that deal in trade secrets or financial information, such a violation could even lead to termination. So for the uber-paranoid, just break out your phone. Most modern cell phones and PDAs ship with an IM client or two already installed. If not, go grab your favorites from the web: MSN Mobile, Mobile AIM, Google Talk (for some smartphones).

Sneaking in Your Tweets

Not comfortable with twitter.com loaded up on-screen for everyone to see? There are other ways to tweet undercover. Download Twhirl if you can. You may also want to check out OutTwit which lets you get your tweets via Outlook email.

If you can't download or install anything, just subscribe to your Twitter feeds via RSS instead, being sure to use an online reader.

Of course, for mobile users, tweeting by IM (see above section) is a possibility, as is tweeting via various mobile apps, like Blackberry's Twitterberry, ceTwit or Twobile for Windows Mobile, MoTwit for Palm OS, Tiny Twitter or jtwitter for Java-enabled phones, or, for anyone else, EmailTwitter, which lets you send tweets and retrieve your timeline via your phone.

Mindless Blog Surfing

RSS. RSS. RSS. If you're not already using an online feed reader, like Google Reader or Bloglines, now's the time to start. Too busy with that "work stuff" to do more than just scan articles? Set up a tag just for your "read it later" items or star them. Revisit them later when you're back at home.

Another option is to subscribe to blogs in Outlook. In many traditional companies, Microsoft Office is par for the course. If your company has revved to Outlook 2007, you can read your RSS feeds right there, no additional software needed. To kick it up a notch, Inbox 3.0 integrates with Outlook, too.

Want to actually go surfing outside of your feeds? Any web surfing at work has the possibility of interruptions. So save the things you come across for later reading at home. Using your portable Firefox, install Idea Shower's "Read It Later" extension for saving items you come across on the web.

Even better, the new ReadBag app built on Google's new apps engine, lets you save links for later reading too, but this tool also offers a daily digest that can be emailed to you at the time you specify. Readbag works via bookmarklet or Firefox extension and provides mobile access to your saved items.

Facebook at Work

What's that? Facebook's blocked? How could they? Proxy sites come to the rescue. If you desperately need MySpace, Facebook, Bebo, YouTube, Digg, Mixx, or any other restricted site, you can try a proxy like: Access Facebook, Facebook Firewall, or VisitSitesAtWork. You can also check out the list at Proxy.org. Just be sure to clear your cookies, your history, and your cache when done. The domain names pretty much give away what you were up to there.

Another idea is, again, mobile access. Blackberry users have their own mobile Facebook app, iPhone users can go here, and, for others, you can visit the Facebook Mobile web site.

Fight FriendFeed Withdrawl

If you successfully installed Twhirl for tweeting at work, then you're in luck since it also lets you access FriendFeed. Other FriendFeed AIR apps you can try are AlertThingy, Feedalizr, or bTT.

If you are prevented from installing programs, consider FriendFeed access via RSS feeds. Just subscribe in your online reader. 

For mobile users, the moblf app can help. This app gives you access to FriendFeed, Twitter, Yelp, and LinkedIn updates via SMS on your mobile phone.

Other Tips

If you can't download files form the web but you can install them, just load the executables onto your USB key and bring them into the office. Another alternative is to zip them up and store them online at an online storage site like box.net or SkyDrive.

You also need to know how to quickly minimize your activities. On a Windows PC, Alt+Tab switches you from window to window. Have only two open - the web browser and the spreadsheet, for example. This way, you won't accidentally mess up and Alt+Tab too many times in haste as your boss approaches, and end up switching to yet another inappropriate window.

Why?

Having been in I.T. myself for years, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to subverting I.T. policy to goof off at work. Why would I share this with the world? Because any I.T. manager worth their salt should know all these things already and how to combat them (if that's what the company wants.)

And every company concerned with employee productivity needs to determine for themselves where they draw the line on non-worked related internet activities and take the appropriate measures they deem necessary for blocking, stopping, tracking, and monitoring employee web use.

Finally, remember: just because you can, doesn't mean you should. If you really are slacking at work, people know. I've honored more than one request throughout my years in I.T. to monitor an employee's activities on the DL and your I.T. guy probably will do the same. Proceed carefully.

It's been a huge year for the Web! A time of renewed optimism in Silicon Valley and an incredible number of new web applications. In a sense it all started with Google's IPO in August 2004, the success of which was a positive and affirming lead-in to 2005. We then witnessed a renaissance of startup activity, acquisitions and intense VC interest in the Web throughout the year. Here then is my list of the top ten defining moments for the Web in 2005. [Full story on ZDNet...]

I'm keen to get your feedback on this, either here or at ZDNet. What were your top Web 2.0 moments of 2005?

In the SOA article, I particularly liked this description of how and why XML is a crucial part of the 'momentary enterprise':

"XML formatting allows proprietary databases and records to now have a nearly universal method for describing their contents. One does not need to be a sophisticated programmer who understands how to read a "schema" document or how to encode SQL statements to make sense of XML statements. A computer-literate teen could happen upon an XML fragment and derive some sense from it. He or she could likely import it into a favorite spreadsheet package and sort or average or trend it with a few keystrokes.

Business back ends are now XML-crazy. Information that needs to be expressed to another computer system is now expressed in some XML format. Most significantly, XML enables far higher business-to-business cooperation that is squarely aligned with the Web's chief goal: information exchange (as opposed to data exchange). XML has been enthusiastically embraced by business and allows for significant efficiency gains and better customer experiences. We will see XML reaching into the consumer world and our homes as well via wired and wireless appliances, for example. For the momentary enterprise, XML is the magic glue that allows vast sources of data and internetworking infrastructure - from PDAs to wireless video cameras - to share information."

That's got to be the best description of XML I've read this year. It captures the simplicity and ease-of-use of XML; its pervasiveness on the Web; and its utility to computer networks, 'users', businesses and programmers alike. XML is the lingua franca of our networked world.

The writer goes on to describe the web-based office, which has been one of my main themes this year. The human part of this is what the author calls a "matrix worker", defined as a subject-matter expert in a particular area:

"Often these people prefer to work as independent consultants rather than full-time employees. Technology and connectivity have truly allowed a great many of us to work anywhere and everywhere, and at any time. As more and more people allow their skills to be better published and exploited, a new form of professional - the "matrix worker" - will emerge."

I'm like a prototype matrix worker, I suppose. Along with millions of other people. The great thing is this kind of working life is becoming more and more common. XML and all the other technologies of our age - wireless, laptops, mobile phones, Voice over IP, etc - are enabling many of us to work and create outside the box. Or should that be -- in The Matrix?

Category	Sites
Analysis & Trends	Read/WriteWeb, Dion Hinchcliffe, Susan Mernit’s Blog, Web 2.0 Explorer
Companies & Products	TechCrunch, SolutionWatch, eHub
Design & Usability	WeBreakStuff, Bokardo, ParticleTree, Emily Chang
VC & Business	Jeff Clavier, Nivi
Podcasting	PodTech, Web 2.0 Show
Tech & Development	Programmable Web, CrunchNotes, Librarystuff
Commentary	Scripting News, HorsePigCow

As Mike said, our goal is to provide a list of high quality blogs that are writing about Web 2.0 trends. OK it is an exclusive group, but we're not snobs :-) So if you think you have a high quality Web 2.0 site, or know of one, then feel free to contact us (details on the site). We continue to add blogs regularly and are working on a number of ways to make the content more accessible. We provide RSS feeds for each blog and an aggregated OPML feed for those of you who’d like to subscribe to all of them. We'll continue to add more functionality and are of course open to suggestions on how to improve the site.

Surprisingly, Paul Graham's essay entitled Web 2.0 is not a Naysayer one. It's critical of Web 2.0 in parts, but overall the essay is well thought out and offers weighty insights.

So how does Graham define Web 2.0?

"Ajax, democracy, and not dissing users."

What, that's it?! Well, it turns out Graham's essay illustrates the problem of trying to define Web 2.0: you can't, in a single sentence or paragraph that is. This extract is a good example of that:

"Web 2.0 means using the web the way it's meant to be used. The "trends" we're seeing now are simply the inherent nature of the web emerging from under the broken models that got imposed on it during the Bubble."

Of course that is just repeating what most of us 'Web 2.0 Wankers' have been saying for the past year, as is the rest of Paul Graham's essay. But for Graham to give this thing called Web 2.0 his Tech God blessing is a good thing.

I think he overdoes the Google = Web 2.0 theme, but hey we all have our biases.

Eran Globen was the one that confessed all to the media:

"Web 2.0 is a conspiracy that was started by people deep inside the Illuminati."

This is a scandal of major proportions. The Illuminati will have to ship me out of my hiding place in New Zealand. But don't worry, Web 2.0 will continue on as before - vanquishing its foes and converting the masses to The Long Tail.

"Launched by Netscape's IPO in 1995, the dotcom boom spurred trillions of dollars in private investments into the Internet, new technologies, marketing, and fiber optic cable and led to the development of such landmark sites as Google. Though now often synonymous with failures like Pets.com and Boo.com, the dotcom boom and bust was critical to fast-tracking the spread and popularity of the Internet. In 1995, there were 16 million people online. Today, there are over 957 million."

It's true, people often forget the positive impact of the Boom and Bust. Companies like Amazon, eBay, Google and Yahoo! not only survived the bust, but came out of it much bigger and stronger. Unlike some sock puppets, which became dog tucker (photo credit).

Also two recent events made it on the list. According to Netscape News:

"The Asian tsunami in December made the top-10 list at number six, for marking the emergence of "citizen journalism" as, with news agencies racing to reach the hardest hit areas, the first accounts were largely provided by ordinary people armed only with digital cameras and internet access.

The Live 8 series of concerts against global poverty, watched live online by more than five million people, was listed in eight place."

Amazon describes it thusly: "...when we think of interfaces between human beings and computers, we usually assume that the human being is the one requesting that a task be completed, and the computer is completing the task and providing the results. What if this process were reversed and a computer program could ask a human being to perform a task and return the results? What if it could coordinate many human beings to perform a task?"

So here's my list of Web 2.0 things I want done, that people could do for me better than computers could:

10. Get an A-Lister to link to me every day (probably can be solved by someone doing various small favours for them, on my behalf).

9. Manually filter my Rojo account at least daily - especially removing the duplicates from my topic feeds.

8. Translate all the best Asian Web 2.0 blogs into English (seriously, I want someone to do that!)

7. Insert Technorati tags and all that other microformat crap into my posts.

6. Enter my blog details into the Ping-o-matic page whenever I post something - and while you're at it, submit my posts to Digg and Slashdot.

5. Click on my Google ads from time to time.

4. Listen to all the podcasts that I never have time to listen to - and report back to me with a summary of what they said.

3. Cook me some spicy noodles, the way Jing Jing in Palo Alto makes them.

2. Turn up to the TechCrunch BBQs on my behalf and constantly remind people that I'm the Father of Web 2.0.

1. Convince a Silicon Valley company to sponsor my US work visa.

"Fully half of all teens and 57% of teens who use the internet could be considered Content Creators. They have created a blog or webpage, posted original artwork, photography, stories or videos online or remixed online content into their own new creations."

That finding is from the Pew Internet & American Life Project Report: Teen Content Creators and Consumers.

This is the current generation of kids - read/write Web babies. They're being brought up as creators and not just consumers. Oh I love the Web...

1. Excessive Hype: "Nothing will hurt Web 2.0 more than people loudly proclaiming Web 2.0 is the solution to every problem in software. [...] Web 2.0 is merely a powerful way of thinking about the design and construction of effective Web experiences." 
--> RM: I'd also add excessive anti-hype.

2. Lack of Simple Definition
--> RM: I've had most success defining Web 2.0 to normal people using familiar examples, like MyYahoo or Google or even Wikipedia. I still use the staple 'Web as Platform' as my starting-point (and you can't get much more succinct than that), but it needs real examples to back it up.

3. Aging Poster Children: "Flickr and del.icio.us are absolutely terrific examples of the new face of Web 2.0. [but] these guys are getting a little long in the tooth in Web years and while very good, their functionality is nowhere near as central to our lives as say Google, which is already 7 years old." 
--> hence my current search for disruptive technologies.

4. Needing A Permaconnection
--> RM: This one is a matter of time. In my country, New Zealand, the broadband service is expensive and slow. But I survive :-)

5. Ajax as the Official Web 2.0 Experience: "Ajax is getting serious hype at the moment too but quite frankly, people are going to expect so much from it that it will get ugly. [...] Flash might also be a partial answer to certain solutions, and Yahoo! apparently agrees. But I do think we need to focus on solving these problems by tweaking the Web browser model and not hacking things to improve Ajax."

6. Excessive Attention On The Technology
--> RM: I agree, but would add that not enough attention on the technology can also be an issue. As always, it's about striking a balance.

7. Really Bad Adherents. "I'm not going to point fingers here but like every other succesful idea before it, everyone wants to co-opt it."

8. Blogging Instead of Doing. 
--> I think all of us bloggers suffer from this affliction, but as Dion pointed out it applies equally to the Naysayers (in case you were getting smug reading this!).

9. Not Facing Hard Truths. e.g. Dion cites non-shared, private algorithms and the push for near-monopolistic user counts. 
--> RM: a lot of this boils down to being open and letting the user really have control. I think all 3 of the big companies (MS, Google, Y!) have major issues here and it's time for us Web 2.0 pundits to shine some more light on those. I don't know whether we can stop it, but it's worth highlighting at least. If we let the bigco's build Web 2.0, we may find ourselves locked up in data silos. This is the point that Steve Gillmor has been driving at and he is leading the charge for data ownership with AttentionTrust.

10. Adopting The Lightweight Creation Model: "Both Microsoft's entry into the space (Fred Wilson's comments)and Google's recent releases have been pretty underwhelming." 
--> Dion expects "a new generation of companies to build Web 2.0" and I agree, to a point. But established user base and money does still, alas, count for a lot in this world.

11. (from Paul Montgomery) Thinking The Whole World Is Like Silicon Valley: Paul says "I don't know how many times I've read that Memeorandum has "changed the Web", but how many readers does it have outside the people who are mentioned on it? Web 2.0 is still a very small, insular movement. There should be far more attention paid to what people who aren't impossibly well-connected and highly technologically savvy will want from these new services."
--> I find myself agreeing with Paul, not so much about memeorandum but about the whole insularity of Web 2.0 culture. The Yahoo! Maps announcement last night is a prime example. When I was in Silicon Valley, I found myself using Yahoo and Google Maps all the time (mostly the latter). They were so handy. I'm sure I'd be drooling over Yahoo Maps today if I was still in the Valley. But I'm not - I'm on the other side of the world and Yahoo Maps has little relevancy to me, because it doesn't cover this part of the world. The technology is impressive, don't get me wrong, and will be rolled out to the rest of the world in future. But right now it's irrelevant to anyone not living in the US. This is the kind of Silicon Valley-centric culture that Web 2.0 people need to address.

So in summary, a great list from Dion and these are all points we can chip away at.

"The New Normal

The Web has become the “new normal” in the American way of life; those who don’t go online constitute an ever-shrinking minority. And as the online population has grown rapidly, its composition has changed rapidly. At the infant stage, the internet’s user population was dominated by young, white men who had high incomes and plenty of education [RM: not unlike the make-up of the Web 2.0 Conference attendees]. As it passed into its childhood years in 1999 and 2000, the population went mainstream; women reached parity with men online, lots more minority families joined the party, and more people with modest levels of income and education came online.

This transition altered the internet’s social environment. These early adopters loved the liberation they got from being online. They liked the fact that they could get news from nontraditional sources. Back in 1996, 56% of those who got political news online said they preferred the internet because they could get extra information that was not available from traditional news sources. At the same time, just 18% said they preferred the internet because it was convenient. These early adopters wanted to topple all manner of institutions and establish a new order in virtual space. They had a utopian sense of the transformative power of the new technology.

The later adopters are not looking to this technology to overturn the existing order. They like the internet because it can make them more productive and more connected. Theirs is an unsentimental outlook. Like most later adopters of technology, they need to be shown that there is a real, immediate and practical value in embracing the new."

What do I take from this?

1) Web 2.0 is still in the 1996 era in terms of Internet take-up;

2) perhaps some of us Web 2.0 pundits have been guilty of focusing too much on "utopian sense of the transformative power of the new technology"; aka the Bubble mentality.

3) the tipping point will be when Web 2.0 becomes convenient and practical for mainstream people to use - making them "more productive and more connected". We're still a year or two away from that point, I think.

It's an excellent report to read and a timely reminder to us all of the context of Web 2.0, within the ongoing evolution of the Internet.