MappingTheWeb //

In the past couple days, we witnessed the acquisition of two web 2.0 contenders - Newsvine and Jaiku. The former was scooped up by MSNBC, while the latter was bought by Google. Interestingly, both sit second in their respective industries, trailing space leaders Digg and Twitter.

What’s the advantage of buying a second-tier player? Price obviously. I’d imagine that Digg or Twitter would be looking for several multiples of what Newsvine and Jaiku sold for. To their credit though, these leaders have shaped their respective industries and tallied up enormous user bases. Brand equity and recognition cannot be overlooked. For this very reason, I was surprised that Google didn’t buy Twitter. The search giant is known for buying high-profile, industry leaders (i.e. YouTube, DoubleClick, Blogger, and FeedBurner to name a few).

I’m not a regular user of micro-blogging platforms (i.e. Twitter, Jaiku, Pownce, or Tumblr), but I have dabbled from time to time. Having said that, it is hard for me to compare Twitter to Jaiku. Nevertheless, I’ve heard whispers that Jaiku is a more powerful platform than Twitter with more robust functionality. Ambiguity aside, this may be a reason Google opted for the lesser known name. Price may have been a bonus.

As for Newsvine, it will be interesting to see how MSNBC decides to incorporate and/or integrate the service. Left in the uncapable hands of Microsoft, the service will probably fail. The Redmond giant has a history of botching web 2.0 acquisitions. Let’s hope that they keep it separate and consider it a ‘portfolio asset’.

To MSNBC’s credit however, I think Newsvine is a great acquisition. As opposed to Digg, the site is truly focused on the news. Though the design and much of the news are highly professional, Newsvine is still able to successfully incorporate the concept of social news and user-contribution - a slippery slope to say the least.

Kudos to all parties. I look forward to seeing what happens next, especially with Jaiku…

Any thoughts? Anyone know the acquisition prices? What do you think of the fit?

This week, TechMeme officially launched its anticipated “Leaderboard”. The board tracks the top 100 news sources on TechMeme, based on the number of headlines attributed to each source over the previous thirty days. To some degree, it can be interesting to follow. But I think it poses more problems than benefits. What is truly the point of displaying the top 100 sources? It simply creates a hierarchy of power and inflated egos.

Such a ranking system isn’t what the blogosphere needs. We all know that TechCrunch is popular, but we don’t need to be reminded yet again. The so-called hierarchy (A-listers, B-listers, etc..) is a bunch of crap. Blogs are meant to break down these barriers. A leaderboard simply creates an echo-chamber and a positive feedback loop within the realm. In other words, blogs may be giving way to the manufactured world of popularity.

I don’t really care who has the biggest presence. I don’t care that a lot of people read XYZ blog. What I care about is the content - I truly appreciate insight and analysis beyond the basic facts. If the content is good excellent, readers will follow. They don’t need to be influenced by a ranking system to see what ‘everybody else’ is reading. This is the herd mentality.

Personally, I judge every blog based on the quality of each individual post. Over time, I become more and more loyal if the content meets or exceeds my expectations. On the contrary, I lose respect for blogs when the content begins to degrade and succumb to mediocrity.

The TechMeme Leaderboard simply reinforces the so-called leaders and ignores quality content from lesser known sources. The way I see it, this board does nothing more than provide an added marketing mechanism for TechMeme. Now, the ego maniacs at the top will re-visit the leaderboard on a daily basis to view how their ranking has changed. Lemmings and wannabes will also frequent the chart to catch a glimpse of their idols and get an idea of what they should be reading. Is this what the blogosphere was meant to be? I hope not.

In my opinion, the best quality content nowadays isn’t always found at the top. A lot of these blogs have taken a more conservative approach and refuse to take a stance or express an opinion. This creates appeal to a larger crowd, but shows neglect for the initial minority. To some degree, these blogs are moving toward the more traditional media model (shame on them). Lower level blogs have nothing to lose. Therefore, opinions and thoughts are articulated in a much more concise and thought-provoking manner. This is the reason such content shouldn’t be ignored.

Don’t get me wrong… I’ve always been a big fan of TechMeme in the past. I just think this new move may be one filled with ulterior motives.

PS. I’m not bitter about not making the list. I couldn’t care less. It isn’t the reason I blog.

There has been a huge fuss about TechCrunch’s valuation and a possible buy-out from CNET. A $100 million price tag has been tossed around and Arrington has joked about the whole situation. Rumours and possible acquisitors aside, let’s explore a deeper issue - the valuation. Digging even deeper, let’s take a look at how a blog (in particular) should be valued. Surprisingly enough, I’m not even going to use numbers.

Where does the true value of a blog come from? The content. Where does the content come from? The publisher. In the case of a multi-author blog, the true value is traced back to the original publisher. So what am I trying to say? A blog is worthless without the original publisher. Or, in this case, TechCrunch is worthless without Mike Arrington. You can strap a $100 million or $500 million price tag on the blog, but all goodwill is lost when the Arrington leaves. I think this is true for any blog. The user base is built around the style and perspective of the creator. All subsequent authors can try to mimick the original style, but it truly cannot be copied.

If CNET does buy TechCrunch, I doubt Arrington will be around for long. My guess is that he’s looking to pursue more exciting and captivating opportunities. If this does happen, what’s the outcome? Well, CNET will have bought the most expensive content management system in history.

NOTE: This post wasn’t meant to put down any of the other publishers or authors of TechCrunch. In fact, I have quite enjoyed most of their work. All I am illustrating is the need for the creator.

Today, Yahoo added new search features and functionality. Video embedding (via Yahoo Video, YouTube, and MetaCafe), Flickr integration, event information (via Upcoming.org), and new Yahoo Shortcuts were all introduced. We’re seeing all this wonderful social media integration - so what’s the big problem? It’s biased. And search engines shouldn’t be biased.

To be honest, I’m genuinely upset about the changes. Not only do they add more clutter to the page, but they’re decreasing the overall quality and relevancy of the search engine. Furthermore, Yahoo is getting praise for these changes. Many are even saying that the company is catching up to Google. I even heard a whisper of the term “Google killer”. This is a bold statement and it can’t be farther from the truth. In reality, Yahoo is widening the gap. They are drifting further away from Google, as they are providing less relevant, more biased results. They are redefining ‘vertical creep’. On the occasion, Yahoo will have the most relevant result on the entire net, but more often than that, it won’t. What Yahoo needs to do is go back to the drawing board and work on their algorithm. This is the bread and butter of any search engine. Forget the web 2.0 app integration.

Pardon my rant, but I’m not a big fan of this move. It is company bias in a space where there should be no bias. All this new integration means that a given user will (in most cases) not be receiving the best quality, unedited, clean, no-strings-attached results. Rather, they are subjected to ’Yahoo’ results and links to Yahoo properties. In my opinion, this leads to higher short-term benefits (and revenues) for the company due to an increase in page views, but translates to long-term problems in the areas of relevancy and perception.

If Yahoo does want to include such results in search, place this information in the sidebar and provide disclosure around it. Numerous others have done it in the past, so why not Yahoo? By integrating company results into the natural search results, it confuses and/or deceives the user. This isn’t in the best interest of the company - at least in my mind. Another possible solution is richer functionality in the ‘vertical search tabs’. If I really want images or videos in my results, I search via Yahoo Image search or Yahoo Video search, not regular search. I think there is an opportunity here, but Yahoo is being greedy.

I say, “Just gimme the best damn results.” Google does a pretty darn good job of this. They haven’t cluttered the results or riddled the page with endless amounts of company-centric material.

One bright spot for Yahoo is Search Assist. This new tool (somewhat akin to Google Suggest) provides contextual suggestions and conceptual recommendations for your search queries. This saves time and hassle, and may indeed aide you in reaching the most relevant results. So why do I like this? As opposed to the other Yahoo features, this one is unbiased (at least I HOPE). It is based on user behaviour, patterns, and trends.

Below is a screenshot of Yahoo Assist (courtesy of Search Engine Journal):

In the end, I think what Yahoo is trying to do is capitalize on all their recent web 2.0 acquisitions by integrating them into search. I think it’s a valiant idea, but involved poor execution. As I mentioned before, I don’t think that integrating such results into the natural search results is the optimal strategy. Company bias and and self-fulfilling intentions start to play a role, and all of a sudden, people are starting to question the credibility and trustworthiness of search. Losing trust is probably the worst possible outcome for Yahoo at this point in the game.