While Alexa isn't the greatest measure of a site's... well, anything, really (since it relies on a toolbar that tech-savvy users are more likely to have installed--except for the fact that it only works with MSIE), I agree with what you wrote. After looking at Inform for 3 minutes I just closed the browser tab.
It was cluttered, ugly, hard to read, and it was not immediately apparent what the heck it did. It has an overwhelming amount of content presented in a very underwhelming fashion. If it is an RSS reader, there are far better options. If it is a news portal, I'll stick with MyYahoo or GoogleNews. If it is something else, I can't be bothered to decipher what.
Pete Cashmore
· 3 years ago
"While Alexa isn’t the greatest measure of a site’s… well, anything"
Yeah, I totally agree. We should avoid making assumptions based on that data.
Paul Montgomery
· 3 years ago
Alexa may be unreliable but bloody hell, those are some damning curves.
doug
· 3 years ago
But I still think that hybrids will see slower growth than specialists, simply because they aren’t a great fit for the Web 2.0 ecosystem.
I would even go a bit further, saying that "hybrids" aren't a good fit in any market. It doesn't seem that there isn't anything special about Web 2.0 in this regard. I think it is just a case of people using what is familiar and simple.
The vast majority of internet users do not use del.icio.us or any other Web 2.0 app to keep track of sites/pages, they use "Favorites" or "Bookmarks". Most people don't use Flickr, they use email. Etc, etc, etc.
Most people just keep using what they are familiar with, what's easy, what's simple, what works. The Web 2.0 community seems to be a little bit more adventurous, but not too much. We like Flickr, but will a bunch of people use some app that extends tagged photo-sharing to the nth degree? Doubtful.
samurai
· 3 years ago
Great article. Learn how to walk 1st before running. Jack of all trades, master of nothing.
Pete Cashmore
· 3 years ago
Lawrence,
Actually, I think there are rules - and this blog is my attempt to discover them. I think you're right on there being too many variables to be 100% sure of any assumption, but with enough analysis of the companies in this space, I think you can hope to achieve at least 80% accuracy when it comes to predicting success or failure.
A question: did MySpace add all those features before or after they started to build a user base? The answer is "after". And that's important - MySpace is an example of a service that evolved with its users, just like Flickr. So what I'm saying is: start small and light, then add features as your users demand them. I explained this idea of an evolving featureset in a Journal post a while back.
See also my post on Wikio: I stated that you can't guess what features your users will want, so you might as well get it out there instead of trying to build a comprehensive (and perhaps unneeded) service from the start. Continuous development (MySpace, Flickr) is not the same as building an advanced feature set from the start, only to discover that all those features are useless me-too plays.
Nonetheless, I still feel that MySpace is the exception, rather than the rule. Its popularity was unpredictable, and it's unclear if it has longevity. The same is true of Google: people justify the fact that they have no business model by pointing out that Google had no business model for a long time. This is true, but there were many more sites (thousands of them) with no business model that simply burned out. So we have to be extremely careful when using the exceptions to justify our strategies.
Oh yeah, and let's not forget that MySpace just added another "feature"- MySpace video. As I said in the eSnips post, MySpace doesn't specialize in video, so they'll never be as good at it as YouTube. The best strategy is to forget about me-too products and instead focus on what you're good at. I think a Fox acquisition of YouTube would make perfect sense in this regard.
Robert Oschler
· 3 years ago
How about a weekly Mashable "Where Are They Now?" round-up post? Maybe cover the top 5 and worst 5 movers and shakers?
Pete Cashmore
· 3 years ago
Robert,
Hehe. You can tell your blog is getting old when you start doing "then and now" posts. Maybe a "Best of Mashable" compilation? :)
Your blog rocks. I just have a running list of "hey what happened to that cool service?" questions in my head.
Scott
· 3 years ago
I agree that to get started you need to think simple and focus on a specific need. But over time it certainly is possible to build a solid and thriving hybrid. Just look at Google and Yahoo. Once you've built a brand for yourself you can go wild with it. It's just solidifying your brand name and becoming an everyday thing for your visitors that's important.
Also, I agree that Pete should introduce a "Where are they now?" feature. I have been noticing quite a few Web 2.0 sites that started with a bang who are failing miserably. It's really interesting to see how all these new sites are progressing. It's the sites that really get down to the meat of the issue and provide a solid resource that are doing well.
Kevin Burton
· 3 years ago
I think its time to stop quoting Alexa numbers. They're all over the map. They're tracking no where NEAR what Tailrank's real numbers are. I mean its nice to see them going up but as Tailrank's Firefox market share approaches 100% my Alexa numbers will approach 0% ...
Kevin Burton
· 3 years ago
A note about feature creep and everythingitis.
Enter the market with something THIN... do one thing right an do it WELL.
I def could be doing a better job with this regard in Tailrank but for right not it seems to be doing a pretty good job.
There are other reasons as well. You're engineers can specialize and get good at ONE THING.
Your users will also appreciate it as they don't have to learn a complicated app.
Kevin
Benjamin
· 3 years ago
Alexa really can't be perfect. Nothing can. How do you say what is and what isn't. I run a web 2.0 blog. It's popping up in the popularity, but there's plenty of others. Who knows really!
All Comments
It was cluttered, ugly, hard to read, and it was not immediately apparent what the heck it did. It has an overwhelming amount of content presented in a very underwhelming fashion. If it is an RSS reader, there are far better options. If it is a news portal, I'll stick with MyYahoo or GoogleNews. If it is something else, I can't be bothered to decipher what.
Yeah, I totally agree. We should avoid making assumptions based on that data.
I would even go a bit further, saying that "hybrids" aren't a good fit in any market. It doesn't seem that there isn't anything special about Web 2.0 in this regard. I think it is just a case of people using what is familiar and simple.
The vast majority of internet users do not use del.icio.us or any other Web 2.0 app to keep track of sites/pages, they use "Favorites" or "Bookmarks". Most people don't use Flickr, they use email. Etc, etc, etc.
Most people just keep using what they are familiar with, what's easy, what's simple, what works. The Web 2.0 community seems to be a little bit more adventurous, but not too much. We like Flickr, but will a bunch of people use some app that extends tagged photo-sharing to the nth degree? Doubtful.
Actually, I think there are rules - and this blog is my attempt to discover them. I think you're right on there being too many variables to be 100% sure of any assumption, but with enough analysis of the companies in this space, I think you can hope to achieve at least 80% accuracy when it comes to predicting success or failure.
A question: did MySpace add all those features before or after they started to build a user base? The answer is "after". And that's important - MySpace is an example of a service that evolved with its users, just like Flickr. So what I'm saying is: start small and light, then add features as your users demand them. I explained this idea of an evolving featureset in a Journal post a while back.
See also my post on Wikio: I stated that you can't guess what features your users will want, so you might as well get it out there instead of trying to build a comprehensive (and perhaps unneeded) service from the start. Continuous development (MySpace, Flickr) is not the same as building an advanced feature set from the start, only to discover that all those features are useless me-too plays.
Nonetheless, I still feel that MySpace is the exception, rather than the rule. Its popularity was unpredictable, and it's unclear if it has longevity. The same is true of Google: people justify the fact that they have no business model by pointing out that Google had no business model for a long time. This is true, but there were many more sites (thousands of them) with no business model that simply burned out. So we have to be extremely careful when using the exceptions to justify our strategies.
Oh yeah, and let's not forget that MySpace just added another "feature"- MySpace video. As I said in the eSnips post, MySpace doesn't specialize in video, so they'll never be as good at it as YouTube. The best strategy is to forget about me-too products and instead focus on what you're good at. I think a Fox acquisition of YouTube would make perfect sense in this regard.
Hehe. You can tell your blog is getting old when you start doing "then and now" posts. Maybe a "Best of Mashable" compilation? :)
Your blog rocks. I just have a running list of "hey what happened to that cool service?" questions in my head.
Also, I agree that Pete should introduce a "Where are they now?" feature. I have been noticing quite a few Web 2.0 sites that started with a bang who are failing miserably. It's really interesting to see how all these new sites are progressing. It's the sites that really get down to the meat of the issue and provide a solid resource that are doing well.
Enter the market with something THIN... do one thing right an do it WELL.
I def could be doing a better job with this regard in Tailrank but for right not it seems to be doing a pretty good job.
There are other reasons as well. You're engineers can specialize and get good at ONE THING.
Your users will also appreciate it as they don't have to learn a complicated app.
Kevin