*I always dig it when pundits pitch right in with entire new paradigms.
(And, being a science fiction writer rather than an investor or employee, I could care less if they're right.)
Link: Global Neighbourhoods: SAP Global Survey: Doc Searls.
4.You described the term Web 2.0 as the name for the next bubble. Do you still think this is true? Is it true of social media as well?
I've said "Web 2.0 is what we'll call the next crash," as well as the current bubble. and I still believe that. Social Media as a "meme" may sink with the same boat.
The more useful distinction is between the Live Web and the Static Web. The Live Web today is branching off of the Static Web. Much of what we call "social" happens there, though I dislike the "media" term because it's old and freighted with concepts inherited from TV, radio and all that.
(((It's a new conceptual world where *all media is dead.* Get your head around that one, folks!)))
To understand what I mean, consider what we're saying when we call the Web a collection of "domains" and "sites" with "locations" and "addresses" that we " build" – and where we look for "visitors" and "traffic." We're saying the Web is real estate. We conceive it in terms we've borrowed from real estate and construction. (((Yeah, and who says *that* paradigm makes any sense? Cyberspaces! Metaverses! Yeah, what hokum!)))
The Web was designed by Tim Berners-Lee in the first place as a way to share and edit documents that we write and publish. Later, we added syndication to that publishing-based vocabulary.
Thanks to time-stamped RSS (really simple syndication –thanks, Dave Winer, for that one) feeds, everything in the syndicated section of the Live Web is chronologically based. There is an implicit date-ness to your basic blog URL:http://blogname.com/year/month/day/post. That post has a Permalink. Think about "perma" in a chronological sense. The whole blogosphere is chronological. What's latest is on top, but what's older does not merely scroll off the page into oblivion. It goes into a time-based archive.
(((Yeah, it's Synchronic! It's dataminable microhistories! Yowza!)))
What's more, Technorati and Google Blog Search both update their search engines within minutes or even seconds of when an RSS feed is posted. That's live. For all its texty nature, email is also relatively live, because it is date-based. Same with texting, instant messaging, Twittering and other time-based practices. For an illustration of how the Live Web differs from the Static Web, go to Google Blogsearch. Notice how it gives you a choice to "Search Blogs" or "Search the Web."
Why make this distinction? Are blogs not part of the Web? Oddly, there is new stuff on Google Blogsearch that does not appear in regular Google Web searches. What you find on Blogsearch and Technorati is literally "too new for Google." Meaning: too current, too *live*. Google's main search engine crawls and indexes the entire Web, but regards and presents it essentially as something static.
((("Hey yeah! I never thought of it that way! What if he's right?" This uneasy reaction is the core pundit accolade.)))
If a site (a static notion) changes, Google indexes and caches that, and wipes out the old stuff. Then it replaces the last index of that site with a new one if it finds changes. Yes, Static Web search embraces and appreciates the changing nature of the Web's "content," but it treats what's current as a static thing with no history. Google's view is fundamentally static, not live. Blogsearch, however, does have a live view, but it's a secondary one. After you get your result (which is relevance-based), then click on "date view", and there it is, organized chronologically.
Technorati, which was born to search the Live Web, defaults to a date view. It still does not have a relevance view (Google Blogsearch's default), though it does filter by "authority" (a term I don't like, because it's too loaded – but it was borrowed from Google long ago and is still around). By the way, Technorati was invented by David Sifry as a research tool for a story about blogging that he and I were co-writing in late 2002. The rest is history. I'm still on the advisory board.
Anyway, I'm a voice in the Web 2.0/social media wilderness about the Live/Static Web distinction, but I'll keep yelling. Forgive.
(((My karma ran over your dogma, and my cluetrain ran over your dogtrain.)))
