Wei Wu: Read-only become writable Web2.0 return content

Web2.0 's revolution is UGC (user Generate content, users ' contributions). From the earliest blog, to today's hot Twitter. For users, because of the existence of UGC, the Internet has become "writable" from "read-only".

But in any case, the "reader" on the internet is still more than the "author". As a result, a Web2.0 web site that needs enough attention needs to be "effective" in stimulating UGC-and attracting "authors" and "readers".

This kind of kung fu comes from two kinds in general: new ideas (Twitter is an interesting idea, I call it the online version of the IM tool signature), or a friendly, user-related design (such as UI design, interface design, interactive design, experience design, etc.).

Obviously, the genius of creativity is a small probability event, but the latter, about the design of the part, but can be ordinary people to improve.

"function" fails

Since the web2.0 site is so focused on "effective excitation UGC", then they embark on the road of functional Web site is not surprising. (from a certain point of view, search engines are also a functional web site.) The features of the functional web site are: Heavy technology/design, and light content itself. )

For "Functional Web Sites", if the "author" of the direct charge of the business model is feasible, this road has been able to go down. Use good enough technology (I think of design as some kind of technology, macro-sense technology) to make good enough, and can turn it into silver. That's what foreign sixapart do. This fee BSP site, is said to be at millions of dollars, live a very moist.

But in China, unfortunately, this is unrealistic. China's Internet ecology is: few users are willing to take out his/her wallet for a feature (the QQ show is an interesting exception).

Therefore, the direct charge of the numerous obstacles, so that a variety of web sites have to focus attention to the advertising above. The reason is simple, in the commercial society, in addition to "direct charge" and "free advertising", there is no third income model. The author has not developed a pay habit that attracts readers ' attention and then sells it to advertisers as a choice.

After all, Web2.0 's second-round internet tide has been a bit cool, and this cooling has brought investment prudence.

re-return content

There are many instances of Web2.0 Web sites being returned to content. Blogbus Channel, nine points of watercress, shrimp-catching channels, are web2.0 "content" attempts.

However, the return of this content, but not simply from 2.0 to 1.0, I would like to see it as a spiral forward-"from the cathedral model to the Grand Bazaar model", the writable Internet allows everyone to have a "newspaper" opportunity.

We have cheered the voice of the Web2.0, but today we are also aware of the problem: the noise of "Grand Bazaar" makes every content less meaningful. Although this situation is a bit bitter, but the fundamental decision of human nature: a not integrated, the lack of focus of the big market, it will not be long.

Without the integration of effective channels, the meaning and continuity of these "newspapers" will become very small. But once the integration succeeds, the real "portal" will emerge.

The paradox is that Sina as the representative of the website, including NetEase, Sohu and other sites are called "portals." The concept of a door should be to open the door and you will reach different rooms. And all of these content in their own pot site, incredibly is dubbed "Portal" title.

In my opinion, hao123 this kind of web site is the real sense of the portal, although this door is a bit too simple-web site collection is just a lot of home page, but it gives an important concept: jump. Through these Web sites, users can jump to other sites. In Sina these "portals", a large number of jumps only exist in those huge banner ads behind (click on it, you will reach those advertisers site).

"New Portal"

2.0 of the content is not quite the same as theirs. Whether it's the Blogbus channel, or the nine-point watercress, of course, and the shrimp-catching channel, the user will read only the title and summary of the article. Click on them, users will go to a variety of web sites (a large number of sites, are individual blogs).

2.0 of the content of the return, but also a channel of integration. But they are just reorganizing the hyperlinks, not the content.

The concept of jump is not very fresh. A search engine gives a hyperlink to a user to jump. However, it is largely up to the user to list these hyperlinks instead of those hyperlinks. Search engine is a passive response to the media-if you have never heard of the country, then you will never use a search engine to enter the Icelandic two words.

2.0 of the content returned, but with some 1.0 of the ingredients. Because they need to be edited, they need the so-called "gatekeeper". Any person is an amateur in most cases because he/she may only be a professional in a limited number of professions. But amateurs do not mean that he or she does not care about the industry or the issues in the circle, especially social events. In the mass society, all by the reader to self-determination, that is pure idealism. Pull is a pervert, a push is the norm.

In a sense, 2.0 of the content of the return, more like an "index." There are indexes (index) behind many of the Western academic works, and the index is good outside of the directory to provide a means of retrieval, so that readers can quickly and conveniently access to various information under the topic. However, it is important that the index itself is not content.

This is where Web2.0 's content is returned. On the one hand, the site has a new awareness of the media characteristics that they are in fact unable to get rid of, and on the other hand, the real content portal will be born through the "index" of human (most likely also the user).

(the author is blogbus.com chief operating officer)