La Web 1.0 surgió en el año 1991 (tras varios intentos previos por parte de su creador) cuando Tim Berners-Lee, trabajador del CERN creó la World Wide Web.

Tal fue la repercusión que tuvo esta nueva tecnología (de la cual tuvo mucho que ver Tim Berners-Lee, el CERN y el W3C, al considerar que los estándares fueran libres y disponibles para todo el mundo) que el grado de alcance de la misma a la población mundial crecía exponencialmente año a año.

Viendo las posibilidades que tenía este nuevo medio de comunicación, empresas de todo el mundo se lanzaron a la búsqueda de El Dorado. Nunca se había podido llegar a una audiencia potencialmente tan grande y que además no paraba de crecer. Esto convirtió a la Web 1.0 en la era del Internet dominado por las empresas, que eran las que creaban los contenidos y dominaban la opinión en la red, de ahí surgieron, por ejemplo, los portales de servicios. Era tal el crecimiento de la red y las posibilidades que se empezaban a vislumbrar, que las grandes fortunas y las grandes empresas querían posicionarse fuera como fuera, de ahí, el comienzo del boom de las .com, en el año 1995 tras la salida a bolsa de Netscape que multiplicó por varios digitos su valor inicial de cotización.

La visión de que la WWW era el futuro era correcta por los analistas de la época, el problema principal es que todavía no existía una cultura de Internet, por mucho que el número de habitantes de la misma creciera desorbitádamente, de ahí el fracaso de las .com, donde prácticamente cualquier idea tenía un inversor detrás, por mucho de que la idea fuera humo o fuera un servicio demasiado adelantado a su tiempo.

Tras el crack de las .com, hubo unos años de cierto desasosiego, ¿no era la WWW realmente aquello que se imaginaba?, esto sirvió para que la red recobrara algo de tranquilidad y se reajustase. La perdida de inversores y del interés de las empresas, dió paso poco a poco al dominio de los contenidos de Internet por parte de sus usuarios, de ahí que surgiese el concepto de Web 2.0, inventado por Dale Dougherty y utilizado por primera vez en una conferencia por Tim O’Reilly en octubre de 2004.

La Web 2.0 en realidad surgió antes, aunque no se conceptualizase hasta esa fecha, ya que la nueva Internet surgida tras la caída de las .com, ya se iba enfocando hacia el usuario final y su participación.

En la era de la Web 2.0 las empresas vieron como el público de Internet seguía creciendo y además ya no era un espectador que se limitaba a consumir servicios, sino que participaban en los mismos. La cultura de lo que es la WWW se extendía por momentos, la sociedad estaba más preparada para esta nueva tecnología y por tanto muchos modelos de negocio que fracasaron en la Web 1.0 sí eran viables en esta nueva era.

En la Web 2.0, era en la que todavía nos encontramos, ha conseguido la democratización en Internet, este mundo alternativo formado por cadenas de unos y ceros que se propagan de un lado para otro, ha permitido alcanzar un nivel de democracia que para sí lo quisiéramos en el mundo real. En este mundo 2.0, todo el que tiene medios para acceder a Internet tiene una vía abierta para escuchar opiniones libres de ciudadanos de todo el mundo y para exponer la suya y ser escuchado.

Muchas empresas, gobiernos, poderes fácticos no se sienten cómodos con un Internet así, un medio de comunicación de masas, multidireccional, democrático, libre y pretenden acabar con la neutralidad de la red, con la capacidad de los usuarios de la misma puedan acceder a los contenidos que quieran sin ser dirigidos a unos determinados tipos de contenido concretos seleccionados por quién sabe quién, para quién sabe qué propósito.

La libertad de expresión, la libertad de elección, la libertad en general, debe defenderse con uñas y dientes para impedir que se acabe con la neutralidad de la red. Grupos de poder económicos y políticos de muchas partes del mundo quieren ser los que pongan las reglas del juego en la red, lo que supondría una involución de Internet y la vuelta de nuevo a una Internet no gobernada por los usuarios, sino a una Internet censurada y que bailaría al son de las fuerzas que la dirijan.

No hablo de teorías conspiranoicas, sino de la agrupación de intereses de gobiernos, empresas, lobbys, fortunas, etc… en que las reglas del juego no la pongan los ciudadanos, sino ellos.

Esa es la Web 3.0 que quieren algunos (que en realidad son muchos), en contra de lo que quieren cientos de millones de personas en el mundo. De nosotros, de nuestro esfuerzo, de nuestra voz, depende que la Web 3.0 no sea otra cosa que otro paso más para que en el mundo haya más libertad y democracia.

Uno de los padres de Internet, Vint Cerf y el padre de la WWW Tim Berners-Lee, y que saben de esto más que nadie son profundos defensores de la neutralidad de la red, ¿será por algo verdad?.

This week was the first week back at uni after 2 weeks of holidays… which went extremely quickly of course. Our lecture was about Web 2.0, and to be honest, I didn’t completely understand the term.  At home, I decided to google web 2.0 and see what I could find, and a site which helped me understand it is http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

On this page is a table which outlines the differences between web 1.0 and web 2.0, as well as a map that makes it clearer to understand. I’m pretty sure I have my head around it now!

Something I found rather interesting in the lecture was the statistics on web use, and how much its use has grown. With web 1.0 in 1996, there was an average of 45 million global users, whereas with web 2.0 in 2006, there was roughly 1 billion global users. A huge difference, which proves exactly how big the web has grown, and continues to grow. The great thing about the web growing is that with each user, the usefullness of the web grows. This is the network effect.

In the tutorial we all had a look at each others blogs and where everyone is up to. From this, we were all given a bit of feedback on how to make our blogs more visually appealing, and how we could fix up the content.

Only 2 more lectures left in this unit which I can’t believe! Its gone so quickly… but its been really interesting. For now though… there’s still more to learn  =)

I’ve enjoyed doing this blog; it has combined two of my main interests, football and, err, geekyness.

Hopefully the blog has given a bit of an insight as to how football coverage is changing because of the web. I think it’s interesting how some organisations such as The Guardian, and the BBC seem to be embracing the rise of the Web and are introducing new, innovative ways of providing their content, whereas some organisations, naming no names, seem to be firmly stuck in Web 1.0 land, simply using the Web as a front to present old fashioned coverage.

My career aims have definitely changed in the last year or so as a result of becoming more and more interested in the Web. I’d still love to be a football reporter, but I’d love to combine that role with the emerging online technologies. I think, in fact, that the Web will play an increasingly crucial role in the coverage of football and it will be necessary to have a combined skills set of traditional reporting and more contemporary ideas.

In the digital era in which we live, access to information is invaluable, avenues are numerous, boundaries are becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish, and networking with contacts continues to proliferate. Technological advancements have improved the functions of web 1.0 to 2.0, with a noticeable shift from web-generated content to unlimited access by any users. Web 2.0 provides internet users the ability to larger access to varieties of content, in an increasingly deregulated arena, where user contribution is enabled and encouraged. The distinct differences between web 1.0 to web 2.0 are highlighted in Carmode and Krishnamurthy’s (2008) peer reviewed online journal, “Key Differences between web 1.0 and web 2.0“. This journal nominates increased social networking, improved web site design and useability, and collaboration in content creation as key functions present in web 2.0 that were not available in the former. Increasingly, users are encouraged to participate in web contexts that exude limitless information access and deregulate ownership and content creation boundaries.

This accurately describes ‘produsage’ - a term supported by QUT professor, Axel Bruns. Bruns incorporates this onto his personal blog ‘Snurb‘, as “Relations between brands and their users continue to be affected by a traditional perspective that sees the producers and consumers of goods and services as inherently different animals. In the emerging information and knowledge economy, and especially in online contexts, this model is no longer sustainable. Instead, spearheaded by the Web 2.0 phenomenon, there is a trend towards the fusing of production and usage as a new, hybrid process of produsage (Hamburg 2009). Prosumers (consumers of produsage) are the collaborative users of content, where their contribution extends scope of research, variety of information platforms available, increases ideas networking and allows collaborative participation with fellow prosumers. Bruns theorises that 4 key principles apply in the produsage environment, regardless of the objects behind the collaborative purpose:

1. Open Participation, Communal Evaluation
2. Fluid Heterarchy, Ad Hoc Meritocracy
3. Unfinished Artefacts, Continuing Process
4. Common Property, Individual Rewards

Produsage possesses noticeable benefits - the desensitisation of content opens numerous portals for prosumers to share and contribute to discussions of interest. As shared intelligence proliferates, so too do ideas and notions, and essentially, the open participation component allows prosumers free insight to a number of thought avenues they may not have considered. This is evidenced through websites such as Delicious, where websites are bookmarked and tagged with relevant descriptive labels that any user may access and share. Futher, the ‘work of art’ nature embedded in the produsage concept means that all entries are ‘unfinished artefacts’, and may be continued upon, mistakes edited, changed, deleted, enhanced, added to and cross-referenced at any time by an author. Bruns’ concept of ‘fluid heterarchy’ in the key principles enables all users instant and unbiased collaboration abilities, where the heirarchy structure is disassembled to allow prosumers equal access rights to content.

Alternatively, however, produsage tends to eliminate barriers of authorship and content creation, drawing on Bruns’ fourth key principle, ‘common property’. In platforms where data is produced through a shared effort, ownership cannot be attributed to one creator, and editing is done at the discretion of all users. This is seen in websites such as Wikipedia, where articles that are produced may be edited or even completely deleted by other prosumers within the Wikipedia network. Information here is added according to the findings or personal beliefs of individual authors and may or may not be academically reliable. Creative Commons licenses may not be sought to copyright information that has been collaboratively produced, therefore ownership issues arise from produsage.

Essentially, web enhancement has introduced users to much-anticipated developments in web access and participation. Resultingly, advantages and disadvantages are evident from any occurrence such as this, however it is the prerogative of the prosumer whether he/she decides to take advantage of produsage benefits in web 2.0, or prefers older style systems that inhibit creative contribution, but protect ownership.

Internet, quando falamos essa palavra logo vem a cabeça, facilidade, conexão com o mundo.Pois bem, nem sempre foi assim, essa interação que a rede nos proporciona era muito limitada e não tinhamos a capacidade de relacionamento tão boa assim com a máquina.

Em 1995 o mundo conhece o www, e logo ele garante seu espaço. Com a possibilidade de encontrarmos tudo que precisamos lá, logo essa inveção tornou-se um grande sucesso. Nos sites de web 1.0 era possível encontrar tudo que necessitava-se, porém não podíamos contribuir, com nossos conhecimentos. Quem tinha o dom de manusear os sites,blogs, etc, eram poucos. Era uma via de mão única…um lado criava e outros absorvia, somente.  Sites de cursos, catálogos de produtos, tudo era feito para que o usúario apenas digerisse. Portanto, nos anos 90, a web 1.0 era feita para os seus usuários e ponto, interatividade era uma palavra que não havia chegado no vocabulário do Sr. Steve Case, seu criador.

Os tempos foram passando e a necessidade de interação foi crescendo. Os usuários comceçaram a sentir uma necessidade de participar do que era passado na rede. Foi então, que em meados de 2003/2004, surge a Web 2.0, seu surgimento foi uma grande revolução. Com o fim do pesadelo do bug do Milênio, foi possível enxergar uma luz no fim do túnel e tentar inovar. Foi dessa maneira, que Jimmy Wale, cria a geração da interação. Por fim, o mundo poderia interagir, seus usuários seriam capazes de usar e contribuir para o seu uso e dos demais usuários da grande rede. Com o surgimento da Web 2.0, surgiram sites de relacionameto, os números de blos cresceu de maneira significativa, e junto com este crescimento, vieram mais usuários. Essa era aproximou as pessoas, pois como todos podem ter domínio de sites e páginas, acabou a geração onde poucos detiam o poder sobre a web, os usuários começaram a se identificar e a querer participar. Com isso ocorreu o grande boom da internet, sendo hoje, uma das grandes causa para inclusão social. Podemos observar isso muito bem, nos vários projetos  que estão sendo feitos em comunidades carentes. É preciso integrar todos a esse meio para que tenhamos uma completa noção do que acontece no mundo.

Já passamos pela web 1.0. Em 2007, veio a 2.0.
Estamos entrando na web 3.0… e olha que já ouvi em 4.0

Acho que este vídeo abaixo mostra legal (e em Português) o conceito da 3.0.

 A internet é uma tecnologia inventada na década de 90 do século passado restrita ao uso exclusivo do exército norte americano, e pesquisas de trabalhos estudantis. A criação do protocolo HTTP expandiu para o mundo a comunicação entre várias redes de computadores. Em 1995, a ela chega ao Brasil, invade a rede mundial de computadores para conectar você com o mundo. Parece slogan de provedor, mas é a realidade.

WEB 1.0: compreenda o passado!

                A web 1.0 é caracterizada por ser uma internet comercial unilateral. Somente os administradores do site podiam postar as informações. Apesar de haver uma quantidade incalculável de conteúdo, os aplicativos só podiam ser acessados por assinantes. A falta de interação torna limitada a participação do receptor com os veículos. Com todas essas restrições ainda assim a internet se tornou um meio de comunicação rentável. Empresas de web designers lucravam com a produção de sites e blogs, assim como, os que produtores de informação. O que a web 1.0 prezava exclusivamente por conteúdo a web 2.0 peca em excesso. Resultando em informações inúteis.

Exemplo:

Site UOL na versão 1.0, em Dezembro de 1996.

Contudo, a internet é um meio de comunicação marcada por sua constante atualização. E chega em 2003… 

 WEB 2.0: seja rápido, viva o presente! Opa, já passou…

           Interatividade, essa é a palavra chave da geração 2.0. Esse é o momento bilateral da internet, pois ela oferece ao usuário assim como o usuário oferece a ela. O site concede informação e o receptor retribui comentando, sugerindo e até mesmo pautando. A participação é mútua. O aproveitamento da web cresceu vertiginosamente. Pessoas vivem paralelamente entre com duas realidades: a palpável, e a virtual. Posso ler um livro no sofá de minha casa no Brasil e, ao mesmo tempo, através da internet, participar de uma conferência nos Estados Unidos. Embora a publicidade seja à base de sustentação dos sites, a geração 2.0 é pública, com informações sem custos. Diferentemente da 1.0, onde o conteúdo era privado, exigia cadastramento do usuário. Os melhores sites são aqueles que permitem ao internauta a criação de conteúdo, comunidades e a interação. Em 2006, a empresa YOU TUBE (fundada em 2005) foi vendida para o GOOGLE (1998) por 1,65 bilhões de dólares.

Exemplo de interativida.

Site UOL na versão 2.0 – Março de 2009

Nova campanha da SulAmérica Seguros traz um game, que ao invés de filmes, banners e coisas do tipo web 1.0, traz uma porposta de intereção direta com o site, inclusive com beneficios para os dois lados. A proposta segundo o site Revista Publicidad é que a campanha venha a atingir um público mais jovem.

Para participar do jogo basta preencher um pequeno cadastro. Ao jogar, dependendo da pontuação obtida no game, você pode ganhar até três músicas e um wallpaper.

Legal é que todos podem ganhar os prêmios, e como ela conseguiu dar um brinde de baixo custo, mas que não seja uma das velhas canetas, ou coisinhas bobas como um pacotes de balas, bloquinho de notas que a gente nunca usa e por ai vão.

Para participar do jogo basta entrar no site: www.sulamericacomvoce.com.br e se cadastrar.

E acho que cabe a nós futuros publicitários realmente começar a desencanar das velhas obsoletas mídias, chamadas de outdoor, anúncio de revista, anúncio de televisão, anúncio de jornal e por ai vai.

Enquanto pensa baixe a sua música, eu já baixei as minhas.

A potted history of the Internet defined by 50 significant moments over the past 40 years, divided into 10 categories:

• In the Beginning

• Wiring the Web

• All About Email

• Welcome to the Social

• Online Media

• Web Property

• Web 1.0

• Web 2.0

• Law and Order

• Most Epic Fails

Full article here.

Related: Ten Great Moments in Internet History here. Wikipedia’s History of the Internet here.

History  of the Internet animated video:

(Python-esque version here)

(Related post on Web 2.0: The Machine is Us/ing Us here)

There is a lot of talk these days about how social networks will replace email…

While there are truths within these declarations, I will take the stand that this chatter is actually just an alarmist attempt to drive page views… because lets face it, email was the FIRST social network facilitated by the Internet. What we are seeing is just another evolution, the same way Web 2.0 evolved from Web 1.0 – it didn’t (and probably won’t ever) actually replace it.

A tweet or a status update is really just an unstructured email (or if you will, email 2.0).

The real distinctions to understand lie in how and when your organization is going to adapt to this change. Email 2.0 has tremendous power that the first generation did not – unfortunately it can also be a huge liability (see FedEx / Ketchum).

Structured vs. Unstructured… what controls are you (or CAN you) put in place?

If you have an employee in your organization using platforms like LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook for business AND personal use, where is the line or to what degree you can enforce corporate policies? They are clearly representing your brand when they take action in this space… policy and compliance is where we should have our attention (at least for now).

Please let me know how you or your company is handling this shift!

Best regards,
Nathan

————————————————————–

Nathan Egan is the Social Media Strategist & Web 2.0 Coach at Value Prop Interactive.

Follow Nathan Egan On Twitter

View Nathan Egan’s LinkedIn Profile

Whee! Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0!

So I ask an innocent question recently on Twitter: “What’s the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0?”

And I got a number of interesting responses.  So of course I have to blog about it, heh.

Heather Elias (@heatherflynn) wrote: @robhahn interruption marketing versus permission marketing.  Actually, I take that back. More like broadcasting versus engagement.

Stacey Harmon (@staceyharmon): @robhahn I think Realtors should have 1.0 websites, but participate in web 2.0 communities. I don’t advise agents to create web 2.0 site …although there is an element of “dynamicism” that Realtors should use on their 1.0 websites which make them more 2.0 like…

Derek Massey (@derekmassey): @robhahn 1.0 is push, 2.0 is push and pull. 1.0 is presentation, 2.0 is discussion. 1.0 is looking big, 2.0 is acting small

And of course, @matman had the best observation: If my math serves me correctly, Web 2.0 is Web 1.0 x 2!

The profound simplicity of Matman’s formulation aside, all of these quotes suggest something without going so far as defining anything.  What is an observer — and more importantly, a practitioner — to do?

[Now, to be fair, let's be clear that the above people were responding via Twitter with its 140-character limits.  So by necessity they had to be general; therefore, none of what is below should be seen as criticism.  In fact, I rather hope they'd come and participate and expand on these thoughts.]

Left... Right... Umm...

Imprecision Indecision

Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the typical real estate agent who is discovering the wild and woolly world of online real estate.  She goes to a conference, like RE Tech South or Inman Connect or perhaps a RE Barcamp.  She hears everyone talking about Web 2.0, about social media, about leveraging the most powerful form of marketing ever invented.

She’s got herself a website from one o’ dem website vendor fellas, and she figures she needs to get with the program.  She desperately desires to join the Web 2.0 world and the rest of it.

What is she to do?

Her current site is ‘broadcast’ whereas she wants to go to ‘engagement’.  Rather than presenting stuff, she wants to discuss them.

In practical terms, what does this mean for our newbie realestista?

The picture gets cloudier still when she realizes that the sites usually brought up as exemplars of the Web 2.0 movement are sites like Flickr, YouTube, and Wikipedia.  YouTube is literally broadcast for our newbie — she goes there to watch videos.  Flickr isn’t much different — she goes there to check out photos from other people.

Blogs are said to be the quintessence of “Web 2.0″, but she visits most blogs to read stuff other people have written.  Sure she can see that some folks comment and such, but hasn’t ever done it herself.  How is this different from people coming to her site to read her market reports page?

Her site allows users to search for listings, then returns results to them.  It’s all rather one-to-one in her view.  So what’s so Web 1.0 about her basic search site, and what would she have to change to make it a Web 2.0 site?  Just add a blog, or let users comment on the listing?

What does “dynamicism” mean anyhow for her?

The Disservice of Vagueness

Every time I go to a real estate conference where newcomers are introduced to the heady concepts and la revolucion sweeping their industry, I come away thinking that they all have the somewhat happy-but-dazed look of people who sat under a waterfall for a few hours.

They all go away feeling that they have to do something, and that they have heard the key to future success, but with precious few concrete action items.

The problem, I think, is the very imprecision of the terminology we throw around.  The vagueness performs a disservice to newbies.  Unfortunately, the imprecision and vagueness is built-in to the whole “Web 2.0″ meme/movement.

This seems a good place for a digression of sorts: What is Web 2.0?

In our initial brainstorming, we formulated our sense of Web 2.0 by example:

Web 1.0		Web 2.0
DoubleClick	–>	Google AdSense
Ofoto	–>	Flickr
Akamai	–>	BitTorrent
mp3.com	–>	Napster
Britannica Online	–>	Wikipedia
personal websites	–>	blogging
evite	–>	upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation	–>	search engine optimization
page views	–>	cost per click
screen scraping	–>	web services
publishing	–>	participation
content management systems	–>	wikis
directories (taxonomy)	–>	tagging (“folksonomy”)
stickiness	–>	syndication

The list went on and on. But what was it that made us identify one application or approach as “Web 1.0″ and another as “Web 2.0″? (The question is particularly urgent because the Web 2.0 meme has become so widespread that companies are now pasting it on as a marketing buzzword, with no real understanding of just what it means. The question is particularly difficult because many of those buzzword-addicted startups are definitely not Web 2.0, while some of the applications we identified as Web 2.0, like Napster and BitTorrent, are not even properly web applications!)

The post by Tim O’Reilly — I suppose the father of the term “Web 2.0″ — goes on to make claims like “Web 2.0 doesn’t have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core.”  And then O’Reilly supplies us with a helpful “meme map”:

Gravitational Core And Then Some!

If the “gravitational core” of Web 2.0 is “The Web as Platform” then every single real estate website in existence today — including the original Realtor.com circa 1996 — is Web 2.0.  If the key to Web 2.0 is “You control your own data” then not one real estate website today is Web 2.0.  Because not one real estate website controls its own data — nor does any user of any real estate website.

Look at some of the other “core competencies” like “Harnessing the collective intelligence”.  Whatever this might mean in Web 2.0, I think it’s safe to say that few real estate websites today are Web 2.0 under this scenario.  And the ones that might be able to make that claim are all portals aggregating the “wisdom of the crowds” of thousands of individuals — Trulia Voices, Zillow Advice, ActiveRain, and the like.

In other words, NOT an individual broker or agent website.

Then look at the peripheral concepts, such as “Trust your users” and “Hackability”.  In some ways, real estate web is almost defined by not trusting your users and not being hackable.

You can (and if you’re really interested, you probably should) read the whole article by Tim O’Reilly.  But for those who want to get to the meat, the conclusion brings the juice:

Core Competencies of Web 2.0 Companies

In exploring the seven principles above, we’ve highlighted some of the principal features of Web 2.0. Each of the examples we’ve explored demonstrates one or more of those key principles, but may miss others. Let’s close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core competencies of Web 2.0 companies:

• Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability
• Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them
• Trusting users as co-developers
• Harnessing collective intelligence
• Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
• Software above the level of a single device
• Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models

The next time a company claims that it’s “Web 2.0,” test their features against the list above. The more points they score, the more they are worthy of the name. Remember, though, that excellence in one area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven.

While Tim O’Reilly is speaking of “Web 2.0 companies” rather than “Web 2.0 websites”, if we apply the same checklist to websites especially in real estate, confusion reigns.

Based on the above list, for a savvy agent to transform her website from “Web 1.0″ to “Web 2.0″, the following would have to occur:

1. Leave the MLS and institute a proprietary listings database, with direct input from users of the website.  How else to get ‘control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer with usage”?
2. Listings without pricing — fully auctionize (is that even a word?) the real estate process.  Let buyers simply bid what they would pay for a particular house, rather than list a price for a home.  How else to “harness collective intelligence” or to “trust your users”?
3. No more “contact me” forms, but a “here’s the password to the lockbox” forms.  How else to enable “customer self-service”?

I am, of course, being just a wee bit facetious.  It would be impossible — or nearly impossible — to do any of the above, nevermind all of them.

It may be that Web 2.0 simply cannot apply to real estate sites that are of interest to the newbie realestista.  They’re not interested in starting a wholly new business model premised upon consumer self-service, wisdom of crowds, and control over proprietary data.  They’re simply interested in marketing themselves and their services (and the listings they are marketing) better.

So how do we do that?

You can only come to the morning through the shadows. - J.R.R. Tolkien

Dispelling the Shadows: Getting Specific

First step, I think, is to get away from vague exhortations and move towards specific action items.

Rather than “engage the consumer”, perhaps the recommendation should be “Have a blog”.

Rather than “push and pull”, perhaps the recommendation should be “Put a RSS feed on your listings”.

Whatever it is, ye legions of web designers, social media experts, and Web 2.0 evangelists need to get much more specific than you have been to date.  There needs to be concrete differences between a “Real Estate 1.0″ site and a “Real Estate 2.0″ site of the sort that can be put into an actionable format.

And those concrete differences have to be meaningful and measurable in some way.  There has to be a reason to put in a blog on a website, or to incorporate user comments onto listings.  The expert who is recommending a course of action should be prepared to deliver performance metrics.

Newbie Academy

What might be a great step forward is for conference organizers to consider creating a whole separate track for newcomers to the modern real estate web.  This “Newbie Academy” track would eschew broad statements and grand gestures and focus on action items with specific things they can do.

For example, rather than telling real estate agents that they need to make their websites more engaging, the expert instructor might step through different modes of engagement:

• Professional Resume: Since the consumer is seeking a professional to provide services, you will want to engage the consumer with a clear statement of your professional qualifications, track record, and accomplishments.
  • Action Item: About Me section on the website, with a detailed professional resume, including education.
  • Action Item: A link to your LinkedIn profile which duplicates your detailed professional resume.  Do not assume that users will click over, but make it an option.
• Personality: Because real estate is an intensely personal affair, consumers will want to feel comfortable with their agent.  And you will want to feel good about working with a consumer.  Showcase your personality in various ways.
  • Action Item: Make sure that the overall design of your website, from the homepage to the font selection, matches your personality.  Do not settle for a template site you haven’t even looked over much.  Work with a designer if you must to express yourself through the design of your site.
  • Action Item: Put a list of your favorite books, or books you are reading, in the sidebar of your website.  You can use websites like WeRead or Shelfari.
  • Action Item: Put your favorite movies on your site with Flixter.
  • Action Item: Put your favorite musicians and songs on your site with iLike, or create a streaming radio station with blip.fm.
  • Action Item: Create some movies of yourself talking about yourself, your family, your hobbies, or your interests with a webcam or similar and post them on the site.
• Expertise: Consumers expect real estate agents to be experts on the whole home buying and selling process, as well as the local market.
  • Action Item: Put together a detailed market report for your market including inventory, last sold, median listed price, median sold price, price trends, and days on market.  If you can’t put it together yourself, at least get a pre-packaged tool from sites like Altos Research or Zillow.
  • Action Item: Offer consumers a detailed look into your market with both statistical data about population, median income, employment, etc.
  • Action Item: Provide consumers with information about the schools, both public and private, in your market.  [Of course, if it were me doing this Newbie Academy, I would have to mention my employer....]
  • Action item: Etc. and so on, and so forth.
• Whatever Else: Yadda, yadda, and yadda.

And so on.  In this manner, the newbie walks away with a specific action plan to improve her website from its current sad state to a modern Real Estate 2.0 website.  She doesn’t need to get confused with all the vagueries of theory about what principles constitute Web 2.0 vs. Web 1.0, or whether social media encompasses video or not, or what-have-you.

Those topics are for the illuminati who already know the basics.  And typically, we just argue about them and debate them in an effort to boil down the misty wilds of imprecision to a more coherent set of understanding.

We Know Stuffzorz!

For the Illuminati

And those of us who are the Web illuminati… I think we have to get better at our craft.  We have to get better at understanding what the hell we are talking about, so that we  can put things into the sort of precise language and specific courses of action that a newbie can follow.  If we can’t speak of things in precise and specific ways, then we probably don’t understand it well enough to advise anyone else on it.

This is partially why I like to say that I have no answers, only questions.  Because Web 2.0, social media, and the like are so seriously ill-defined at times that I have nothing specific to recommend.  Categories seem arbitrary — e.g., what makes Flickr “Web 2.0″ and Ebay not?  Metrics seem invisible at times.  Evidence is always thin.

Under those circumstances, I suppose being circumspect, hedging bets and statements, and freely admitting ignorance are strategic advantages.  Something for the illuminati to consider…

-rsh

conteúdo criado por todos nós

As coisas evoluíram  no mundo da internet desde a época da Guerra Fria. A internet deixou de ser exclusividade das forças armadas americanas, depois foi a vez das universidades utilizarem esse recurso que ainda nem se parecia com a internet que temos hoje. Mais adiante com a criação de protocolos de comunicação a internet começava a engatinhar, e a grande explosão da rede foi após o surgimento com protocolo www. Com o surgimento dos navegadores, em especial o Netscape a internet caiu no gosto polular, isso já era o ano de 1995. No inicio da web popular como conhecemos hoje, as informações eram apenas disponibilizadas mediante cadastro, sem a capacidade de interação do internauta com o universo virtual. Seria como se a internet fosse uma grande enciclopédia (lembra da Barsa?), onde os conteúdos só poderiam ser lidos, mas não modificado. E as coisas caminharam nesse passo até meados de 2003, quando surgia o novo conceito de web, a 2.0 onde conteúdos poderiam ser pesquisados como antes, mas agora o internauta tinha total liberdade para interagir com a web, editando e publicando novas informações. Os termos web 1.0 e 2.0 foram criados para demarcar duas destintas fases da web., basicamente com fins comerciais. A web 2.0 reforça o conceito de troca e interatividade entre usuarios, criando e difundindo conteudo proprio como a wikipedia por exemplo, onde todo o conteudo é totalmente produzido por usuarios, e o site é simplismente uma plataforma de comunicação e compilação destes dados. Outro exemplo de ferramenta da web 2.0 é o site de busca Google, praticamente fonte de todas as pesquisas feitas na web. O buscador teve origem partir de um projeto de doutorado dos então estudantes Larry Page e Sergey Brin da Universidade de Stanford em 1998.

fonte de todos os trabalhos feito em aula

Para um futuro, bem próximo, podemos esperar a web 3.0, anunciada como a terceira onda da Internet, projeta estruturar todo o conteúdo disponível na rede mundial de computadores dentro dos conceitos de “compreensão das máquinas” e “semântica das redes”. Ou seja, as maquinas fazem todo o trabalho sujo e você leva ou louros da pesquisa. A Web 3.0 propõe-se a ser, num período de cinco a dez anos, a terceira geração da Internet. A primeira, Web 1.0, foi a implantação e popularização da rede em si; a Web 2.0 é a que o mundo vive hoje, centrada nos mecanismos de busca como Google e nos sites de colaboração do internauta, como Wikipedia, YouTube e os sites de relacionamento social, como o Orkut. A Web 3.0 pretende ser a organização e o uso de maneira mais inteligente de todo o conhecimento já disponível na Internet.

]]> http://apenasjames.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/web-20/ Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:51:18 +0000 Vignoli Leandro http://apenasjames.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/web-20/

Nessa ainda curta história da internet, ela já se divide em duas fases. São as chamadas Web 1.0 e Web 2.0. A primeira parte desde sua criação, em 95, e tinha como característica a informação restrita e paga. O usuário chegava na internet em busca de uma informação específica e o, digamos, “dono” desssa informação, era o único com o direito de distribuí-la e alterá-la. A chamada Web 2.0 é a segunda fase da internet, iniciada a partir de 2003. Dali, o usuário começava a ser uma peça fundamental na busca, e sobretudo, na troca de informações. O internauta passou a interferir nos sites, seja com comentários de notícias, seja com aprimoramentos, ou a criação de plataforma de informações criada pelo próprio (o Wikipédia), ou mesmo a troca de conteúdo, como o site de vídeos Youtube. E tudo isso, com o fator talvez mais importante: tudo de graça.  Outro dos aspectos mais difundidos com a chegada da Web 2.0 foi a chegada das mídias sociais, ferramentas criadas para gerar redes sociais via internet. Essas inúmeras ferramentas (entre elas, o Myspace, Facebook, e o Orkut) passaram a interligar pessoas de uma forma direta, algo  inpensável no surgimento da Web 1.0. Outra dessas redes sociais é o Last.Fm, que conecta pessoas através da música. Ali, o usuário, após criar o perfil, passa a ter armazenado todas as músicas que ele ouve no seu computador, em tocadores de áudio como o Winamp e o Windows Media Player, e a partir daí, cria um banco de dados com seus artistas favoritos e músicas mais tocadas.  Além disso, o usuário passa a ter uma rede de amigos em comum, que o conecta através de interesse específico ( ou seja, se você ouve um tipo de música tanto quanto outro usuário, o site mede o seu grau de compatibilidade com ele). Além disso, no Last.Fm pode-se trocar  músicas com os demais, e até mesmo, baixar algumas músicas disponibilizadas (gratuitamente, ou não). Entre as ferramentas mais legais do site, está o calendário de shows que acontecerão na cidade, todo elaborado, é claro, por qualquer usuário que tenha seu perfil cadastrado no site. Em resumo, ele adota todo o conceito da chamada Web 2.0.

Na década de 90, a Web 1,0 tinha como foco oferecer aos usuários conteúdo e informação. Sendo esta de mão única, a postagem das informações ficava restrita apenas a algumas pessoas responsáveis por isso. O conteúdo era, assim, de mão única, tendo o usuário que se cadastrar sempre que necessário.

Já a partir de 2003,  com a Web 2,0, o usuário passa a interagir e a participar deste processo. Começa a haver um compartilhamento, uma troca de informação e uma grande colaboração dos internautas. O site do wikipedia é um bom exemplo da web 2,0, pois é uma página da web que tem importante participação dos usuários.

 Outro grande exemplo é o site de relacionamento orkut, nele encontramos milhares de pessoas que interagem, trocam informações e compartilham seus momentos.