Last week I posted some thoughts about developing a web 2.0 community in Sharepoint to this weblog, as well as to the FastForward blog and the Future of Communities blog. These posts received a number of comments and trackbacks. I've collected all of these comments here. This is a very good example of the “conversation mode” of the blogosphere. I posted a problem and got a very rich set of responses from people all over the world.

Comments on Future of Communities:

2. Ishai Sagi Says: February 6th, 2007 at 5:32 pm

you must be kidding me!

It is obvious you have not tried MOSS (sharepoint 2007), and therefore not aware that, with the possible exclusion of point number 5 (I have no idea what “ajax desktop” is, so I wont comment on it), all of the points are either built in in sharepoint, or require small development effort. I would be happy to discuss this with you or anyone who cant find the feature in sharepoint. I am currently implementing a social network in a big (5K users) organisation, and you know what? sharepoint is more than good enough.

A point to note - most organidations dont want users to have blogs and such like, but do want a “social phonebook” - sharepoint allows that out of the box - just remove a specific permission in the administration panel. does your product do that?

3. Lee LeFever Says: February 6th, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Hi Kathleen. I have not seen Sharepoint’s newest features, so I won’t venture into the feature list. However, I have heard this question many times as well. What makes the question hard to answer is that a community/social feature is not a checkbox - implementation matters. Sometimes the nuances of feature design just can’t be accounted for in a side-by-side comparison.

Also, it has been my experience that Sharepoint is centered around documents and not people, to put it simply.

Lastly, I think it is worth mentioning why this question comes up so often. As you know, it’s because Microsoft products dominate business. Often, organizations get Sharepoint for free (or discounted) as a part of their enterprise software licensing. From their perspective, it is already there- so why not give it a try?

It’s an uphill battle, I know. You’re fighting the good fight. I know this may sound a tab ominous, but my bet is that MS will get SharePoint right soon and become even more of an elephant in the room.

4. frogpond » “Why can’t we build this on Sharepoint?” Says: February 7th, 2007 at 2:28 am

[…] This is interesting, an round-up why Sharepoint is (not yet) the best way to go when implementing social software for networks in organizations. Kathleen Gilroy of The Future of Communities Blog proposes some good reasons, among them that MOSS wasn’t designed explicitly for inter-enterprise collaboration across organizational boundaries: Cross network collaboration. Sharepoint is designed for work group collaboration inside the enterprise. But increasingly work is done inside AND outside the firewall.

5. Jeremiah Owyang Says: February 8th, 2007 at 10:03 am

The new version of Sharepoint is expected to have many features closely related to blogging, and wikis. I’ve demoed some of these tools when I was an enterprise intranet manager.

I’d love to video interview the new Sharepoint platform for podtech.net.

Also check out Blogtronix, communityserver, five across.

Here’s my thoughts after watching a live demo from the CEO of Blogtronix

http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2006/12/15/blogtronix-to-give-sharepoint-run-for-its-money/

I’m not affiliated with any of these companies, so this is just my personal opinion.

At the end of the year, I expect there will be some great tools we can compare and contrast from.

6. Steve Bayle Says: February 8th, 2007 at 11:41 am

Hal Varian has a good article in today’s NY Times called Kaizen, That continuous improvement strategy, finds its ideal environment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/business/08scene.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Basically its a great argument against SharePoint and for Otter’s integration of Web services. In a nutshell, Web services can and are continuously improved whereas Microsoft takes literally years – 5 in the case of their OS - to upgrade their software

Comments on the Otter Group weblog:

Re: “Why can't we build this on Sharepoint?”

posted by Stoneford on Feb 6, 2007 at 01:26PM (EST) | Permanent Link

Check out http://blogs.msdn.com/kn/ for the Knowledge Network Sharepoint add-on. AJAX support will officialy included with the release of MOSS 2007 Service Pack 1. This does not mean it is not possible to use ajax in MOSS 2007. There are some web parts freely available which allows tagging in MOSS, on document libraries and weblogs, wherever you want. You can than even assign the tags via Word 2007. cross-network collaboration: MOSS 2007 is designed for intranet, extranet and internet purposes, it can even cross these lines. It is even possible to show an internet facing site to a visitor, but when the visitor logs into MOSS it shows a whole intranet or extranet. User experience then, I agree with your point of view, but there is seemless interaction and integration between the office client suite and MOSS.

Re: “Why can't we build this on Sharepoint?”

posted by jadonk on Feb 7, 2007 at 03:19AM (EST) | Permanent Link

To me, the biggest issue is the learning curve for SharePoint. It is normal to trade-off the effort to learn and the effort to build. Often we suffer from “not invented here” syndrome and build something rather than learning what already exists. In many cases, however, that is quite healthy if we understand how to quickly meet our requirements without the need to learn an existing framework.

I often decide if learning the framework is worth the effort based on how many solutions implement a similar set of protocols. In the case of SharePoint, it seems to stand alone a bit. It is getting better, but I cannot see that it is worth the effort yet.

Comments on the FastForward b log:

1. Jaap Steinvoorte Says:

February 6th, 2007 at 1:20 pm MyAvatars 0.2

Check out http://blogs.msdn.com/kn/ for the Knowledge Network Sharepoint add-on. AJAX support will officialy included with the release of MOSS 2007 Service Pack 1. This does not mean it is not possible to use ajax in MOSS 2007. There are some web parts freely available which allows tagging in MOSS, on document libraries and weblogs, wherever you want. You can than even assign the tags via Word 2007. cross-network collaboration: MOSS 2007 is designed for intranet, extranet and internet purposes, it can even cross these lines. It is even possible to show an internet facing site to a visitor, but when the visitor logs into MOSS it shows a whole intranet or extranet. User experience then, I agree with your point of view, but there is seemless interaction and integration between the office client suite and MOSS.

2. Etienne Gonnaud Says:

February 7th, 2007 at 6:26 am MyAvatars 0.2

I totally agree with Jaap, Sharepoint really misses only one point of your list : user-centric design. It has all the other requiered “2.0″ features you mention. Not to mention some interesting features like SocialText’s wiki integration.

I had a look at Sharepoint as an Enterprise 2.0 solution some months ago : http://www.entreprise2-0.fr/2007/01/05/preview-sharepoint-2007-une-solution-entreprise-20/ (in french) or here http://www.socialsoftwares.com/blog/2006/06/27/enterprise-20-sharepoint/ (english version) but from another point of view.

3. Euan Says:

February 7th, 2007 at 7:43 pm MyAvatars 0.2

Great post Kathleen.

To a degree I believe that the technology doesn’t matter. It is possible to make Sharepoint do most of the things one would want - and there are plenty of examples being generated currently - but the bigger problem is the orientation and motives of those deploying it.

I tried to describe the problem in this post on my own blog.

4. Stewart Mader Says:

February 13th, 2007 at 4:19 pm MyAvatars 0.2

Kathleen,

Great post! and I think Euan’s comment is equally on the mark. Other tools have been rapidly changing to keep up with advancements in social networking and collaboration, but SharePoint has lagged behind, and its interface does give off that “sterile” feeling Euan describes in the post on his blog. I’ve posted my own take on this on the Atlassian Blog.

Stewart

Euan's blog:

In an e-mail correspondence with Tim Spalding from LibraryThing about Enterprise 2.0 I finally put my finger on why I don't like SharePoint.

If social computing is going to be effective in the workplace things have to be different - fundamentally.

When we started building this stuff at the BBC we were consciously trying to build the online equivalent of a collection of Cotswold villages with lots of footpaths between them. You know where the pub and church are, you’re comfortable in the environment and you can locate yourself. Corporate systems tend to be more like Milton Keynes. On the surface they’re efficient with lots of straight lines and signposting, but you get lost because everything looks the same.

Using a new tool really does feel like walking into a room and working out what the atmosphere is like, what the other people are like, whether they feel like people I could get on with and whether we will be allowed to take our time to form a relationship and begin to get things done. Dave Snowden was right when he said that you can’t manage knowledge but you can create a knowledge ecology.

I can't put my finger in what it is - the graphics, the language used or the intentions behind the software but I rarely get this feeling from Microsoft stuff especially not SharePoint. They are too good at creating sterile environments run by control freaks who hate messiness, consider conversations unprofessional and rarely understand the true pulse of their organisations.

This stuff may be seen as “business-like” at the moment but I don't believe it will be what business is like in the future.

December 04, 2006 | Permalink

Sharepoint is still stuck in the 90s - don’t get stuck there too.

On the FASTForward blog Kathleen Gilroy discusses her top answers when groups she’s showing her Otter Networks service ask “Why can’t we build this on Sharepoint?” She points out that when it comes to Social Networking & Digital Identity, Sharepoint doesn’t have the ability to build a personal profile and a social network on top of that, so people lose out on one of the most critical keys to finding like-minded collaborators.

Furthermore, not having the individual-centered tools means Sharepoint treats users as simply cogs in the wheel - that’s the opposite of the rest of the Web 2.0 trend. To get user-generated content, you need users, and to get users you need tools that compel people to show what they as individuals can contribute.

Control, control, control…Sharepoint’s got it, and it’s the opposite of the open, minimally structured philosophy that makes the wiki universally useful for anything. Sharepoint also has an extremely complex, workflow-centric interface. Software should learn how you work, not the other way around.

Last but not least, Sharepoint forgot all about tagging - the most flexible, simple and seamless way to organize information. Tagging does away with the hierarchy of folders, and it lets anyone find and organize just the information they need.

When the prevailing philosophy of Web 2.0 is individual-centered - give a person the tools to become deeply engaged - Sharepoint limits the individual to just the activities that are directly related to meeting business objectives. This might make it look good on paper, but in practice its impact on your organization will be as limited as the limits it puts on your employees.

Comments:

Something for you to ponder and read. Sharepoint does have a concept of personal profile. It is called MySite(http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointserver/HA101087481033.aspx?pid=CH100964111033). You do have the concept of controlling what you want to show other people and what you think should be private. Not only that it is very well integrated with search. Sharepoint has had this functionality since their 2003 product. I know you are competitor to them but spreading FUD is not the way to go atleast do some research on your competitor.

As for tagging you are correct in saying that there is no OOB solutions in MOSS 2007 but there are freely downloadable solutions that can be deployed on top sharepoint to achieve that. Here is one such link http://wsssearch.com/tagging.html. Here is another link http://blogs.msdn.com/sharepoint/archive/2007/01/22/taxonomy-tagging-starter-kit-for-sharepoint-server.aspx which has a starter kit that can be used.

Posted by: puneetn | February 10, 2007 7:45 AM

Hi Stewart,

Big fan of your product. I've helped make the case for an enterprise wiki at various companies. I'm always looking forward to Confluence releases.

That being said, you might want to take a look at this presentation of what SharePoint will look like in their next release: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=201756 and http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=177646. It's definitely not going compete in features, but it will be the most logical step for Office users. It does include tagging, personalization and wikis. Probably not as cool as Confluence, but it does have the Microsoft sticker on the side.

I've also seen SharePoint spread like wildfire in large companies because it convenient. It's only a click away in Office. Word 2007 has a blogging API that defaults to SharePoint.

Wiki in the enterprise will have to integrate with Office better than SharePoint if they expect to see widespread adoption. Confluence would greatly benefit if it re-evaluates its position against Office SharePoint Services.

Nonetheless, I'm still a Confluence fan and will continue to be an evangelist.

Posted by: Noah Campbell | February 12, 2007 3:05 AM

as I commented in that article, it doesnt seem you have enough expirience with sharepoint (or with corporates for that matter) to say the things you say.

The sharepoint wikis and blogs are not targeted at internet users, but are supposed to be intranet applications. The control is important to all corporates (who are afraid of getting sued because of improper content on the intranet). Also, sharepoint has the ability to remove the control, and remove the workflows and so on - so why do you say it's not good? It seems to me that sharepoint gives more options than regular wiki software.

Personally, I would love to have a sharepoint site as a blog, as long as I can customize it (like adding captcha support). but for my customers, I would suggest that sharepoint is fantastic as an intranet 2.0 solution, and a fantastic internet 1.0 solution.

Posted by: Ishai Sagi | February 12, 2007 1:32 PM

This is so wrong. Unless your are refering to the old version of SharePoint because the current version inclides Blogs and Wikis and has user editable profiles (My Site) along with coluge tracker and 'how I relate' to someone else based on organization hierachy and distrabition groups we both belong to.

Tagging is a core feature in SharePoint. In fact the lists containg the tag values can be used to tag the wiki's, blog's, documents, web pages, appointments, tasks, issues etc. So when you search (oh yea, it searches not only all the stuff in SharePoint, but almost anything else you point it at).

Yep, its an integrated platform, not another island!

Posted by: Ian Morrish | February 12, 2007 8:43 PM

so i'm just curious but what version of sharepoint are you referring to? if you're referring to sps 2003, then sure i'll give you credit that it wasn't up to par in terms of social networking, but you should check out the newest offerings that come with moss 2007. you'll be pleasantly surprised to see that the user is becoming central to the way the application server works. additionally, you'll see that there are blogs, wikis, rss feeds, personalized content…

Posted by: grayghost | February 13, 2007 1:24

“We don't need any more Web 1.0 solutions”

I beg your pardon?

Do you expect all brands to make their sites 2.0? what if I want a site that is pure information giving and not allow discussions? do you really think that all sites should allow user input?

What about govermental sites - do you think a page that has legal information should also contain a comments section?

The talk backs in major news sites have tought us that web 2.0 is not perfect. there are many spammers, and many flamers, and you just cant expect major brands to go 2.0 in their public face. I know of a person who developed a very ugly approach to Fiat. if Fiat ever decide to go 2.0, their site would be swamped with comments they will have to filter because of this guy. what's your solution?

Sharepoint 2007 lets you built a web 1.0 or even 2.0 solutions.

2.0 may require some tweaks - I would not use the out of the box configuration, but I will bet you whatever sum you want to bet that any solution you are selling to public internet sites to customers also requires configuration and customization before going live!

Posted by: Ishai Sagi | February 13, 2007 1:39 PM

Thanks to everyone who commented on this post so far. My comments below respond to specific points made in the above comments:

1. I'm not spreading FUD. The sheer fact that I put this on a log means I'm open to debate and listening to different points of view. That having been said, I maintain that SharePoint has some major shortcomings.

2. I do have experience with SharePoint - I wouldn't write about something I don't know anything about. Before I came to Atlassian I worked for a large organization that evaluated SharePoint, Confluence, and several other enterprise collaboration tools and much of what I wrote in this post reflects the conclusions we came to about SharePoint.

3. I also have experience with corporate organizations & needs. I've been a wiki consultant and evangelist on my own for about three years before coming to Atlassian.

4. Although Microsoft just released Office 2007 at the end of January, many large organizations won't upgrade to it very soon. The general reaction to both Vista and Office 2007 has been lukewarm at best, and even in the past when reaction to new products has been more positive, many organizations won't make that switch for some time, and will likely look at other tools in the meantime.

5. “I would suggest that sharepoint is fantastic as an intranet 2.0 solution, and a fantastic internet 1.0 solution.” We don't need any more Web 1.0 solutions - the whole point is that we're in the midst of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is a phenomenon that no one can ignore, and it's producing very compelling tools that respond to critical collaboration, networking, and knowledge construction needs. Microsoft has had a pretty tough time embracing Web 2.0 and it shows in their products, so I think organizations owe it to themselves to look at all their options, especially those that already provide a fantastic Web/Internet 2.0 solution.

Posted by: Stewart Mader | February 13, 2007 4:33 PM

First of all Stewart I must apologise that I came out stronger in my last comment then I intended to. Now to respond to some of your comments:

“I maintain that SharePoint has some major shortcomings” - It is hard to argue with that generic statement. No product is perfect and sharepoint is not perfect. Having said that the shortcomings are not what you necessarily mention.

“Before I came to Atlassian I worked for a large organization that evaluated SharePoint, Confluence, and several other enterprise collaboration tools and much of what I wrote in this post reflects the conclusions we came to about SharePoint.” I do not know which version you evaluated. sharepoint 2003 did have the concept of my sites which has evolved in MOSS 2007. I will agree that sharepoint 2003 had very primitive social networking but in 2003 when the product was released the concepts were primitive at best for enterprise software.

Posted by: puneetn | February 13, 2007 6:01 PM

Manual trackback … automated didn't come through, so I am late to the party

http://www.frogpond.de/index.php/archive/control-control-control/

Stewart Mader is taking Kathleen Gilroy’s discussion of “Why can’t we build this on Sharepoint?” (here my take on it) farther, pointing out that some of the underlying principles are in some ways antiquated (“Sharepoint is still stuck in the 90s - don’t get stuck there too”):

- focus on the group not the individual, limiting the emergence of new informal social networks

Yes, finding like-minded collaborators starts with the individual, its competencies and interests, not necessarily with the work group he’s currently in.

- an overly mechanistic view of employees - overseeing many complex issues (motivation, informal organization overlaying formal organization, resistance to naive steering attempts, …)

Posted by: Martin Koser | February 13, 2007 8:04 PM

Puneetn,

I think you made a great point that social networking concepts were pretty primitive in enterprise software when SharePoint 2003 came out. Probably the biggest difference between then and now is that many other enterprise software products have seen more frequent updates to keep up with the rapid improvements in social networking. It's a fast-changing world!

Stewart

Posted by: Stewart Mader | February 14, 2007 2:56 AM

My comment about the post you referred to being old was wrong - http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/02/06/why-cant-we-build-this-on-sharepoint/ - is about MOSS.

Share This

Share This

Share This

I'm at the FastForward conference in San Diego working as a blogger and podcaster. It has been very interesting. I will be posting video here, on the Fast Forward blog and on my learning 2.0 podcast series. Here are my notes from the talks I've heard:

John Batelle on the future of search:

• Search is the new interface. The first interface was the C:\ to Dos. The second was the “hunt and poke” mac interface. The Google search bar gave us the third interface. And we are about to move into a new dimension of search where searches organize themselves around our intent and enable intelligent conversations. (Amazon is the example.)

Andew McAfee on enterprise 2.0:

• Enterprise 2.0 is about new forms of collaboration and unlike previous enterprise computing efforts, e20 enables the expression and capture of judgement.
• E20 will not happen just by building new technologies and expecting people to use them. It is hard to get e20 to become part of the DNA of a company and it will require sustained management and leadership through coaching, rewards and incentives, leadership, and building a culture that is attuned to the benefits of working in this new way.
• E20 is very different from groupware (Notes, Sharepoint) in that it is very unstructured. Groupware often failed because it demanded too many rules and the terms of interaction were defined from the start.

im O'Reilly on web 2.0:

• Web 2.0 is defined by building systems that get better as much people use them. This means asymmetric competition in the information business. But there are opportunities to work in the global information commons. O'Reilly hosted a panel where he interviewed the search person from Reed and the head of business development for Fast. They discussed producing more contextual search and looking at federated search where the data coming from multiple customers was combined and made available.

I'll be attending a couple more sessions today and will post my notes. Stay tuned for the video interviews. They are quite interesting.

Share This

Hal Varian has a good article in today’s NY Times called Kaizen, That continuous improvement strategy, finds its ideal environment.

Basically it's a great argument against SharePoint and for Otter’s integration of Web services. In a nutshell, Web services can and are continuously improved whereas Microsoft takes literally years – 5 in the case of their OS - to upgrade their software.

Share This

I have just started to demo our new Otter Networks service – it takes the best of web 2.0 tools and makes them available to communities inside and outside the enterprise. (You can see the slides that go along with the demo here.) After having done this for four groups, the first question that comes up is why not do this on Sharepoint? I have my own reasons which I will outline below. But I would love some additional help on articulating why or why not just do this in Sharepoint? Here are my responses:

1. Social Networking/Digital Identiy – Sharepoint is designed for internal collaboration via email and document sharing. The newest version does have blogging, wikis and RSS capabilities:

(From the Microsoft web site) MOSS 2007 provides a number of new features while improving the existing collaboration platform by providing built-in abilities for document management and alerting, adding new capabilities like blogs , wikis, and a Web Part for publishing and receiving RSS feeds.

But Sharepoint does not have built in social networking and rich profiling which we think is key for finding the right people to help you work. Each person in an Otter Learning Network is automatically given a weblog and a dynamic profile page that includes tags and aggregates all of the contributors you have made to the network. People, contributions and ideas can be searched for and tracked using RSS feeds.

2. User Experience – Web 2.0 consumer applications have been successful because they are open, easy, and fun. Sharepoint has a notoriously complex user interface which along with IBM, Jerry Bowles characterizes as “top-heavy style that aims to please IT by building in a lot of expensive control functions that frustrate end users and ensures that social software experiments are likely to fail in large organizations.” Otter Networks are designed to “'consumerize” the experience of moving seamlessly back and forth between the desktop and web applications.” (Again Jerry Bowles.) We use a web service (iUpload) to customize how information is published and shared and integrate the best web 2.0 consumer tools for managing podcasting (Hipcast) and video (Brightcove) and the desktop (Netvibes). Otter Networks are open and simple in their structure thereby making it easier to build contributions and participation.

3. Cross network collaboration. Sharepoint is designed for work group collaboration inside the enterprise. But increasingly work is done inside AND outside the firewall. So as part of our service, we build and maintain a library of public materials (podcasts, videos, slide decks, pdf files, and blogs) that can be syndicated into each network and used by contributors.

4. Tagging. While Sharepoint does incorporate search, it lacks tagging—a web 2.0 feature that we feel is critical to collaboration. Tags enable personal categorization of information inside a network. Tags make it easier to find and track both information and people. Tags make collaboration simple and seamless.

5. AJAX Desktop. Sharepoint now incorporates an AJAX-like desktop in its MySite feature:

My Site that fully utilizes the functionality of a SharePoint site. Users can create lists, document libraries, or subsites under their My Site and customize the viewing of these sites for both their personal and workgroup views.

While I have not yet tested this, it doesn’t look like it has the flexibility or the personalization of the AJAX desktop. (It would be great to hear from someone who has used My Site and who can compare and contrast with an AJAX Desktop.) For demo purposes, we have integrated our first Otter Network with Netvibes. Netvibes is very much like Google desktop and Pageflakes and Microsoft Live. We have selected it because it supports secure RSS feeds and it has a good API for developing modules that integrate with our network. We can set up a nice podcast player in Netvibes, for example, that draws in all of the podcasts in your network. And we are working on enabling publishing from Netvibes to the network. All of these things make the user experience simple and fun.

6. Me-First design. Sharepoint and other enterprise collaboration systems like Lotus notes are missing a key ingredient in today’s social networking systems: a focus on the individual rather than on the work group. Stowe Boyd described this as “Me-First design”:

The basic model of 90’s era collaboration, a la Lotus Notes, is all about the group. Information was managed in group-based repositories, then passed around for review, or published to intranet portals via customized apps. Information era workflows where people are first and foremost occupiers of roles, not individuals, and the materials being created are more closely aligned with groups than individuals. Web 2.0 social tools—largely—work around a different model. Social networks—explicit ones like MySpace and Facebook, or implicit ones in social media—are really organized around individuals and their networked self-expression.

We have built Otter Networks from the ground up with a focus on the individual. Our design incorporates the structure described by Boyd here:

I start with a profile of myself, since I am the center of my network. I characterize my interests, history, job, whatever. This could include feeds, queries, and all manner of dynamic information, not just static text. I tag myself, to make it easier for others to discover me. The buddylist is the center of the universe, so I next start to link to those people and sources most important to me. Their traffic—flow of insights, recommendations, and presence—is the most important thing forming my world. And of course, I want to share my traffic with my network: links, recommendations, posts, presence. All my downstream buddies, those who want to read my traffic, can access it. But we don’t need groups to do so. Instead of groups, we need groupings: tagging the elements of network traffic is sufficient.

This design philosophy of building around the individual rather than the group profoundly changes the user experience. In the new web the individual contributor is at the center and everything emanates out from there. In an application like Sharepoint, the individual exists to serve the group and is empowered simply to publish and read inside a shared private space. Our experience with bringing web 2.0 inside the firewall is that blogging and rich profiles give people a new kind of reputation and expertise. They make it easier to present yourself and to be found. This is really transformational in terms of engaging participation and contribution. In the Otter Network, the individual is given recognition and her expertise is made manifest.

So please post your thoughts on this pro and con….

Share This

I was very interested to read about the new Pew Internet study of tagging because I believe it is easiest web 2.0 activity to use. Tagging moves something we already do privately – create labels for bookmarks in order to organize the public web – from the private to the collective. Tagging is social in that we can track what others have found interesting, as well as share our pursuits and interests with others by creating “shared tags.” When tags are looked at collectively, patterns emerge. Even within small groups, tag clouds illustrate the most useful and powerful links for the group.

The Pew Study has discovered that:

28% of internet users have tagged or categorized content online such as photos, news stories or

blog posts. On a typical day online, 7% of internet users say they tag or categorize online content.

The big sites that use tags are showing dramatic growth:

Dave Weinberger is interviewed for the Pew study and he explains why he thinks tagging is growing so quickly:

First, tagging lets us organize the vastness of the Web — and even our email, as Gmail has

shown — using the categories that matter to us as individuals. You may want to tag, say, a

Stephen King story as “horror,” but maybe to me it's “ghost story” and to a literature professor it's

“pop culture.” Tagging lets us organize the Net our way.

This is a short report but an important one. I believe we'll see tagging become more pervasive, even inside the enterprise.

Share This

Later this morning I will be interviewing Jay Bryant at TV Guide about TV Guide's strategy for communities. I will be posting our interview to the Learning 2.0 Podcast series as well as to the Fast Forward weblog later today.

In preparation for my interview, I found a very good tip sheet for bloggers to build an audience for their blogs. You can read the full article and see the associated illustrations here.

Incorporate keywords in your copy.

Keywords are the words or phrases people think of when they search on the Web, and they help search engines like Google find your page.

Build a link network. This includes:

1. Friends, family and co-workers

If people you know run blogs or own Web sites, ask them to link directly to your blog.

2. Fan sites

If your blog is dedicated to a specific show or celebrity or has a distinct theme, search for similar sites on the Web and ask them link to your blog.

3. External links - When appropriate, add external links in your blog to sites that are relevant to the topic and will be interesting to your users. For example, if you’re blogging about Grey’s Anatomy, you may want to including a link to the Grey’s Anatomy official fan site.

Be an active member of the community.

You can do this by reading and commenting on other people’s blogs. The more you comment, the more other TVGuide.com Community members will be curious about who you are and what you have to say.

Stay tuned for my interview…

Share This