What Makes a Web 2.0 Winner?
No surprises, MySpace did not fare quite so well, but sites like Flickr and Writely came out trumps. This led me to question - what is it that actually makes a site a web 2.0 winner?
The answer seems almost obvious and yet few seem to take note. To be a winner, provide a singular service/feature, developed and presented well and you'll have a good site on your hands. Obviously, this depends whether the idea/service/feature you offer is actually any good or not. But, a single redeeming feature is sufficient to offer considerable identity and branding, whereas sites (such as MySpace) become bloated.
Del-icio-us is another great example: a nice simple service, executed in an accessible manner. Myspace (without intending to pick on it *too* much) is based on a good concept but has had excessive levels of functionality crammed into the frame of this good idea, to the point where it would be nigh impossible to summarise it in a single sentence.
So Am I a Winner?
While it is unlikely that the reasons I've stated above are the crucial factors in deturmining whether you are a winner or not, they are clearly a trend that fits the pattern. If you have a good idea, stick with it. Don't attempt to pad the site around the idea - sometimes simplicity is the key.
Make me a winner
Seopher.com isn't exactly a web2.0 winner but to be a winner, grab hold of your good idea and put a nice, uncluttered design around it, put it on Digg and hope for the best. "Eh?" I hear you say, well, the reason for using Digg would be to get people to see your great idea, because after all, a good idea can't have impact without the weight of the user behind it.
Enjoy this article? Why not subscribe to the full RSS feed?
