Slow Down Web 2.0!

I wrote an article a short time back about hakia, a semantic based search engine that I found fascinating. The reason I found it so fascinating is because I have a normative mind set. This is a function of a human mind trained to accept empirical evidence, but compelled more by the feeling or nature of the universe. Neither empiricists nor normative people are either superior or inferior, but do often betray their natures on the Web and in the physical world. 

I just read another article on virtually the same subject by Richard MacManus of Read/WriteWeb. This article was actually different from my own in several respects, but primarily in that the author did a much better job of organizing data to help readers view the technical side of this amazing new search engine. One might view my side of the argument as the "normative" side and MacManus' version as the "empirical" side.

So we have two sides of the same coin and the dilemma we all have in qualifying and quantifying a host of issues. Web 2.0 to some is as fallacy, while to others it is a sort of religion. The truth of any argument nearly always rests squarely somewhere between the two extremes. One huge drawback to Web 2.0 is the vast amount of information at hand. Ironically this is also one of the greatest positive attributes for the Internet. We need a way to decipher all this information, but we also need the time and ability to maintain a discourse with one another.  

I noticed something very interesting in the comments of MacManus' post. There were just a few comments, but those tended to follow what has become a familiar pattern. We see empiricists either holding true or betraying their nature, as well as normative people expressing their true inclination or betraying it in an effort they seem empirical primarily as a function of time.  People are in too much of a hurry to either praise or condemn anything on Web 2.0, including the very validity of Web 2.0 itself!

Take a look at the bold highlighted words these several people use in their comments on Macmanus' great article:

1. "It's a beautiful technology" - A positive normative statement.
2. "Imagine the possibilities" - Another positive normative statement (mine, I might add).
3. "Flipping through my "about us" files of other alternative search engines" - An empirical betrayal giving a list of alternatives, however well conceived.
4. "Hakia not only understands English" - Empirical illustrative observation.
5. "He must be joking right?" - Normative betrayal because of biased towards Google.
6. "The web isn't academic anymore…" - Empirical betrayal, likely had no time to examine evidence.
7. "I would HIGHLY recommend this video on YouTube." Misdirected empirical opinion.

The part that is so striking here, or to me at least, is the tendency for these same patterned comments to appear on most blogs and forums. Nearly every article I read has the same combination of diverse attitude and representations for what is right and wrong with Web 2.0. No one seems to want to stand on the ground and actually discuss issues.

Beauty, functionality, effectiveness, differentiation and empirical and normative virtues are all attributes necessary to validate something excellent. The problem with all the comments on blogs and sites across Web 2.0 is this. We have empirical people making normative comments and normative people attempting to give empirical evidence, and most often with limited time to do an evaluation in the first place.

Look at the comments on this post yourself. It is easy to see that the person leaving all the "alternatives" is an empiricist who does not want to delve into the search engine to give evidence of how it won't work etc. People commenting in Web 2.0 could be true to their nature if they just took more time rather than "flipping" around so much. Google, MySpace, Yahoo! and YouTube have trained you all to flip rather than inquire, and that is why Web 2.0 is in some trouble.

My suggestion for everyone who cares about the opportunity we have with Web 2.0 is to take a little more time. Slow down just a few breaths per minute and pay respect to what an author or person is trying to tell you. I am sure that MacManus did not just "snap" this article out in 10 minutes. I certainly did not write my version in an hour or even two.

Staying true to our natures is important, I don't have to research hakia for 100 hours to be able to tell you it is magnificent, but Dr. Berkan and his associates cannot build it with just normative visions of grandeur either.

If you don't have the normative gift to tell the difference between the most innovative work of 2007 and some Lithuanian cheese finding search engine, please prove your point empirically! Finally, if you cannot prove empirically that Google will rule the Web for 10,000 years, please tell someone how much more beautiful it is if you are of that nature.