We Need to Structure, Organize the Web

Imagine if broadcast television and radio audiences had to almost blindly seek out shows and stations upon turning on their devices. Rather than finding things in a neat, orderly fashion - with plenty of guides to help them - they instead had to haphazardly locate it themselves. Think about how difficult it'd be to find your favorite show on Lifetime or the big football game. Sure, you might be able to write a few of the channels down but without any sense of orientation or direction, you'd more than likely be very limited.

In this endless, dark environment, there is plenty that you'd miss. Only the most popular or recognized sites would be easy to locate. You can only dream what this would create for advertisers. It would be very difficult to know where to spend money, how to reach people, and potentially raise the cost to do it.

That's the web experience as we know it. I believe we need to work together to change it.

If we don't, it'll only make it harder on everyone, from users to advertisers to businesses. It's open, vast environment will never be entirely tamed, but without a formal structure and/or guide, making money, using it to it's potential, and reaching audiences will continue to be difficult. Search is not enough. In fact, in some ways, search feels a little antiquated.

I'm of course not the only one who suggests the idea of adding structure online. There was a New York Times article this past week that referenced similar, and it's a discussion I've heard in small circles around the business. RSS, aggregators and crawlers, like Alltop.com, Google News and Wesmirch.com, albeit early are a step in the right direction.

Now, all we need is a strong, concentrated effort to get the users on the same mindset and doing it. Many people (including myself) use Google Reader, etc. - but the mass internet market is no where near this yet. I believe we will benefit to change this.

That's the thing about the internet. It's here to replace outdated communications channels like the PSTN telephone system (your landline) and broadcast television. This is because the web is a more stable, less expensive and versatile/flexible infrastructure. In a disaster or emergency, it's designed to continue to work. Oh, and it can be accessed anytime, anywhere, from multiple types of devices.

Until information industries like media and television see it this way, they will continue to slip - and take the users along with them.

The web is not as complicated as it appears. It's our job - and completely within our control - to "train" consumers to use and adapt to it in ways that make sense. If we can collectively create a organized system or structure to content and sites online - and teach users to adopt it - we can better monetize, advertise and improve the overall experience. Would it be in the form of a TV guide, built out to include digital media properties as well, or even social networks? Would it be owned by Google or TV Guide?

I'm not sure. But, the sooner we get on it, the better. The web is designed to improve our world. Foolish approaches will create the opposite effect.

**Sorry to have accidentally deleted one of the comments posted. I adjusted my original post to clarify as response.

Comments

[lastrefuge]

I have to agree with Allen. I think the web has developed plenty of organizational tools for the curious to discover. I enjoy the ocean of information. My television stays off 98 percent of the time because I HATE all the Fox News, canned prime-time shows, relentless ads and paid endless all-night yammering buy me buy me buy me. Keep your "business" and "rules" out of my WWW, thank you!

[AllenPapapetrou]

Patricia,
WE don't need to do anything because it is already happening without OUR trying. YOU may have to do something.

The web is developing organically according to the needs and whims of the users - Web 2.0, etc.

No one owns the web or its structure. The web transcends country, language, ethnic, religious, political, artistic and all other boundaries. And it is living, continually evolving.

I think two things we can organize w/o organizing the web are:
1. Web Search Engines - Google used to be nice. Now I get 1.2 million hits searching on "Florida Folk Music". Like I have time to look at them all. Let users build collections of search engine tools to easily drill down as in 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon.
2. Web Browsers - We have bookmarks (favorites) and history. Let users create pseudo pages and other tools to organize their web experiences

We should be able to organize our own web experience without having the impossibility of organizing the web.

So, just give me the tools to organize my experience of the web. And we are getting better tools. Google Reader is just one of many to come.

[Patricia Handschiegel - Huffpost Blogger]

When I say "we" I mean business. I believe that businesses have a responsibility to help migrate users and assist them in adopting web concepts. I don't think that many do this very well right now and that it makes it harder for everybody to use it.

I think people are mistaking structure as in taking away from the web's open format - that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that the mass users will adapt and adopt to it better, quicker, easier and more efficiently if we create some kind of road map for them. I don't believe this will take away from the experience but add to it and make it easier for business.

[recless]

The web may not be as complicated as it appears, but then it is still miles over the average user. The web also wasn't designed to be monied, advertized, or used by people looking for porn or new shoes (those of us old enough to remember ARPANET projects can attest to this). The internet _fell into_ being the "new" media, it wasn't designed that way. Its users were originally supposed to have an in-depth understanding of the technology. We, ah, so don't have that today. But perhaps the best question to ask is: who owns the web?

[Patricia Handschiegel - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks to everybody for the comments. I'm all about conversations like this even if people don't agree with my opinions. :)

I believe the web was created to be a utility. It's a communications platform designed to deliver information better, etc. I spent eight years in IP telecom, working with engineers who were building session border controllers and peering technology for VoIP, codec technology for video, and IP multimedia subsystems to deliver all the applications. It was absolutely intended to enable businesses to monetize beyond that - if it didn't, I'd assume it'd destroy whole economies - it's doing a great job dismantling many of them, like the music business.

I feel it's businesses responsibility to teach the users how to use it. The faster we focus on that, in my opinion, the faster adoption will be and the more successful we will be as a global society in moving to it.

[recless]

You’re missing the point. The Internet is not one thing. It was created to share information among universities on their government research contracts. The use of the net for business came much later. It has been "commandeered" by business. (Yeah, really, the Internet actually existed before the 1990’s).

As far as your statements about what is needed, I would argue that long before we worry about integrating the net into household appliances and improving the way companies sell things we need to have IPv6 fully integrated. Everything from cell phones to medical monitors to refrigerators and every bloody thing else will need an IP address. And would it be such a terrible thing to maybe slow the technology advance down long enough to deal with the issues of access? The “haves’ and “have-nots” of the technology world are going to see a wider gap over the next few decades, not a smaller one.

[Varkboer]

Firstly. The internet is here to stay. Nothing we do, will ruin it, as you imply.
Secondly, its doing a fine job in organising itself.
Look up folksonomy. Read some Shirky. Watch Kevin Kelly talk the Machine on TED.com and you'll get my drift.

Your comparison of old media like television and radio with the World Wide Web is like comparing rivers with the ocean. Sure, they are both about water, but they operate on totally different sets of rules.

[Patricia Handschiegel - Huffpost Blogger]

Sorry - I was talking about the world, not the internet :) I adjusted my post to clarify. That last sentence was tough to knock out clearly and I struggled with how to word that.

I don't agree that it's doing a fine job organizing itself - maybe for the early adopters who are using RSS, but not for the users like my dad, my sister, aunts, etc., or for businesses, who are struggling with many issues because it truly is a big, giant mess. If it were not the case, advertisers wouldn't be struggling with where to spend their money, so many wouldn't be having the trouble they're having marrying audiences to their platforms. I compare it to a society that doesn't have roads - without it, trekking across the countryside is a lot more difficult. Reaching those people as businesses is also a challenge. Again, this is just my opinion.

I don't entirely understand the last part of your comment, but if I understand correctly, I can't help but to disagree with it because IP as it has been taught to me will eventually pipe right into your 52" flat panel as a tv show, your cell phone as a voice call, or your handheld as your morning copy of the Wall Street Journal - and in my opinion, the rules will not be that much different. Certainly, users and our willingness to be guided and led won't. We haven't changed for hundreds of years in this aspect.

[AllenPapapetrou]

What do IP and TVs have to do with it? Unless you are talking about structure of content delivery in addition. The internet is P2P, point to point, unlike say Dish satellite TV which is omnicast.

IP currently pipes into your internet connected TV, like the 60 inch Sony I'm looking at now. Also, I have an Archos 5 IMT on order which has 1000 Web TV channels and 10000 Web radio channels.

Also, Patricia, consider organizing web based content with non-web content such as Google Earth.

The web is just the second popular internet communication vehicle. Many more will come. BTW my new Archos 5 has a GPS accessory holder to compete with Tom-Tom, etc.

Look at the organization of the world. Advertisers know where to advertise. Where their customers are.

Many businesses (Blockbusters) and people (old f*rts like me) may not make the move, but t new businesses and young folks are coming along all the time.

In the transition, the bounty of TMI!!!
To folks like your dad...focus, focus, focus, start simple, start small...KISS

[Varkboer]

What I meant by my rivers and oceans analogy was this:

Old media needed to be organised by few people because of how the technology that gives it shape is structured.

New media is structured in a way that allows for collaboration. This means the effort of many will contribute to a better collective. Take Wikipedia. Because of wiki technology, many people can quickly give it structure.

I disagree that only early adopters get value from the self-organising Web. Good examples are HuffPo - it aggregates and organises loads of external information.

[Querent]

Duh, we need something, and I don't know what.