To Centralize or Not To Centralize

by nikiscevak on November 21, 2005

Michael Arrington, who writes the very good TechCrunch blog, has been thinking about whether content should be centralized or not.

His view, along with 2.0 tree-hugger Jeff Jarvis, is that content wants to be de-centralized.

As far as I can tell, the only reason why it should be de-centralized is that in web 1.0 it was centralized and that web 2.0 is different from web 1.0.

Arguments that one thing will destroy another are usually wrong. I agree with the statement that review content will become more de-centralized but I don’t agree that centralized content sites wont thrive.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Microformats, Structured Blogging or whatever you want to call it might be the Most Improved Player but review sites like Tripadvisor, Amazon and Yelp will always be the MVP.

Even though the blogosphere is growing like a weed less than 5% of people have one. And that growth has come at the expensive of homepage sites like Geocities and Tripod, suggesting that users of those services are switching over to folks like Blogger and Typepad.

Even if blogging extends the number of people who regularly publish online there is still going to be a majority of people who might want to review a DVD or a dry cleaner that have no interest in starting a blog (a hard concept to imagine, no doubt). Even for the majority of bloggers, the importing of a structured blogging format is a more sophisticated version of tagging – a concept that they already don’t get.

No doubt it will get easier. No doubt the counter argument will be that the early adoptors are a sign of what’s to come. But in the end it is very hard to argue against the casual reviewing population being larger than the tech savvy regular reviewing population.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: