Once upon a time MySpace was my singular online destination. This was back in the day when I maintained a profile and spent hours tweaking the html much in the same vain as the rockin’ homemade acid wash jeans I once loved. These days my taste has mellowed and the empty moments of my day are now filled with twittering and the occasional dip in the Facebook pool.
So what is at the heart of the MySpace vs. Facebook controversy? I believe that it is primarily due to the oversight of installing a robust algorithm to ensure users remained engaged in their online community. Knowing that users are there to listen, create, and share should have been enough to inspire a cool tool to keep users engaged. Instead the focus remains on selling ad space and monetizing promotions. By the time Facebook became a household name the opportunity for MySpace to engage their users through internal services and apps had passed. I would have expected MySpace to work on interactive shopping and peer-peer recommendations. Instead they remain banner crazed and the level of noise on the site is what I imagine crazy to feel like, or at least a brutal migraine headache.
Facebook recently enhanced their internal algorithm to mixed reviews. Nothing is perfect, ever; however, community upset is perhaps the most problematic issue to manage. Civil upset can evoke a mass exodus. A reality that Friendster and other online communities know all too well. I’m not overly concerned whether Facebook retains its hold on the online community monopoly because I have no doubt that something bigger and better is inevitable (Twitter?). What is interesting to me is the gentle tweaking of internal algorithms that make the experience seem magical. OK, ‘magical’ is pushing it in terms of the Facebook experience, but my point is most users have no idea how or why the news feed produces its results, etc.
Lastfm.com is a great example of what I would have expected to see from MySpace. The sites algorithm is among the best I’ve seen and the experience is simply sweet. Recently the site changed from free streaming for all to a subscription model. Except for the US, UK, and Germany all users of the site must pay $3/month (USD) to enjoy the delightful radio station algorithm that seems to be able to read your mind and present music you currently know and love, music loved but forgotten, and music you never heard before and love immediately. Despite being able to provide a great service the change in payment model didn't go unnoticed, to say the least.
The mark of a good algorithm is that the more you engage with the site the smarter it becomes. Amazon.com has put this technology to good use for years, and it’s among a handful of reasons that it remains my favourite online shopping destination. If eBay and etsy could do the same thing for me I’d likely spend more time and consequently more money too. Providing a service that does the work of searching around for me is a place I want to spend my time. The only way a good algorithm can be bad is when users aren’t savvy enough to know the difference between intelligent technology and a breach of privacy - but that is a whole other topic that I’m not in the mood to address at the moment.
For now I’ll leave you with a final thought: What would happen if an online community with a sophisticated algorithm for predicting recommendations was mashed-up with products and services? The answer is the end of crappy online banners and wasted efforts on online promotions.
