At first I thought that the success of a network depended on how much it acted as a site-independent platform. You can see with Facebook and Twitter in particular that they have a useful API that has encouraged a ecosystem of applications and tools to flourish around them. New challengers have to compete, not only with the application itself, but the way it has embedded into the web.

But now, I’m starting to think that the distinction between Facebook as a website and Facebook as a platform is a natural extension of the fact that these sites must mirror offline relationships to be successful. If I have a close circle of friends, I don’t have to leave them behind in one place and then reassemble them in another. The tools exist (phone, IM, email) to communicate at all times, around any subject.

We don’t need a new social network for every conceivable topic because Facebook already fills that need. But conversely, we ultimately don’t need Facebook because even without it,  our relationships still exist.

What in the hell am I supposed to do with that?

There’s an implicit assumption that non-techies don’t understand RSS (or Atom or whatever) because it’s a strange concept or hard to explain, but maybe it hasn’t taken off in the way it should because even in an environment where each part of the equation is controlled by one company the process seems designed to prevent me from subscribing.

I overheard someone describe their website as being like a brochure for their company. Personally, I think that’s a big mistake. Brochures are something you deliver to someone, websites are something that you visit. I don’t know many people who go out of their way to hunt down a brochure.

But it’s not a good idea to throw out the brochure idea without knowing what the website was made for. Maybe being a brochure is exactly what it needs to be.

The difficulty comes in when you start thinking that your website is always something. Because then you stop yourself from ever imagining that it could be anything else. Different sites fill different needs. And a metaphor is only useful if it makes things clear. If it doesn’t serve its purpose, be ready to throw it away.

For work, I’m using Firefox because I rely on its web developer extensions, but despite it being in beta I expect I’ll be using Chrome for regular browsing from now on.

Here’s a quick test that helps me when I have any doubt: go to Google, type in the url of the website (like internetscam.com for example) and look at the results.

People who claim to be big players can be found out very easily with this method. Not a lot of results? Probably haven’t been around too long.

Are all the results directory listings or otherwise neutral? Are they all ads? They’ve probably done some SEO but still not a definitive result.

The jackpot is really blog and forum results where somebody writes quite clearly “so-and-so is a rip off” or even “so-and-so is legitimate”. Look for real people giving real reviews and unsolicited feedback.

from flickr: Ryan Fanshaw Photography

This has been bothering me for a long time. I use eBay a lot, and recently it has become less fun, but I can’t put my finger on why exactly.

The site is flooded with generic, no-brand products, (at least in the categories I spend most of my time) being sold for razor thin profits (usually through inflated postage charges). Products have become commodities. There is no call for quality or good service. The opportunity for the home seller is drowned out in a the noise.

There are other subtler problems which are more about expectations. Customers assume that goods on eBay are cheap, but for many things you can find cheaper alternatives online. (Books are a particularly good example.) It’s also taken for granted that service will be unpolished. if you’re buying it online, from a stranger, often second-hand, it’s somehow implicit that you can’t expect to be treated well.

The main problem facing eBay is that it dominates online auctions. And it’s difficult for anyone to compete in that kind of venture without a very distinct service. When you hold that kind of power, it’s easy to be complacent.

So how do you solve these problems? I’m not sure what the best strategy would be, but here are some things I’ve been considering:

1. Separate auctions from fixed price.

It’s difficult to separate businesses from individuals, but easier to separate true auctions from fixed price sales. Commodity sellers don’t like fixed price because it represents too much risk. That’s why I like auctions, they give me an illusion that I might get a good deal.

2. Encourage better service.

Getting sellers, even people like you and me sitting at home, to think of themselves as service providers and giving them good advice on how to improve their customer service would improve the whole experience of the site. It could also lead to better differentiation between sellers. However, this might require that they…

3. Change the feedback system.

Feedback does a lot to punish and prevent scams. If a seller has pages of good reviews, you feel more confident parting with your money. But it’s more difficult to identify great service, something above and beyond. Perhaps a higher level of positive feedback is required. A new category which identifies the exceptional.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot in terms of how I handle a sale on eBay and I’ve come up with a few ideas I’m going to try over the coming months. In a way, it’s a great environemnt to test customer service ideas.

Design is literally the opposite of an accident. It is when things are done for a purpose, or when a choice is made from many competing options.

So graphic design and usability as they relate to the web are really two different skills. How important they are depends heavily on the project, but as a web designer it’s good to have an appreciation of both. In fact, web design could be defined as where these two considerations overlap.

I hate seeing the same bad ideas being brought out again and again after they have been debunked. It reminds me of crop circles, which were revealed to be hoaxes years ago and yet continue to be talked about with awe.

At times, I’m sure these things are caused by a disagreement between experts, in this case health professionals, but also they can be caused by not being rigorous enough in our research. The idea of 8 glasses of water a day is another one. I’ve heard doctors give this advice, with no idea of where it originates.

The internet makes these problems worse. A good meme travels fast irrespective of how true it is. That’s what makes Wikipedia’s [citation needed] tag so important. But this is also a matter of personal responsibility. I hear friends criticise Wikipedia almost daily as unreliable, but the facts we find there should be easy to verify. We’re putting our intellectual eggs into one basket.

There are two sides to this and one fairly easy rule of thumb to remember: if you’re repeating someone’s idea, or if you come across a new idea, ask yourself “where does this come from?” and stop taking things on face value.

There seems to have been a lot of negative reaction to this, which might seem a small issue, but it’s always strange when a well-established company changes some part of its branding. It reminds me of the changes Apple made to their logo, from the rainbow apple to the glossy white.

In both cases, there is something I like about the original, something comforting, perhaps nostalgic. But this is a warning signal: I never like to make decisions based on nostalgia. There is something in our minds resistant to change and it fights to keep the familiar, even when the new is better. For this reason, when you make a change to anything, you shouldn’t expect a wholly favourable reaction.

I think in a few years this new look will be firmly entrenched and seem completely natural.