One of the big bits of tech news yesterday was a leaked slide showing that Yahoo was closing down Del.icio.us, the social bookmarking system that helped define. Yahoo must not do Twitter because it took them till today to finally respond. They now say that Del.icio.us doesn't fit their strategy and that they will be selling it.
Do we care? Should we care? When it started in 2003, Del.icio.us was something innovative and quirky. It helped teach us that our online behavior didn't need to be secret and locked away on our hard drives but could be shared. Indicating that you thought a website was worthy of a bookmark could be a recommendation to friends. Even people bookmarking a site was an indication of it's real world value. For us techies, Del.icio.us opened our eyes up to a world where everything could be an RSS feed and in 2006 I jiggered the social aspects to create a human-powered editorial aggregator QuakerQuaker.org.
When Yahoo bought it we were all a bit nervous but it seemed like a good move. Yahoo could bring server resources and a userbase and take Del.icio.us to the next level. When corporate decided to rename it Delicious.com, it stripped the quirkiness but perhaps signaled a willingness to take this more into the masses.
Screenshot of my revived
Diigo account, showing
Delicious imports.
Alas, it didn't turn out that way. Delicious settled in and stopped innovating. Eventually the founder left Yahoo. Things got so bad that it seemed exciting when it essentially got a design make-over a few years ago. Competing services sprang up but none were different enough to make many of change our habits.
So yesterday's news is perhaps a good thing. I've been looking at those other services. Diigo.com looks really fabulous. I tried it when it launched in 2006 but wrote it off at the time as a Delicious clone with high ambitions. But they've been working hard. They're onto version five now and they've been adding the kind of cool features that an independent Delicious might have pursued.
For example, you can add a note to a webpage that you're bookmarking and then send a special URL with the site and note. They make it really easy to Twitter this. Last night I bookmarked and tweeted about an online radio service I've been using:
Listening to a lot of Radio Paradise lately. Good background work music, interesting selections: diigo.com/0e8gw
That Diigo link will take you to Radio Paradise's homepage with the note I added. That's really useful.
Diigo just a few moments ago put out a Transition to Diigo FAQ. Exporting from Delicious is really easy and importing it to Diigo is easy too--though not instant, it was about twelve hours. I'm confident enough about Diigo that I've upgraded to the $40/year Premium account--partly chipping in since I imagine they're being hit with lots of new accounts today.
Tags: Del.Icio.Us Delicious Diigo Yahoo | Edit
Beth Kantor's nonprofit blog has an good article asking about the possibilities for real-time web interaction and asks whether it's possible for the web to let someone be in two places at the same time:
For me, the eye-opening moment of real-time collaboration came last winter when I was planning a conference with two friends. The three of us knew each other pretty well and we had all met each other one-on-one but we had never been in the same room together (this wouldn't happen until the first evening of the conference we were co-leading!). A month to go we scheduled a conference call to hash out details.
I got on Skype from my New Jersey home and called Robin on her Bay Area landline and Wess on his cellphone in Los Angeles. The mixed telephony was fun enough, but the amazing part came when we brought our computers into the conversation. Within minutes we had opened up a shared Google Doc file and started cutting and pasting agenda items. Someone made a reference to a video, found it on Youtube and sent it to the other two by Twitter. Wess had a secondary wiki going, we were bookmarking resources on Delicious and sending links by instant messenger.
This is qualitatively different from the two-places-at-once scenario that Beth Kantor was imagining because we were using real-time web tools to be more present with one another. Our attention was more focused on the work at hand.
I'm more skeptical about nonprofits engaging in the live tweeting phenomenon--fast-pace, real-time updates on Twitter and other "micro-blogging" services. These tend to be so much useless noise. How useful can we be if our attention is so divided?
Last week a nonprofit I follow used Twitter to cover a press conference. I'm sorry to say that the flood of tweets amounted to a lot of useless trivia. So what that the politician you invited actually showed up in the room? That he actually walked to the podium? That he actually started talking? That he ticked through your talking points? These are all things we knew would happen when the press conference was announced. There was no NEWs in this and no take-away that could get me more involved.
What would have been useful were links to background issues, a five-things-you-do list, and a five minute wrap-up video released within an hour of the event's end. They could have been coordinated in such a way to ramp up the real time buzz: if they had posted an Twitter update every half hour or so w/one selected highlight and a link to a live Ustream.tv link I probably would have checked it out. The difference is that I would have chosen to have my workday interrupted by all of this extra activity. In the online economy, attention is the currency and any unusual activity is a kind of mugging.
When I talk to clients, I invariably tell that "social media" is inherently social, which is to say that it's about people communicating. The excitement we bring to our everyday communication and the judgment we show in shaping the message is much more important than the Web 2.0 tool de jour.