If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
This is why I love commenter’s. Ed Borasky, left a really insightful comment (not to mention used an awesome Latin word I plan to use whenever I can) that could be a post on its own. Here is his comment:
There are quite a few important things that neither Facebook nor Google do really well. Twitter and Wikipedia are filling important gaps for Internet users. IMHO the web is “converging” on a “triumvirate” of search (Google and Bing), networking (Facebook and LinkedIn) and news-history (Twitter and Wikipedia).
Those are the six places I visit regularly, although Facebook is coming off the list, and I use Google as little as humanly possible. If I were Google, I’d buy (and index) LinkedIn. This could be an enormous cash cow for them – they could wipe Monster and Dice out, I think.
*bold added by me to add emphasis
This “triumvirate” web idea is fascinating to me, and in all actuality, makes perfect sense.
Let’s be honest here, Google sucks at being social, but is great at organizing, letting you find, as well as create (think Google Docs), information. Bing does this almost as well.
Facebook sucks at all of that except at being social. They are great at finding and encouraging connections with friends and family. Linkedin is great at connecting people with their coworkers, and even future coworkers.
Wikipedia and Twitter suck at all of that, but they are great at news-history. Once Twitter enables public search of all tweets, it will be amazing to see the reactions of people during certain times during certain events. Then we have Wikipedia to organize the story within hours of it happening with tons of sources to refer to.
It is my belief that none of these companies can possibly be great at all these things. Sure, they can be goodand do the job for some people well enough, the majority are always going to go towards the best. Right now, these companies are the best within their respective categories (information, social, and news) and each hold an equal amount of immense power.
What do you think, are we moving towards the triumvirate web?
Want to comment? Sorry, I have disabled those, but I respond to nearly every e-mail I receive. So why not drop me a line at holdenpage@pagesaresocial.com
Are We Moving Towards The Triumvirate Web?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
This is why I love commenter’s. Ed Borasky, left a really insightful comment (not to mention used an awesome Latin word I plan to use whenever I can) that could be a post on its own. Here is his comment:
This “triumvirate” web idea is fascinating to me, and in all actuality, makes perfect sense.
Let’s be honest here, Google sucks at being social, but is great at organizing, letting you find, as well as create (think Google Docs), information. Bing does this almost as well.
Facebook sucks at all of that except at being social. They are great at finding and encouraging connections with friends and family. Linkedin is great at connecting people with their coworkers, and even future coworkers.
Wikipedia and Twitter suck at all of that, but they are great at news-history. Once Twitter enables public search of all tweets, it will be amazing to see the reactions of people during certain times during certain events. Then we have Wikipedia to organize the story within hours of it happening with tons of sources to refer to.
It is my belief that none of these companies can possibly be great at all these things. Sure, they can be good and do the job for some people well enough, the majority are always going to go towards the best. Right now, these companies are the best within their respective categories (information, social, and news) and each hold an equal amount of immense power.
What do you think, are we moving towards the triumvirate web?
After reading Ed’s comment, I believe we are.
Share