Why Web 2.0 is failing in Biology

Read the blog entry linked below… Some interesting points to note. Most of these are probably known but its good to hear it from somebody who has been in the field

Point 1:

“I can barely keep up with the literature in my field and with what my labmates are doing. Who has time to spend reading some grad student’s blog?”

The goal should be to create tools that save time and effort, not new ways of investing huge amounts of time and effort.

Point 2: Regarding use of online collaboration tool

1) Go to the computer, go to the Connotea site, sign up for a Connotea account, log-in, add the link to the paper that’s going to be discussed, add tags to the paper, e-mail those links out to members of the journal club. Members receive the e-mail, go to Connotea, create an account, log-in, go to the link they were sent, follow that link to the actual journal’s website, download the pdf, read, discuss.
2) Go to the computer, download the pdf for the paper, e-mail it to the members of the group, read, discuss.

You tell me which is a more efficient use of precious time.

Point 3: On leaving comments for articles published via collaboration site

there’s no incentive for leaving comments. Again, you’re dealing with a limited amount of time, so why spend it on something for which you receive no credit? Where’s the upside in leaving a comment on someone’s paper?

Point 4:

If you can make it easy for your readers to get the information they’re seeking (relevant to them), then you’re doing a high quality job for them, something they’re willing to pay for, even when there are free sources of less-well-organized information available.

Point 5:

most Web 2.0 sites aren’t useful until they’ve got a high level of participation. If the users are creating content, no users = no content. If there’s no content, no users are going to bother participating, rinse, lather, repeat, the circle goes around and around.

Point 6:

This becomes even further burdened by the proliferation of “me too” sites. Here you see nine different sites that all serve similar purposes. If I have limited time and each site requires a substantial time investment, how am I going to choose which one I’ll use when they all offer essentially the same thing? What happens instead is that most people choose not to choose and sit things out until a clear winner emerges. For those who do pick a site, the site they’ve chosen is only one of many, so it sees less traffic than if there were fewer available, which means less content, which means it’s less useful.

Point 7:

if I’ve already got a way to do something, it’s going to take a lot to make me change to a new way.

If you want me to switch, you have to not just be better, you have to be way better for me to make that effort.

Point 8:

Usability is often a huge barrier preventing new users from jumping in. Your tool has to be obvious, not only why you would use it, but how you would use it.

There are several other points… but here’s the final summary

via Bench Marks » Blog Archive » Why Web 2.0 is failing in Biology.


Tag Galaxy

This is so cool just to play with. Doesn’t actually go anywhere but fun.

Tag Galaxy.

Evernote Has Been Busy! – ReadWriteWeb

Now i like the concept behind Evernote and i’ve tried SimplyBox. Can’t say i used SimplyBox as much and the UI didn’t appear to be too intuitive to me but i can be pretty dumb.

Anyway, there have been changes at Evernote and i think i’m going to like the support for various clients. Time to check it out.

Evernote Has Been Busy! – ReadWriteWeb.

Facebook’s Response To Twitter

Quite interesting take on changes being made with FB in response to Twitter. I know i use both services but Twitter not as much as i would like to. If FB really does do a lot of what Twitter does then i wonder how much i’ll use the latter…

Facebook’s Response To Twitter