Comments on: Why are we so impatient about new web technology?

By: Bench Marks » Blog Archive » Web 2.0 for Biologists–Are any of the current tools worth using?

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:34:11 +0000

[...] behind them but need a lot of polishing to be really useful. It has been suggested to me that it’s way too early in the development of Web 2.0 to expect mainstream use, and that certainly may be the case. However, if these tools are ever going to catch on, they need [...]

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:53:46 +0000

No problem, I’m certainly willing to take all the abuse I deserve. I do think there’s room for using these tools strictly for promotional purposes. I do think of my blog as a marketing tool for my journal (when I’m not spouting off on web technology, I’m usually trying to highlight published methods). I do think it’s important though, for a publisher to understand that’s what they’re doing in advance, rather than assuming they’ll create some huge community site and figure out a business model later.
To me, community sites like FlyBase, WormBase and ZFin have succeeded in getting buy-in from users in ways that commercial sites haven’t. Perhaps there’s more kudos, more positive credit in the eyes of the community seen for contributing there than there is for leaving a comment on a paper at a journal.
What I’m most interested in though, is creating tools that can be used now, that are compelling enough to overcome the inertia we currently see. Yes, long term these practices will trickle through to the mainstream. But is there an iPod, something obvious we could be adding to our journal sites that would immediately enhance our users’ experience. That’s a tough challenge, but we’ve got some irons in the fire, so we’ll see. I’m really trying to focus on tools that don’t require huge efforts on the part of the user, trying to get those efforts made through other channels and for the end user, they get a tool that improves efficiency rather than asks for a time sacrifice.

By: Mr. Gunn

Mr. Gunn — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:34:25 +0000

Thanks, David, for emphasizing that last point. We all want to avoid the scenario where everyone jumps on some new trend only to can it when the hype fades because it didn’t exceed their wildest expectations. My field is particularly sensitive to this, because of all the hope and hype surrounding stem cells. We don’t want to happen to us what happened to the adenoviral gene therapy people.

Another likely scenario is that the sites never become huge sources of revenue in themselves, but remain very effective as marketing tools. Every time someone talks about web tools for scientists, Nature gets mentioned, and generally quite favorably. Perhaps one of my more well-positioned readers can comment on what the thinking is at Nature on this, but they’re definitely not doing it for charitable reasons.

This stuff can be done on a community level, though, too. It’s not that expensive to host a site, and there are plenty of good web designers around. Maybe you’ll never be the next Facebook or whatever without hiring serious designers and laying out real money, but good enough is good enough until that time comes, right?

Personally, I’m just thrilled that CSHL has someone who seems to get it, and I’m just teasing about the obituary. If El Reg can do it, why can’t I?

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:11:07 +0000

Hey! I wouldn’t call it an “obituary” (I did use the present tense in the headline, not the past). My talk was meant to look at the current low levels of participation and to stimulate thought on how we can improve that. I think we both agree that better tools will lead to more adoption.

I also think you need to look at my comments in context. They were delivered to a meeting of science publishers. Science publishers tend to need their business efforts to make money (or at least in the case of us not-for-profits, to not lose money). It’s wise for users to take the long view. That’s certainly what most scientists are waiting for, for the evolutionary process you describe to happen, for the losers to be weeded out, then they’ll put in the efforts required. From the point of view of a commercial enterprise looking to monetize these sites, that lack of participation is currently a failure in the system. No users means no content means no advertising revenue.

And don’t kid yourself, the big publishing corporations are not creating these sites for charitable reasons. They may be hiring great visionary people but if the sites don’t make money, eventually they’ll pull the plug. If you’re a giant in the publishing world, you can probably go ahead and funnel cash into the long game like this, and be willing to lose money for many years in hopes of one day making it back and then some. That’s not an option smaller publishers can afford. It’s unclear to me if these tools will ever be profit centers for publshers, if they’ll ever see the requisite traffic and if ad revenue is really a business model that they’ll support. As you say, only time will tell, they may be better off being created by communities and grant supported rather than being run by publishers for profit. That’s one of the take-home lessons I presented to the publishing audience–despite all the hype there’s not a lot of money being made from these sites, so understand that before you jump in without a solid business plan.