Keys to Success

    Repeatedly expressed thoughts about the components of the success of web 2.0. I will also contribute to these considerations. So, from what - in my opinion - is the success of the project? From 5 simple points: nationalities, one-button rules, national moderator, zero investment and project autopilot.

    1. "Nationality" of the idea: the wider the coverage, the higher the interest. Analogy: how often do we buy TVs? Once every few years. What about the products? Daily. Moral: projects aimed at a narrow audience can be successful. But from the point of view of becoming massive and making money on them, both direct (money from users) and indirect (income from advertising) ways, they are of very little interest.

    2. One-button rule. A special case: all these links are "input" and "registration" in the static menu. Why are they? Let the whole structure (menu) be opened even for those who are not authorized on the site (at the same time we demonstrate all the possibilities). Another thing is that when you try to open the content - to issue the very form of authorization. And there is a link to registration, if there is none.

    Overloaded menus, scattered across the entire width and height of the blocks only spray attention, distract. And push visitors away from the site. The fewer controls, the denser they are grouped, the better. Ideally, there should be one hefty button from which, when pressed (or another event), all necessary and unnecessary menus would grow. In other words, the design should be simple, enjoyable and understandable.

    A good example is when you enter the site, you are taken by the nostrils and, not allowing you to step either to the right or to the left, are led along the strictly planned path. "I studied in ..." and no options for empty thoughts. The result is more than 2 million registrations in just one year.

    3. National moderator: this idea has already been implemented on Habré. Good method: relieves "moderators on salary" from unnecessary work. The higher the rating of the “people's moderator”, which is determined by the majority of user votes (or friend policy, as in LJ), the more rights he has.

    By the way, when moderating key databases, such as geographical names, names of objects (enterprises, schools, shops, etc.), the same tags, etc.

    4. Instead of investment, an initiative. Experience shows that other people's money is wasted by the moment: the temptation is great. In addition, the interest in promoting the project among its founders is running low along with the budget. To avoid this, projects should be raised by money: both by money and by striking work, while spending money only on “independent expenses” of the project itself, but not on salaries.

    This is very, very difficult, but extremely effective: no one will waste time (everyone needs money), and everyone will be interested in the final result (commercial; again, everyone needs money).

    5. Autonomous swimming project. This is achieved due to the distinct focus of the project (a clear definition of the category; whether it’s medicine, studying the flight of butterflies, etc.): too wide a coverage, as with blogs, may result in failure. Because in public blogs, these are already established connections (try to drag one from a technical point of view of the LiveJournal to another place), and not a mechanism, so it’s difficult to convince oneself that it’s better.

    Networks with a narrower specialization (but still “popular”) are more advantageous in this respect: it’s one thing - just recordings in the spirit of “woke up, put on slippers, saw myself in the mirror, was horrified”. Another is a kind of “useful” content that creates not so much quantity as quality. The more “correct” users the project has, the higher its usefulness, and, as a result, the interest shown with all the ensuing from it.

    Something like this.

    Also popular now: