Thu 9 Mar 2006
I’m trying to identify simple characteristics of good web sites, with a focus on Web 2.0 developments.
My aim is to create a simple somewhat practical method of evaluating a web site’s value based on certain criteria.
Who could use this?
Venture capitalists, investors, web developpers.
Visitors: Raw numbers
The actual daily number of unique visitors - especially those who type the url direct, or load from bookmark. Even boring sites can have many visitors through previous linkage and advertising, but the best numbers to look at are indivdual visitors who enter the site via typing the URL/personal bookmark
A site’s active member count gives a good idea on its value. Active members refers to those who are subscribed, who can log in, and who log in at least once a week. They represent an easy target for advertisers, thereby adding immense value to the site
Google +5 (the whole web subscribes to them sort of)
Flickr +4
Digg +4
Youtube +4
Visitors: Quality of visitors
Quality visitors add value to a web site = i.e. web surfers searching for “Interoperable XML modules” are more valueable than those searching for “Sexy Girls”, at least from an advertiser perspective.
Quality of Inbound Links
Sites listed by established media and A list bloggers tend to be more valueable than those linked by ordinary average people..
Legality of content
Youtube scores low here, because they are in a legal grey area as far as some of the content.
Example scores
Flickr +5 (most content is from members in theory at least)
Digg +4.8 (Links so not really copyrightable)
Slashdot +4.5
Youtube +1 (Some content is still grey)
Buzz
How the community (blogosphere, slashdot, digg) and established media (Cnet, PCWorld) react.
Viral Marketability
An ideal viral site is one which can be announced on digg, in a single post, and be on the front pages of Digg, Slashdot, PC World, and CNET, within 48 hours
The idea is - the web site should have a concepet so unique that it doesnt need to be marketed. A simple announcement on digg should suffice.
Example scores:
Youtube +4
Digg +4
Slashdot +4
Uniqueness of idea
Theres two ways a web site can be unique. 1. To introduce a concept (e.g. web search), or 2. redefine web search (as google and flicker did)
Example scores:
Youtube - redefined video hosting +4
Slashdot +3.8 (First with the concept of community review of user links)
Digg - redefined slashdot +4
Flickr - redefined online photo storage
Uniqueness of content & concept
The more unique the content and concept is, the better.
Example scores:
Google +4 (content/concept)
Digg +5 (concept)
Youtube +4 (concept)
Flickr +4 (concept)
Sustainability/age of site
For a site to have long term value, it must not be a one hit wonder. It must have sustainability in its concept. The more unique and hard to duplicate the concept the better.
Age can lend value to a web site.
Example scores:
Slashdot +4
Flickr +4
Digg +3.8
Youtube +3
Google +4.8 (by being so big, google have virtually guaranteed monopoly status for themselves)
Long tail
A site with millions of small users/visitors/subscribes tends to be more powerful than a site with a few big visitors.
Google +5 (infinite small users)
Flickr +4
Digg +3
Youtube +3
Yahoo +5