Redux: revisited (yet) again.
Is UGC (user generated content) big? I think it hasn't even begun to impact things. Take a look at this Google graph (below) and read the comments on the Google Zeitgeist page about wikis
I used to think that UGC was all about blogging, merely creating content. Then I suggested that in fact we might be on the edge of more than just content creation in Semantic mashup artistes. I think that some users want to own and build things. Some people are scripters who build extensions (think Firefox) and some are authors (think blogs). We can create spaces that cater for both.
Take a moment to read 20 Types of Blog Post he posits that the types are:
- Case Studies
- Link Posts
- ‘Problem’ Posts
- Contrasting two options
- Collation Posts
- Prediction and Review Posts
- Critique Posts
- Hypothetical Posts
- Memes and Projects
You might wonder why I list these? How does this relate to voting? Currently voting is DIGG style, you vote something up. Some sites allow voting down. Slashdot does this well.
I'm thinking about a different kind of vote. I day dream about a site which allows voting on the type of post this is and then the system uses the post differently based on the extent to which the post has been categorized. So the UGC interaction has an effect on the way the post is used.
So the impact that UGC might have on the steps involved in searching could be:
- Voting for the content being viewed (UGC)
- Searching for content of a type (find information with a particular content type)
- Viewing the content, which is laid out differently depending on type (UGC)
- Provide links from the current position across to other related posts (horizontally to content in the same type or vertically into adjacent types) (UGC)
- Allow user to drag and drop the types so influence which types are adjacent to other types (UCG)
While viewing a post – such as this one here – do you think it's a case study or a review or research? While doing a search for case studies, should this post come up as a search result? If it does, should it be presented in a different context?
Ultimately I really like the idea that humorous posts look, behave and are presented in different contexts to authoritative research posts.