TWOPOINTZERO’S X2

In celebration of our biggest Web 2.0 issue to date, we drop in on two similar next-gen sites that are currently whipping up a storm, Digg.com and Clipmarks.com, to hear the story of their relative success so far

With more and more sites popping up on the web that are subverting the notion of passive content, the Web 2.0 crowd is expanding fairly rapidly. Big boys like YouTube have proven to be runaway hits and hugely valuable commodities, almost echoing the hysteria that surrounded the online world during its initial boom.
The doors have opened on a new type of internet where user interaction, communal ownership, centralised applications and flexibility rule the roost. With that in mind, we decided it would be nice to hear from some of the up-and-coming Web 2.0 sites, to get a better understanding of what motivated their journey into this promised land.
So, essentially, this month’s Behind the Scenes takes the form of two comparative Q&A sessions, conducted with two different development teams. The first is with the people behind digital pinboard portal Clipmarks.com, while the second quizzes the guys responsible for news-stacking service Digg. com. Both sites rely on the aggregation of popular data to provide collated web content, but feature various different methods for presenting it.
Above all, it’s both Clipmarks’ and Digg’s strong community vibes, combined with their ability to allow every visitor the chance to shape their own unique experience, which makes them among the most exciting dotcom projects currently making waves. So with a build up like that… it’s time to hand over to the web wizards themselves.

Q&A WITH CLIPMARKS.COM
EG: Eric Goldstein, co-founder and CEO
EW: Eric Weitner, senior developer
DK: Derek Krzanowski, chief architect

First off, for those who don’t know, how would you describe Clipmarks.com in your own words, and how long has it been up and running?
EG: Clipmarks.com is a social news and knowledge site, consisting of bite-size highlights that users clip from around the web. Much like clipping a part of a page in a newspaper or magazine, Clipmarks lets users clip interesting pieces of web pages. Those clips can then be posted on Clipmarks.com for others to see, comment on and collect. In addition to contributing all of the content on the site, users have editorial control over determining which clips gain prominence by ‘popping’ their favourites to the top.
I often think of Clipmarks as being the web’s collaborative bulletin board. People go out on the web, clip the best stuff they find and then post it up on the site. Everyone then arranges the board depending on which clips they like best. The result is an easy-to-digest assortment of the web’s most interesting information. Clipmarks has been live for about a year now.

Clearly part of the Web 2.0 wave of sites, what was it that inspired its inception in the beginning and how does it offer a unique concept in relation to the other next-generation online experiences that are springing up?
EG: Two things inspired us. The first is a desire to save and share specific pieces of web pages without having to bookmark the entire page. So often we would stumble upon something great within a page, but be left without an easy way to share it. We created Clipmarks to make that easy to do.
The second thing was a curiosity about seeing what other people would clip. We believe there’s no better way to learn about lots of interesting topics than to have the benefit of shared expertise. If you can aggregate clips from people who are passionate about things ranging from science and politics, to religion and art in a single environment, then you’re creating a great resource for everyone to learn from. That’s a very inspiring goal for us.
The primary thing that differentiates Clipmarks from other social news sites, is that we focus on small pieces of particularly compelling information instead of just providing a list of links to web pages. This allows people to rapidly consume clips about a great variety of topics in very little time – something we could all use a bit more of these days!
Our focus on small pieces of information also makes for a unique content experience, because people only clip the most interesting things they find within pages. And whenever you’re interested in reading more, each clip provides a link directly to its source.

What kind of resources in terms of time and staff did/does Clipmarks.com require to build and subsequently maintain? Were there any particular technical obstacles during initial development?
EG: Clipmarks was created by four people. Two developers, a designer and me (I contribute ideas because I haven’t got a clue how to write code). There were two aspects of development that were especially challenging. The first was creating a clipping tool (an extension in Firefox, Flock and IE), which would be flexible enough to account for all the different things people might want to clip from web pages. We’re still working on improving it. As the web evolves, our clipping tool must evolve with it.
The second great challenge in developing Clipmarks was creating an interface that made it easy for people to quickly view clips that interest them with as little wasted time as possible. We hate the typical back-and-forth clicking that takes place on most sites. To get around that, we utilise AJAX along with a reader-style interface that allows for very rapid consumption of clips. We tried a number of different approaches to making this work until we felt that it was right.
One thing I would like to point out is that we have had the benefit of getting help from many of our earliest users. Without their interest and passion in what we are trying to create, there’s no way Clipmarks would be what it is. I honestly don’t think we would still be around if not for them, so a huge thank you goes out to our hard-core users – they know who they are!

What development technologies or infrastructures are at the heart of what makes Clipmarks.com tick?
EW and DK: AJAX is the primary technology driving the user interface on our site. In order to allow people to rapidly view clips, only relevant data is served for each clip via an XML request. Using JavaScript and CSS, this data is formatted and assembled directly into the page. AJAX is also used throughout many of the site’s features, including popping and commenting on clips and adding specific topics to your personal favourites.
On our backend, we use a variety of different resources and work within the .NET framework. Generating XML is a large part of the backend’s job, whether it’s the muscle behind the frontend’s use of AJAX, communicating with other web services, or providing RSS feeds of clip results. Our biggest challenge regarding the backend has been maintaining the speed of the website as our user base grows. We’re consistently refining the way we do things, making careful decisions on what types of queries to cache and what not to cache. Continually recalibrating the backend to accommodate more visitors/users is a major part of our development.

What are your own feelings about the Web 2.0 revolution – do you think that it’s starting to live up to the hype and is it here to stay?
EG: I think it really depends on how you define Web 2.0. For a while I think it was mostly a marketing term that generated a whole lot of hype for companies developing new things. But out of that hype came some great new user powered services like Digg and YouTube. For me, Web 2.0 is about user empowerment. That doesn’t just mean enabling people to do new things. It also means making it easier for everyone to do things that used to be reserved solely for techies. A great example of this was YouTube making it simple for people to upload and embed video within blogs. This aspect of Web 2.0 is definitely here to stay in my opinion. I also believe that the social, collaborative nature of so-called Web 2.0 sites and services could have an incredible impact on the world, because they’re helping break down traditional barriers that have divided people due to lack of communication.
So many beliefs and assumptions are made simply because they’re passed on from one generation to the next within the particular community we happen to live in. The web is causing many of these to be challenged as people are being exposed to more information, ideas and people than ever before. That is the true beauty of this phenomenon in my opinion.

Do you have any theories or visions for what kinds of experiences that Web 2.0 could yield in the future?
EG: I really should leave that one to the experts. The only thing I’d like to say is that the trend towards websites that are created and edited by users is one I’m extremely excited about. The practice of one editor deciding what everyone should see, is something I’d like to help move away from.

What would you say are the defining characteristics of what a true Web 2.0 site should have for it to be successful?
EG: Be genuine about the problem you’re trying to solve and have respect for the people who use your service. If you do that, you should be successful.


Q&A WITH DIGG.COM
KR: Kevin Rose, Digg’s founder and chief architect

First off, for those who don’t know, how would you describe Digg.com in your own words?
KR: Digg acts as a filter for user-submitted links to online stories, blogs, etc. It’s community-based and everyone has the ability to submit or bury items. It’s completely user-driven. We don’t import stories from other news feeds or keep editors on staff to comment. Digg Labs is a great way to keep up with the incredible pace that information can move on the site. The tools and projects in Labs aim to help manage the stream of stories passing through Digg. These interactive visualisations look beneath the surface of the Digg community’s activities. The site began in September 2004 as a personal project of mine.

Clearly part of the Web 2.0 craze, what was it that inspired its inception in the beginning and how does it offer a unique concept in relation to the other next-generation online experiences around?
KR: The early concept of Digg was inspired by sites like Mac Rumours and other tech news info hubs. Now I’m interested in sites that are implementing more social and sharing type features. I see so many sites that just add features for the sake of it, without thinking about why they’re adding them. With Digg, we actively evolve around comments and feedback we get directly from the user base. We think it’s imperative that you stay tuned in with what your users want.

What kind of resources in terms of time and staff did/does Digg.com require to build and subsequently maintain? Were there any particular technical obstacles during initial development?
KR: Digg is 15 people strong. As for start-up costs, Digg was very lucky to receive interest from many venture capitalists. One note about starting up is that having a presence on the internet costs less today than it did two years ago, with bandwidth, servers and the other necessities at a fraction of the cost.

What development technologies or infrastructures are at the heart of what makes Digg.com tick?
KR: Initially we were on one Linux server (unfortunately not Debian), running Apache 1.3 and PHP 4.x. We used MySQL 4.0, all MyISAM tables and MySQL full-text search. We grew fairly quickly, so before too long that one server became two servers; MyISAM became InnoDB. We moved to Debian (thank you lord), then we went to three servers, Apache 2.x, MySQL masterslave replication, started using memcached, moved to PHP 5.x and hired a dba. Then the pace picked up yet again… so the challenge continues to be scaling.

What are your own feelings about the Web 2.0 revolution – do you think that it’s finally starting to live up to the hype? And second, do you think it’s here to stay?
KR: There are hundreds of new consumer internet companies with funding… and I’m sorry to say, but most won’t make it. The ones that do will be unique in their offerings. I’ve seen over 200 Digg clones since we launched, some backed by billion dollar corporations, but they don’t get it. To succeed you need to innovate, not just duplicate someone else. I think Google is a great example of a company that continues to innovate. Its ‘release early, release often’ strategy is brilliant. Other companies need to understand that stagnation will lose this race and that making mistakes can be a good thing.

Do you have any theories or visions for what kinds of experiences that Web 2.0 could yield in the future?
KR: Digg is unique in that we listen to our users and our new functionality evolves with an expressed purpose of helping them get more from the Digg experience. We go through all the email suggestions we get in via the feedback link, because the community is very knowledgeable and typically has very valuable suggestions.
So every time we launch a new feature, we’re building a framework for our users. On a high level, Digg is going to start to learn, it’s going to start recommending stories based on past Diggs and friends. That’s all I can say at this time.

What would you say are the characteristics of what a true Web 2.0 site should have for it to be successful?
KR: One part of Web 2.0 that really fascinates me is the open sharing of information. Not only can you read and talk about the stories your friends are interested in, but Digg really came into prominence because networks of friends spread that Digg was the place to go.