why Squidoo is better than DMOZ or Wikipedia
- All three are based on the idea of a directory, listing knowledge.
- All of them are more or less built up of lists of pointers to knowledge (Wikipedia actually trys to contain knowledge)
- All three build content through voluntary effort of web-users.
- And most importantly each one of them can be seen as a tool for "Finding Out About" (FOA) which is the art of learning about a new topic)
So, why do I think Squidoo beats the other two in these respects?
- DMOZ - and also Wikipedia - base on the idea that there is only ONE right map of the "world". This is an oversimplification, sure. But conceptually it gets close. Wikipedia has the benefit of collaborative evolution, but it still strives to come to ONE reality.
Aquidoo's "lenses" are different. There's no limit on the amount of lenses (in)to one topic. And they can exist in parallel. Won't that confuse people? Popularity ranking will ensure that there is a certain guidance, but you can still choose your own path from the lenses people have built.
- Squidoo add an very important incentive for quality: the popularity ranking. This can have very material consequences for the lens author. Ad and affiliate nased income can and will be shared with the authors (or they can choose to donate their share). But popularity in itself is an big incentive, especially if it is easily visible.
So, in summary: I think the Squidoo model adds two main benefits.
- An incentive to produce high quality (usefull to others) "lenses".
- Alternative paths. Due to the fact that there can - and will - be competing lenses the user (searcher) has the freedom of choice.
Similarreverse bookmarking | Tools for Inspiration >>
alles Bild, Text und Tonmaterial ist © Martin Spernau, Verwendung und Reproduktion erfordert die Zustimmung des Authors