1. Mar 31st, 2006

    50 Reasons Why More People Aren’t Using Your Website

    I don’t usually link to X things about Y posts, they seem to meme-out well on their own, but Scott Heiferman’s list is more than just laundry: it gets the point across.

    1. Because they don’t want to generate content, they want better life
    2. Because it solves a problem they don’t have
    3. Because it won’t help them with their problem
    4. Because oprah didn’t mention it
    5. Because everyone they know isn’t using it
    6. Because it doesn’t let them spy on people they care about
    7. Because they just don’t care about what they see
    8. Because nobody at work said they should use it
    9. Because it’s not fun enough
    10. Because it doesn’t make them smile

    And the rest of the list. (Via Seth Godin)

    Printable PDF | Posted by Assaf Filed in general 2 Comments »

    1. Apr 1st, 2006

      It looks obvious » Blog Archive » If You Build it, they Would not Come.

      [...] I wrote in the past about companies that rely solely on users to generate data on their site. I argued that they do not solve the user problem. Yesterday I was glad to see that this idea was the first on the list of 50 reasons why “People aren’t using your web site” 1. Because they don’t want to generate content, they want better life 2. Because it solves a problem they don’t have 3. Because it won’t help them with their problem 4. Because oprah didn’t mention it 5. Because everyone they know isn’t using it 6. Because it doesn’t let them spy on people they care about 7. Because they just don’t care about what they see 8. Because nobody at work said they should use it 9. Because it’s not fun enough 10. Because it doesn’t make them smile   Great minds thinks alike  TravBuddy, Web 2.0 [...]

    2. May 9th, 2006

      It looks obvious » Blog Archive » They will not come

      [...] A while ago, and not only once, I wrote about my disappointment from those services that rely on “user generated content” in direct manner. I claimed than, I much more convinced now that “user generated content” is a great idea if it’s done without bothering the user. Even good ideas, like Squidoo that is making interesting attempt to build credibility into search, are failing to attract and retain the masses because they require work, with very little obvious return. Moreover, observation on successful services – such as Google or Amazon, demonstrates that gathering information from the user has to be indirectly. Michael Arrington’s criticism on Squidoo is touching this issue: The best lenses are generating $30 or so a month for the lensmaster. A true expert on a topic could generate many, many times that number by creating a blog, along with some static content, and putting up simple Google adsense ads. So top content producers are not going to be heading to Squidoo for the money, ever (Squidoo’s model is set up in such a way that they could never make as much money from a lens as they could on their own). And besides, the blog format just works better for experts – fresh content generates lots of links, which equals traffic and search engine juice. The only unanswered question is whether or not experts will go to Squidoo even without the financial incentive. Maybe, but Squidoo’s tools are not particularly advanced – self publishing is easy these days. It seems like Michael understood, and is making a very interesting attempt to implement in his new company , the idea that content need to be gathered from the users without generating additional work for them. And this simple statement summarizes it pretty well:” [user will not come] because they don’t want to generate content, they want better life” Edgeio, innovation, search, Squidoo, User Generated Content, Web 2.0 [...]

    Your comment, here ⇓