|
|||||||||||||
By Jeffrey McMurray, Associated Press
LEXINGTON, Ky. — Steve Mansfield operates his own Internet search engine from a place he calls a "secret hideout" — a small office surrounded by low-rent apartments on the outskirts of this college town known for its horse farms.
Mansfield conceived Prefound.com a few years ago on the premise that humans, from pretty much anywhere, can collectively provide better intelligence than a computer program developed out of the Silicon Valley. Other start-ups, too, have had similar visions for "social search." And today, even large competitors like Yahoo and Google are pursuing the concept, hoping it’ll help make search results more meaningful and thus expand the companies’ market share. Traditional search results are largely based on objective criteria such as counting the number of links other sites have placed to a given Web page. Social search gives people subjective answers — the best sushi restaurant in Chicago or the best website for information about French impressionism — not necessarily the site visited the most. "You’re essentially breaking up a problem and sending it out to a huge number of people for a query, getting answers back," said Steven Jones, a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "It kind of ends up being greater than the sum of its parts. Other people are going to make associations and connections to information you probably would not have made." At Prefound, launched earlier this year, users contribute to the knowledge pool by submitting clusters of sites they believe would appeal to like-minded people. As an incentive, the largest contributors even get a share of Prefound’s advertising money. A visitor looking for information on, say, New Jersey beaches can get the user-recommended sites, grouped by users. One user’s cluster gives you restaurants, Internet cafes and other information on the coastal town of Ventnor City, N.J. Results are better the more people contribute sites. Jones said it’s too early to know whether social search will dramatically change the way people look for information on the Internet, but it’s already changing the way traditional search companies do business. Yahoo, a distant second to Google, has entered the game largely by buying some of these start-ups, namely Del.icio.us, a system for discovering new sites based on shared bookmarks, and Flickr, a photo-sharing sites where users tag items with keywords to help friends and strangers alike discover photographs on any topic. Google has started to incorporate community answers on travel and health questions into its main search engine. It has also established a program allowing users to contribute their own content, tagged with specific attributes, to turn up in search results. "To some extent the small companies have invented it, but the big companies have been thinking about it for quite a while, too," said Charlene Li, an analyst at Forrester Research. Steven Marder, co-founder of Eurekster Inc., considered one of the earliest social search sites, said Yahoo’s and Google’s entry into social search was "validating our philosophy and methodology." While the change in direction at the Internet search leaders proves the start-ups were onto something, it also is forcing them to either find a specialized niche soon or get swallowed by the much larger fish. Marder said Eurekster, where results are weighted based on how many users click to a given site, will never be a destination site like Google or Yahoo, but he is trying to market the service for companies that want to build their own specialized search engines on private Web pages. Likewise, Prefound is largely trying to cater to academics. Other start-up efforts include the appropriately named StumbleUpon, which three Canadians designed to cater to habitual Web surfers. Type in a topic and click "Stumble" to randomly be diverted to a site popular with other users. "It’s more of a recommendation engine than a search engine," said Garrett Camp, one of StumbleUpon’s founders. "All they really want to do is discover all the best sites up there. Google is still going to remain focused on the task-oriented. StumbleUpon is much more discovery." Such is the mantra for many of these start-ups that have seen Google or Yahoo upstage them on the concept of social search. They’re marketing themselves as more vital than ever, hoping to pick off a few users, which might be all they need to turn a profit. "There’s room for lots and lots of players in the search race," said Chris Sherman, executive editor of Search Engine Watch. "We’ve got the major players out there, but as people get better at learning how to navigate the Internet, they’re not going to necessarily be looking for an answer from these titans anymore. They’re going to be looking for more specialized or personalized information." Early search engines largely looked at keywords embedded in Web pages, but site owners could contaminate results by tagging their sites with as many words as they could conceive. Google then came along with page ranking, essentially allowing the community — through website owners — to vote on the relevance of a site. The more other sites link to it, the more it is deemed worthy. But site owners, particularly those with big budgets, wind up with the greatest influence in the results. Social search attempts to let the entire community of users decide. In theory, the best ideas win out in the online marketplace and are less open to manipulation. The approach is not limited to search. Cloudmark Inc. uses its base of users to judge what is spam and what isn’t. News aggregation sites like Digg Inc.’s digg.com and Time Warner Inc.’s Netscape.com ask visitors to recommend and vote on items to go on top. Among the larger search companies, Google recently launched Google Co-op, an information-sharing feature that marks its first major foray into social search. Although the site isn’t fully operational, Google users can see some of the results when they search the main engine for information about health issues or travel. The results appear as special links at the top. Shashi Seth, product manager for Google Co-op, said there will always be a role for traditional search algorithms, and he doesn’t see specialization ever taking away much business from the major companies. "They’re all very niche plays in the area of search," Seth said. "We still believe people will find core search fulfilling the bulk of their needs." But Eckart Walther, vice president of product management for Yahoo, said that although traditional search technology can be refined, it will likely remain best for fact-based searches. Social search, he said, provides the promise of answers to more subjective questions. Yahoo’s MyWeb ranks websites, such as favorite hotels, based largely on how many people choose to bookmark them. Del.icio.us does a similar job, but users rather than software determine what keywords should correspond with which sites. And Yahoo Answers allows people to write specific questions that other users or field experts then answer. Microsoft Corp. is working on a similar program, and Google has one in which it charges a fee. "If you asked me what the best hotel in San Francisco is, we’re different people, have different friends and different opinions," Walther said. "Search engines are terrible at answering these kinds of questions." Mansfield acknowledges that Prefound and others like it will only get a tiny fraction of the pie in the search business, but that could be enough to turn a profit. After all, they know what they’re up against. "The board of Google could publish their laundry list and get into The New York Times," Mansfield said. "That’s quite a hard thing to compete with." Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|
|||||||||||||
SES 2006: Social Search Overview
By David A. Utter
Staff Writer
Article Date: 2006-08-07
Search Engine Watch executive editor Chris Sherman hosted the session on social search, which covered the impact of human knowledge and activity on search engines.
 |
| The Benefits Of Social Search |
 |
Visit WebProWorld’s complete coverage of the SES conference in San Jose |
Managing editor Mike McDonald of WebProNews filed this exclusive look at the SES 2006 San Jose session on social search.
Chris Sherman opened the session by defining social search, calling it a collection of Internet wayfinding tools informed by human judgment. That judgment takes place in the form of tags, click-through activity, search history, and other actions.
That may be as good as the definition gets for some time. There isn’t a standard definition for social search yet, and a lot of companies big and small would not mind being the ones to shape it.
Sherman credited World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee with being the first to create a guide that was the earliest form of social search. At that point, search engines were inefficient; algorithmic search methods had not arrived yet.
Fast forward from 1990 to 2006. Social search is having an impact. "Increasingly we’re seeing search engines coming out with personalization efforts," said Sherman. "That data is going to be fed back into the loop and impact the general search."
"What search engines are doing is saying, ‘hey lets tap into this huge resource of user brainpower’ to improve search results."
|
Social search has hit some problems along the way. The scale and scope of information has grown so much that automation, like Yahoo Search, has had to take the place of the original hand-edited manual directory.
"I’m not sure people, even millions of people, ARE going to be able to keep up with all this information," said Sherman.
The ambiguity of language has led to tagging issues. "On the Web we don’t have controlled vocabulary, even if we did, we aren’t going to use it," Sherman commented, and he is right about that.
Human laziness and search spider dumbness make things difficult, too. But the worst problem comes from those who exploit whatever they can online for personal gain – the spammers.
Said Sherman: "Any system that emerges in search, there are people who will aggressively do whatever they can to optimize their content." He thinks trust networks will emerge as disenchantment with useless spam content increases along with spammer knowledge of how new systems work.
Grant Ryan, chief scientist at Eurekster, spoke next. He called Eurekster a printing press, not a publisher.
By enabling people to build vertical searches with Eurekster, site publishers can optimize their search for a specific audience, and monetize their work.
Ryan’s talk led into that of Tim Mayer of Yahoo. He disclosed the launch of Yahoo Search Builder, which essentially puts Yahoo in competition with Eurekster.
Mayer, a long-time veteran of SES, summarized social search as "better search through people."
"Websearch is not very good for subjective queries," Mayer said. "In social search you are staking your reputation."
No one wants to looks bad at answering a subjective query. The best answers may come out of the growing number of users who tag content. "We see the next breakthrough as using the tagging community as sources of authority," said Mayer.
Nils Pohlmann from Microsoft also spoke on social search, saying it "is enabling social network to refine or create additional search results."
"In the past, community content used to be chat in user forums and newsgroups. Today there are many other more interesting sources."
Like Mayer, Pohlman noted that reputation is important in social search. Microsoft’s Ideas Live beta lets others see the reputation score others have earned.
"Building up reputation is critical," he said.
最近blog network比较火，讨论挺多的，几个博佬（sayonly）都发表了意见。
其实这个东西很早就出现了，我在以前的一篇讨论博客类型的文章里已经谈到，它就是一种集体创作的博客，也就是多个人共同维护一个博客，这个博客可以包括多个主题。国内从出现博客一开始并没有几家这样的集体博客，最近开始出现了几家如“博客中文翻译，新闻小分队，思维的乐趣”等。
这种集体博客引起大家关注的原因是国内几个博佬加入了国外著名的blog network，似乎这种行为背后隐藏着经济利益和某种激励，但我并不喜欢这种行为。
说实话第一次看到sayonly提到这个事情，我的感觉就是如果任由这种趋势发展，博客的草根精神会逐渐退化。
blog是一种新的媒体，它源于一种草根精神，就是人人创作，集体共享的精神，但是如果未来的某天，它类似于今天的“IT经理世界”或者“互联网周刊”这种精英编辑控制的媒体，我们说blog 还是一种草根媒体吗？
恐怖阿，虽然我不愿意放弃blog的这种草根精神，但是我知道冥冥之中，blog这种草根媒体会逐渐进化成精英媒体，并形成与古典媒体抗衡的势力，不知道这是blog的幸运还是blog的悲哀。
难道blog 也走不出 ： 草民—-革命—-皇帝—–革命—–草民 这样的循环宿命。
不管怎样，我希望大家能够坚持blog的草根精神，不要把这种独立思考的、日记体式的媒体变成集体讨论的、赚取眼球的垃圾，或者延迟这一天的到来。
坚持blog草根精神，拒绝加入blog network
也许应该把题目换成“你为什么不用博客搜索？”
也许这样可以让我们的距离跟加近一些，因为我知道你也很少使用博客搜索，但是我们却经常使用google、yahoo等传统式的搜索引擎。
也许你没有注意到这个现象，因为它不明显，但是这确实是一个问题，特别是在今天博客大行其道的同时，为什么我们不使用博客搜索呢？
1、博客数据量小（博客数量和博客文章数量）。这的确是个理由，相比较互联网据说超过150亿的页面量而言，博客搜索引擎的索引量还是太小了。
2、博客内容主题狭窄。互联网是个巨系统，其规模已经足以产生多种主题社区，这些社区也拥有成千上万的主体内容，所以在google上你可以找到历史上曾经出现过的任何信息。
3、博客是个人中心的信息生产器。这个概念是与bbs比较而言的，bbs是一个话题中心的，大家都围绕话题进行信息和知识组织，而博客是一个个人的私有平台，你和我都在使用它记录和发布自己的话题，而不是研究别人的话题，所以我们喜欢在这个平台上搜索他人的信息。
当然，以上三个理由只是充分条件，并非必要条件，我更想知道用户不使用博客搜索的深层原因。因为我们知道博客是一个社会化网络，所有的博客作者并非只关心自己的家园，很多情况下他们也关心和他们有同样爱好的其他博客，这个从博客的有情连接可以看出来，事实上，所有的博客都在关注环境信息、友人信息。。。，但是他们为什么不使用博客搜索呢？
我想这还需要从搜索引擎的本质特征说起。
1、搜索与浏览不同。搜索引擎是一个黑箱，用户永远不知道下一个搜索结果页面出现什么内容，所以这种搜索结果的不确定性有时候可以满足用户的查新需要，如发现新的网站和寻找特定的目标。
2、搜索实在没有其他更快捷的方法的情况下进行的行为。事实上，如果用户已经知道哪个网站可以看到关于google公司的最新传闻，他们就不会频繁的使用“google 传闻”这样的关键词去google.com进行瞎猫碰死老鼠式的搜索。
从博客的社会特征来看，多数博客都有自己的社交圈，也就是他们关注的主题和博客，这一点可以从他们的博客页面的友情连接看出来。所以从这一点出发，我们可以看到，大多数博客并非不查询信息，只不过他们的查询方法更加确定，查询渠道就是利用分类法，例如分类的RSS阅读器，这些RSS种子类似于确定的网站，博客们更喜欢通过他们或者自己页面上的友情连接关注自己圈子内部的信息和知识，而不是频繁的使用博客搜索发现圈子外的新鲜玩意。
|
Introduction to Microformats
Related: press, presentations, podcasts, suggested-reading, testimonials
| Table of contents [showhide] |
What are Microformats?
Microformats are the "dictionaries" of XHTML semantic content. They are for codifying commonly used information-rich HTML content in such a way that semantic meaning can be machine extracted. In short, they are the easiest-possible way to design data (or data formats) intended for reuse on the Web.
Why Microformats
Why did we come up with microformats?
In short, microformats are the convergence of a number of trends:
- a logical next step in the evolution of web design and information architecture
- a way for self-publishers to publish richer information themselves, without having to rely upon centralized services
- an acknowledgment that "traditional" metadata efforts have either failed or taken so long to garner any adoption, that a new approach was necessary
- a way to use (X)HTML for data.
Evolution of Web Design
In the beginning (1990), there was HTML (http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/) and it was good. It was simple, minimal, and used to semantically markup user visible data (text) and share it on the World Wide Web.
Then came the browser wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars) (1994-1999) where dominant browser manufacturers took their turns introducing "innovative" presentational tags, giving the typical web author/designer what they wanted: a semblance of control over the presentation of their webpages. The result: HTML 3.2 (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32) "standardized" these defacto presentational innovations.
The introduction of CSS1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1) (1996) and the semantically richer HTML4 (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/) (1998) brought a glimmer of hope, but it wasn’t until years later (2000-2001), with the introduction of fully compliant (or almost) implementations of CSS1/HTML4 (IE5/Mac, IE6/Windows, Netscape 6) that it became practical for web designers to depend on CSS in their web pages. Leaders in the community began to furiously adopt and promote CSS (even if it took a (http://www.tantek.com/log/2004/07.html#ie5macbandpass) hack (http://tantek.com/CSS/Examples/boxmodelhack.html) or (http://www.tantek.com/CSS/Examples/midpass.html) two (http://tantek.com/CSS/Examples/highpass.html)) and the efficiencies and enhanced productivity that separating presentation from markup brought them, yet remained a small vocal minority.
The introduction of the Wired News redesign in 100% CSS, and the beautiful CSS Zen Garden (http://csszengarden.com/) (2002-2003) was CSS’s tipping point. With the clear and obvious presentation of visual beauty and broad creativity, designers world-wide "got it" and realized that this was the future of web design. The presentational markup of <FONT>, <TABLE>, and spacer.gif were tossed aside by any and all self-respecting web designers, who discovered the near infinite flexibility of <div>, <span>, and the ‘class’ attribute. A few in the community even began adopting some of the more semantic elements in HTML: <p>, <h1>…<h6>, <ol>, <ul>, <li>, <em>, <strong>. Leaders in the community exercised the semantic limits of strict HTML4 (experimented with XHTML) and documented best practices (http://www.simplebits.com/publications/solutions/).
As the community followed rapidly in the footpaths they had worn, the leaders began to run into the limits of semantic (X)HTML. Other subcultures were attempting to rewrite the world in their own language(s) (RDF (http://www.w3.org/RDF/), "plain" XML, SVG (http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/)), yet not having much of an impact on the World Wide Web, which required human presentable data, compatible with the browsers people already used. Social Software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_software) and Blogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogs), written by this new generation of web designers and programmers, began to take off.
Natural patterns emerged from the way people used blogging systems, putting things into lists, for example lists of other bloggers (known as blogrolls), and annotating them with information representing relationships such has having met, friends, family, etc. The first microformat, XFN (http://gmpg.org/xfn/), was designed to match these behaviors, and introduced to the blogging community (http://tantek.com/log/2003/12.html#L20031215t0830) (2003-2004), who adopted it within weeks. The GMPG (http://gmpg.org) was formed as a home for XFN, and documented a few key design principles (http://gmpg.org/principles) later adopted for microformats. The key notion, that semantic (X)HTML could be extended, had been introduced and accepted by the community.
By understanding, using, and combining semantic (X)HTML building blocks, as well as determining that semantic (X)HTML could be validly extended via new rel, meta name, and class values, defined in (X)HTML profiles in the XMDP format (http://gmpg.org/xmdp), the community began to design and develop many more microformats (2004-2005). More patterns emerged from the blogging community, and each aggregate human behavior drove the design of simple, adaptive microformats to meet its needs. Creative Commons licensing became popular and rel-license was proposed. Outlines and lists: XOXO. Contact info: hCard. Calendars and events hCalendar.
Using these new found building blocks, the web design and information architecture communities were no longer limited by the predefined semantics of HTML4 (nor did they have to compromise human presentation and ease of authoring which other attempts sorely lacked). 2005 may well be the year that microformats became the next step in the evolution of the web.
The Appeal to Simplicity
- Microformats are a simple effort which has appealed to many frustrated with previous complex efforts. One parallel that can be drawn is to REST in the web services world, i.e. see this comparison of microformats and REST (http://www.windley.com/archives/2005/07/microformats.shtml). See the REST wiki (http://rest.blueoxen.net) for more about REST. Related microformats and microprotocols (http://patricklogan.blogspot.com/2006/01/microformat-microprotocol.html).
- See also: Web Services and the Innovators Dilemma (http://www.justinleavesley.com/journal/2005/7/28/web-services-and-the-innovators-dilemma.html) by Justin Leavesley
Related Pages
- Recent press interviews and articles are also a good introduction.
- See microformat presentations for more background and introductory material on microformats.
- Listen to podcasts about microformats.
- More suggested reading
- So you wanna implement microformats?
Articles
- Digital Web Magazine: Microformats Primer (http://www.digital-web.com/articles/microformats_primer/) by Garrett Dimon
- An Extra SIDE to Web Standards Based Design (http://www.gr0w.com/articles/design/an_extra_side_to_web_standards_based_design/) – How Semantic Information Design Ethics (SIDE) and a few readily available techniques can help heal the Web, by Jon Tan. See also his CSS Zen Garden "Leggo my ego" entry (http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/193/193.css&page=0).
- Andrew D. Hume (http://thedredge.org/) has written a blog post introducing microformats (http://thedredge.org/2005/07/introducing-microformats/) and another one on usable microformats (http://usabletype.com/articles/2005/usable-microformats/).
- Practical Microformats with hCard (http://24ways.org/advent/practical-microformats-with-hcard) by Drew McLellan
- Jesse Skinner’s introduction to hCard (http://www.thefutureoftheweb.com/blog/2006/1/hcard)
- Shaun Shull’s (http://blog.usweb.com/) great post on How Microformats Affect Seearch Engine Optimization (http://blog.usweb.com/archives/how-microformats-affect-search-engine-optimization-seo)
- Blog Business Summit: Microformats in Plain English: the Promise of Simple Business to Business Data Exchange (http://blogbusinesssummit.com/2006/04/microformats_in.htm) by Steve Broback
Miscellaneous Reference
These are various intro-related links/articles which I haven’t figured out yet how to incorporate. You may find them of interest. – Tantek (http://tantek.com/log/)
- Data First vs. Structure First (http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/93/)
- Tantek (http://tantek.com/log/) says: In many ways it is actually *far* worse than that post conveys. The "typical" programmer literally loves spending far more time worrying about and designing the structure for structure’s sake, than data, and even less so, "real world" data (current behaviors etc.). Hence we have taken the directly opposite tack with microformats when looking to solve a problem.
- Zeroeth, define the real-world problem. If you can’t do this, then stop.
- First, look at real-world usage (data).
- Second, what previous standards are people actually using today? If there is more than one, then lean towards those with the better adoption.
- And only after those first two do we bother to pay attention to theoretical standards, those that have been invented (whether by individuals, committees), but haven’t seen much if any actual adoption.
- Tantek (http://tantek.com/log/) says: In many ways it is actually *far* worse than that post conveys. The "typical" programmer literally loves spending far more time worrying about and designing the structure for structure’s sake, than data, and even less so, "real world" data (current behaviors etc.). Hence we have taken the directly opposite tack with microformats when looking to solve a problem.
- 2000-03-21 Dan Connolly on human-consumable information (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Mar/0103): (strong emphasis added)
- I believe that one of the best ways to transition into RDF, if not a long-term deployment strategy for RDF, is to manage the information in human-consumable form (XHTML) annotated with just enough info to extract the RDF statements that the human info is intended to convey. In other words: using a relational database or some sort of native RDF data store, and spitting out HTML dynamically, is a lot of infrastructure to operate and probably not worth it for lots of interesting cases. We all know that we have to produce a human-readable version of the thing… why not use that as the primary source?
原文来源：What is 1% rule?
原文作者：Charles Arthur
1%法则
这是一个新兴的经验法则。如果有100个人在线，其中1个人创建了内容，10个人将会与之“互动”（发表评论或提出一些改进等），而其余的89人则只是浏览。
这是一个从YouTube引爆出来的流行时尚meme，YouTube在短短18个月内从零占据了60%的美国所有在线观看视频节目。
这些数字显示：每天有1亿次下载65000次上传——正如Antony Mayfield指出的，每1次上传就有1538次下载——且每月有2000万单独用户。
这把“创造者比消费者”的比例放在了仅0.5%上，但言之过早，因为并不是所有人都发现了YouTube（而且因为任何一个网页都可以放置YouTube的链接使得下载比上传容易得多）。
再考虑一下从其它社区内容生成项目的统计数字。根据Church of the Customer的报告，维基百科Wikipedia：50%的维基百科的文章编辑由0.7%的用户完成，70%的维基百科的文章由仅1.8%的用户写作。
从社区类网站获得的早先度量标准显示20%的用户制作了约80%的内容，越来越多的数据点给Web 2.0网站需要如何思考描绘了清晰的图像。例如，一个靠互动和用户制作内容的网站将会看到十分之九的用户仅仅是路过。
雅虎的Bradley Horowitz指出这个法则同样适用于雅虎：在雅虎组群Yahoo Groups中，“1%的用户数量就可以启动一个组；10%的用户可能积极参与，并且是实际内容作者，或者发表一个新话题又或者回应正在进行中的话题；而100%的用户都受益于以上组群的活动。”这些都在他二月份的博客中提到过。
所以结论是什么呢？在网上你不能期望太多。当然，你也可以模仿《梦幻成真》Field of Dreams，你创建了它，它就会实现。麻烦就是，和现实生活中一样，找到最初的创建者。
搜索2.0摘要
July 29th, 2006
如果我们回顾一下信息商品的销售模式发展历史，我们可以看到，这样一条规律：信息内容越来越被分块化出售，例如以往我们买印刷小说，一般都是上下册一起卖，一本小说也包括多个章节，你没有办法单独购买哪个章节，即使你只想看最后一个结局。现在的网络小说，你可以单独购买其中一个章节，在数字图书馆中也可以单独购买一片论文，而不是像购买传统的印刷版学术期刊一样，必须购买一整本杂志，尽管你可能只喜欢其中一片文章。
还有音乐市场更是这样，以往我们必须购买一张CD，就为了听其中的主打歌曲，现在我们完全可以在网站上浮费下载购买一首歌曲，而这样一手歌曲也同样会让一个歌手，一个唱片公司赚的金银满陀。
数字时代改变了信息商品的销售模式，原来的捆绑式销售正在解体，信息越来越被分块化销售，消费者拥有了更大的选择权利和选择空间，这种变化体现了情报学中的一句话：“我们的研究正在由文献单元走向知识单元”，可以预见未来有关知识类的信息产品，如学术期刊将会长期拥有两种销售模式：
（1）在线的分块化销售
（2）传统的捆绑式销售
数字内容将会随着技术发展和数字终端的普及和功能的提升而快速发展，数字产品将会在不远的将来全面超越传统印刷型信息产品，到时候分块化现象将更加明显，例如电视连续剧单集出售、电影分段出售（已经存在，例如很多有限电视台允许你通过电话点播电影片断）、研究报告分章出售、数据库内容按时段出售。。。。。。
这种变革的实现依赖于三个条件：
（1）良好的分段式内容发送机制，保证用户可以获得分块化的内容
（2）良好的支付机制，保证用户可以为所需要的商品方便的支付
（3）良好的数字版权保护机制，保证用户可以购买授权的产品和内容版权所有者的利益
值得庆幸的是目前的互联网技术、支付技术和DRM的发展已经让用户有了信心，从内容销售商角度看，应对这种变革必须更加关注消费者的习惯，注重搜集消费者的购买习惯，并进行数据挖掘，这正是google目前的战略，google已经看到这种趋势，开始着手分析用户习惯，以提供高度个性化的服务。
在此，我想到工业产品的大规模定制服务理念，这种理念一直到80年代才开始流行，而这种理念全面变革了我们的工业产品体系和销售模式，如DELL，IBM的定制。。。
随着信息商品流水线的高度规范化，我们的信息商品也终将走向大规模定制服务理念，例如一本小说可以有多个结局，消费者可以根据自己的喜好决定购买哪个结局的章节。
1、核心博客的寻找与价值评估。参见我的《博客计量学方法》，以及美国关于“高博”的讨论，或者“赵月旺 IT行业观察者”的讨论。
2、草根新闻网与传统新闻网的价值辨析。草根新闻的讨论可以参考“sayonly”的讨论，传统新闻网的价值问题资料过于丰富，不做推荐。最近的一篇文章值得一看《世界仍然需要编辑》
3、影响个人添加博客好友的因素（兴趣、信任等。。。）
4、信息伦理与商务伦理。最近taobao.com网的一次关于招财进宝的投票显示了商务伦理在电子商务企业的地位，同时google.cn被关闭的可能性也有必要从信息伦理的角度讨论，阉割的google有任何价值吗？