flickr.com is NOT web 2.0 compliant, but neither is Google Maps or Tendenci.com

Web20flickrevalHaving lived through the dot-com-dot-bomb with great consternation and angst ("should I pitch VC and sell my soul?") I have found a few of those similar feelings recently regarding the hype about web 2.0.  So finally someone answered my questions by providing a validator. 

Being the inquiring soul that I am, the first site that I just HAD to validate was flickr.  Here are the results for a web 2.0 validation of flickr.com

The score for https://www.flickr.com is 3 out of 18

  • Is in public beta?  No
  • Uses the prefix "meta" or "micro"?  No
  • Is Shadows-aware ?  No
  • Uses Cascading Style Sheets?  Yes!
  • Refers to mash-ups ?  No
  • Appears to be web 3.0 ?  Yes!
  • Attempts to be XHTML Strict ?  No
  • Uses Google Maps API?  No
  • Appears to use AJAX ?  No
  • Appears to be built using Ruby on Rails ?  No
  • Refers to Flickr ?  Yes!
  • Refers to VCs ?  No
  • Mentions Cool Words ?  No
  • Has prototype.js ?  No
  • Refers to web2.0validator ?  No
  • Mentions RDF and the Semantic Web?  No
  • Uses microformats ?  No
  • Actually mentions Web 2.0 ?  No

So there you have it folks (<grin>) flickr.com is NOT web 2.0 compliant.  Now to test http://maps.google.com.  3 out of 20 with these being the three "yes" votes.

  • Uses Cascading Style Sheets?  Yes!
  • Uses the prefix "meta" or "micro"?  Yes!
  • Appears to be web 3.0 ?  Yes!

Tendenci.com scored 1 out of 20, so clearly I need to get with the team to add a few more 2.0 references.  Hee hee.

For more angst on the difference between social software and web 2.0 please click that link.

Google brand story from google blog

xooglers Doug Edwards post on marketing at google via google blog.  Worth the read and well written.

Here’s your desk. Now start doing marketing stuff.

So, now I was Google’s online brand manager. What exactly did that mean? I didn’t have a clue, and evidently no one else did either. It was as if some corporate biological alarm clock had gone off: "You know, we’re at that point where we need to have somebody to do all that stuff that’s not engineering. Let’s get us some of them marketing folks. And since the world is divided between online and offline, we’ll get one of each."

Example excerpt (below) that provides insight into Google HR policies – smart humans are like stem cells that can adjust to new requirements and are less prone to keeping old functions going when they are no longer needed.

Stanfordstemcells To understand Google’s hiring policies and organizational structure, it helps to think of employees as cells within the corporate corpus. It’s useful to have cells that serve specific functions when the need arises, but it’s inefficient to have those cells hanging around sucking energy from the rest of the organism if their singular function is no longer required. Better to have cells that can adapt themselves to any situation, solve the problem and then move on to the next issue. Yeah, we’re talking about stem cells.

(Image from http://cmgm.stanford.edu/biochem118/Stem%20Cell.html)

and the close is brilliant

In a company of 60 people with millions of customers and a growth curve like, well, like Google, there wasn’t room for specialists or walls around a person’s role. Your job was whatever the day demanded and if you needed to learn HTML or Swahili to do it, that was your job, too.

It is one post that covers two topics of interest to me, the first being marketing and branding, and the second being Google and their brand story.  In fact probably what is so compelling about the post is the story nature of it.  We ALL love a good story.  Please write a book.