Written by Ebrahim Ezzy and edited by Richard MacManus.

The term groupware refers to applications that facilitate real-time communication, coordination and collaboration amongst groups of people. A number of startups are working hard to develop the nascent groupware market, so in this post we identify some of those startups and provide an overview of where the market is heading. 

What is Groupware?

Groupware has existed (in various forms) since the invention of email. What is new now is the way that groupware is available on every web-enabled PC - through desktop clients such as Groove, Colligo, SocialText (Enterprise Edition) or web-based suites like Joyent, Zimbra, Atlassian, Goowy (Enterprise), and many others.

Current groupware offerings combine personal and group work management. They provide personal project execution and work management tools - including chat systems, meeting schedulers, messaging, conferencing, whiteboards, etc. What all these things have in common is that they facilitate groups working together.

Social Groupware

As a recent poll suggested, 70% of you prefer niche social networks connectable via a meta social network, over a giant centralized social network with thousands of members. We're calling the former Social Groupware and the latter Social Networks.

Social groupware products allow the creation of remotely hosted user-groups, special-interest groups - or any other group of like-minded people who share similar passions, interests and goals. 

Besides the popular ones - CollectiveX, iMeem, Multiply, PeopleAggregator, and Wetpaint - which we've profiled already on R/WW, there are two more promising social groupwares worth checking out:

CommonGate is a relatively new social groupware that allows creation of communal weblogs - or "theme-based communities" as they refer to them. Here is an example of a community for web 2.0.

SixApart's Vox launched recently - it is a personal blogging service with privacy controls, so that family and friends only can view the content. It also has hooks into some popular web services, such as Flickr, Photobucket and YouTube.

Enterprise Groupware

Enterprise groupware enables more effective interaction with networked information systems. Groupware products are becoming increasingly important in the marketplace because:

• They help businesses to work more efficiently with improved use of resources.
• They permit better coordination of activities by reducing/eliminating time and space barriers, and speeding business processes.  
• There is an organizational movement from personal computing to work-group or team-based collaboration, with the idea that it'll improve productivity.

Groupware and collaboration tools help businesses a lot - and what's more they have never been so cheaply available.

Examples include Atlassian, SocialText, Groove, Colligo, TeamDirection, Joyent, TeamSpace, Zimbra, ZohoX. We will review these in detail in a separate post.

Virtual Teams and Groupware

Many service professionals believe and rely on the common adage that "50% of success is just showing up" - not considering the future virtual workplace in mind. However, these days, letting information workers not show up is becoming a key ingredient to competitive success.

Everything of the Web 2.0 era can be traced to the advances brought about by collaborating teams of distributed participants, whose primary mode of interaction was virtual. 

Smart employers know they have a far better chance of hiring the best talents if they don't expect all of them to be located in the same place. For example 37signals, the popular web 2.0 company that developed winners like Basecamp and Backpack, spreads out over 4 cities and 8 time zones. From Provo Utah to Copenhagen Denmark. In this 24x7 world, geographically dispersed virtual teams like those at 37signals are at an advantage.

Groupware makes it possible for these virtual teams to keep precise track of project status, maintain complete communications records, monitor deadlines and outstanding problems that need attention, and manage tasks that must be completed in certain sequences, etc. 

As a result of groupware, virtual teams are quicker, smarter and often more productive than conventional teams working in a typical workplace. 

Communication tools

A major portion of work in any business is tied to communications of different types. Taking advantage of enterprise groupware technologies for communications, businesses can drastically improve on productivity, efficiency and ultimately profitability. Let's quickly review some of these technologies:

Email; has been the principal form of communication and a strong driver of productivity and efficiency for most businesses. Enterprise Groupware takes email to the next level by providing structured email communication, that automates and improves business processes and increases workflow productivity.

Chat; once considered taboo in the workplace, is now the standard form of communication after email. It enables faster responses, quicker problem resolutions and effective team management.

Weblog; enables businesses and entrepreneurs to share information instantly and frequently - and reach out to their customers in a more casual manner. Weblogs are also effective in educating potential customers and engaging them in two-way conversations around related topics.  

Conferencing; allows individuals to communicate and create virtual learning or meeting environments online, instantaneously with anyone - anywhere, at anytime. Most services enable participants to share documents, applications, web sites or even presentations with others.

Collaboration tools

People working alongside one another as in a typical workplace - learning and interacting with each other in order to get smarter - is not collaboration. It can just result in blind-leading-the-blind. Collaboration requires goals and is maximally effective when it results in the creation of a communal mind. The possibilities of innovation, efficiency, and productivity are endless only when the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Collaborative groupware applications are designed to streamline project management and workflow systems; and allow collaboration on processes like inventory management, customer service, project and task management. This collaborative environment enables virtual teams to plan, organize, innovate and drive projects to completion in a timely fashion.

Workflow systems; most sophisticated Content Management Systems have workflow, which manages "how tasks are structured and who performs them, what their relative order is, how they are synchronized, how information flows to support the tasks and how tasks are being tracked."

Office Suites; bundles up various office applications - increasingly as a web-based suite.

Project & task management; helps establish clear and explicit expectations - along with establishing goals, timetables and methods - for monitoring progress.

Personal & shared calendars; helps team members keep track of tasks, appointments, deadlines, plan and schedule initiatives; and since they aren’t hand-written, there’s less room for misinterpretation.

Future outlook

Having evolved over the past several decades, the time is ripe for groupware. The potential of groupware applications to greatly enhance efficiencies in personal and business operations is driving widespread interest in them.

What's more it will continue to evolve as time progresses - and new and different demands are made on applications being used within the realms of group interaction.

Conclusion

Overall, groupware has changed the way people communicate and the way business is conducted.

It has facilitated the creation, management and sharing of information though various channels of communication. This communication and collaboration when applied, sums up to a highly productive and shared environment which accelerates productivity. It also facilitates easier management of files, documents, and data in general.

Groupware will always remain only as strong as the abilities of the people who use it. But when groupware is successful, the benefits accrued are dramatic.

Written by Ebrahim Ezzy and edited by Richard MacManus. Note: there is also a poll at end of this post, which we invite you to participate in.

MySpace is booming in popularity; Facebook is gracing the headlines again; Bebo is growing incredibly; Tribe relaunched; Cyworld, Hive7 and SecondLife are nothing short of a phenomenon; LinkedIn is becoming 'People Search'; ITToolbox relaunched with a host of social networking features; Friendster is now refueling itself to enter the market again.

Put simply, social networking is hot and there is plenty of money and action in the SNS space to prove it.

Short History of Social Networks

Social Networks have a history almost as long as RSS. Aspects of social networks have long been present in dating services such as Match and Classmates. The notion of social networking first formally appeared on the Internet in the late 1990s, with services like FireFly, eGroups/OneList, ICQ and Evite - which allowed groups of people to coordinate certain kinds of interaction. 

It was not until 2003 that social networks became truly mainstream - with the advent of Friendster. Shortly thereafter, there was a wave of social networks. Adopting small-world theory, services like Tribe, Orkut, LinkedIn and Spoke emerged - allowing users to better organize and expand their recreational and business networks.

Today: "Social Network 3.0"

Today, social networks are enormously popular. The benefits can be seen at the multiplier level - people mentor each other through the formation of communities; and they network and inspire each other by example and input. Social networks protect people from the vastness of cyberspace and offer tools to find each other, organize and share information, or just keep in touch with friends.

Social networking sites have proliferated in the span of the past year. While I don't have actual numbers, Wiikipedia tells us that there are at least two hundred social networks, with scores of new ones appearing each day. While some of these services focus on teens, others target individual professionals and some aim at organizations like businesses and graduate schools.

Venture capitalist David Hornik recently wrote about what he calls 'Social Networks 3.0':

"I believe that we are now in Social Networks 3.0. After a fair bit of excitement and energy around pure play social networks, it became clear that the building and management of a social network was not, in and of itself, a compelling consumer experience. In a nod back to the earliest instantiations of social networking, entrepreneurs have come to realize that social networks are enablers of other compelling consumer experiences. Thus, social networks are becoming an important ingredient of all sorts of consumer experiences...

I believe that social networking will be a crucial element of virtually all online consumer experiences going forward. And truly compelling online consumer experiences will always make successful companies."
(emphasis ours)

Overview of the current Social Networking Space

There are hundreds of emergent social networks, but I've shortlisted a few that are worth keeping an eye on (apart from the obvious ones, like MySpace and Facebook):

LinkedIn

A great resource for finding talented, like-minded, and socially responsible people - upon whom you can network for work opportunities, contract jobs, sales or partnership discussions. There has been some talk about whether LinkedIn will expand beyond its niche. Co-Founder and Vice President Marketing at LinkedIn Konstantin Guericke commented recently that perhaps there is no need for that:

"LinkedIn has been profitable for the past six months, and revenues are growing very quickly. I'm not sure who else can say that."

CollectiveX

CollectiveX is social groupware suitable for a user-group, special-interest group, or any other like-minded group of people who share similar goals. It combines certain team collaboration features - including group emails, shared scheduling, file sharing and bulk email services etc.. This sets it apart from other social networks. Michael Arrington's review supports my view, that CollectiveX is social networking "the way it should have been done in the first place."

PeopleAggregator

PeopleAggregator [disclosure: Richard does work for them] is a meta social network system, meaning it enables you to connect other social networking services together. Perhaps the most important aspect of this is the Identity Hub, where you can login to other systems via PeopleAggregator. Another feature of PeopleAggregator is that you can import and export your data with relative ease - i.e. it's an open system, unlike MySpace for example. This vision is still being built out, but the idea is that eventually you'll be able to send messages, create relationships, join or create groups, and post content between social networks.

Wetpaint

Wetpaint allows you to create free hosted websites, using wiki technology. It describes itself as a combination of "wikis, blogs, and social networks" and encourages people to create topic-focused sites. For example check out this wetpaint site devoted to dogs, called WikiFido.

Multiply

Great for those who like the idea of sharing their lives, but not necessarily every facet of their lives. So privacy and user control are its main selling points. There is also a lot of granularity as to how users can define relationships - e.g. husband, roommate, business contact are some of the options. For more on these types of services, check out Ken Yarmosh's R/WW post Smart Social Networks. Multiply currently claims nearly 3 million registered users. 

Imeem

Allows sharing of all types of media content - blogs, photos, audio, and video. In the words of Wikipedia, it "has both a social network structure as well as a content browsing/filtering structure". In that sense it enables you to create a social network dynamically and in real time.

Points to Ponder

Does more members in a network make a users life better?

Instead of simply allowing the users to create and manage friendship flow charts, social networks need to enable them to do something. Users should be empowered to control and utilize their social networks in a meaningful and protected way.

What's the purpose of social networking?

Several mainstream social networks focus squarely on numbers - page views, number of members, hits etc. And there's nnothing wrong with that, it's a valid business approach. But social networks play on our desire to be a part of something big, which might never happen...

So social networking is great, as long as it can serve its purpose by connecting people in a meaningful way - and for a meaningful purpose. 

Over time, I believe, people will get tired of the vast and generic theme of mainstream social networks - and move towards niche or vertical social networks that will serve their passions and interests.

So, will niche or vertical social networks take off?

Helping match people with content is a worthwhile pursuit. We're already seeing a new wave of niche social networks that are building social-enabled sites around content-oriented channels - e.g. pets, books, music, cars, shopping, travel. 

But social networks require a critical mass to thrive. So it will be interesting to see how the smaller, niche social networks deal with their much smaller user bases.

However, due to their focus, they do seem prepared to tackle the potential social networking bust that lies ahead.

Time for a silver bullet

The value of social networking, in general, is diminished with each new service entering the field. There's a need for some standards in the social networking space, as it is difficult to maintain profiles at each social network.

Many of the fun-seeking Myspacers may actually be the very same respectful businessmen at LinkedIn, just with an adjusted profile (and maybe an adjusted name to go with it). So what we require is a system that connects all social networks - that a user is a member of - and shares basic functionalities. This would allow users to choose a system with the features and approach that best suits them.

Or better yet, instead of being confined to one giant centralized social network, we should move to social groupwares - like CollectiveX and PeopleAggregator - that enable users to build their own meta social networks, based on their passions and interests. This way, numerous social networks will proliferate - each with unique form and function.

Poll

More and more applications these days are being webified - meaning "made to operate on the Web using a browser or made to function in a similar manner." This is because the Internet is capable of significantly augmenting human interaction, with its decentralized system of ubiquitous data accessibility.

WebOS, the remote desktop

We've already seen a wealth of desktop-replicated web applications in the web 2.0 space - office suites, calenders, task management. A webtop (derived from 'desktop') pushes that replication to its limit. Also known as a WebOS, it is basically a virtual desktop on the web. It is a simple, less bloated, less featured and remotely accessible operating environment that runs in a browser. It delivers a rich desktop-like experience, coupled with various built-in applications. 

Popularized (in the Web 2.0 era) by Goowy among others, these products typically feature wallpapers, windows, toolbars, folders, work & entertainment tools, abilities like drag and drop - and other pseudo-useful features that have been available on desktops forever.

The concept is expected to appeal those who require seamless connectivity, even on-the-go. Common uses include file-sharing, a communication tool for families and small workgroups, office tasks (private word documents, calendar and agenda), Entertainment (Games, Chat, Music), as an FTP alternative, etc. Richard has been writing about WebOS companies for a while on ZDNet - and his recent post about EyeOS shows how WebOS products are being used by people.

Startups in this space

Goowy provides email (2GB), messenger, calendar, address book, News/RSS manager, file sharing & storage (1GB), games, and widgets (which they call mini). Developed mostly in Flash, Goowy also offers hosted version with added functionalities, for businesses. [Ed: Ryan Stewart wrote a great overview of Goowy on Read/WriteWeb in March]

DesktopTwo (also available in Spanish) provides email, address book, file storage and sharing (1GB), IM, blog, music player and a website editor in a nicely organized user-interface. It requires Flash, Acrobat Reader, and popup windows to function correctly. It's a nice name (DesktopTwo = Desktop 2.0, I guess) and my personal favorite.

Glide Effortless is a web-suite that handles media files - documents, photos, audio, and video - and also provides a handy word processor and calendar.

XIN is still in beta, but is evolving into a full-featured WebOS. In Richard's original review of XIN, he noted that XIN aims to be an entirely Web-based OS and as such is a full development platform.

YouOS has perhaps the most recognition of all the WebOS products - and high ideals too. The YouOS developers describe their product as "a liberation of software from hardware". According to Richard's article, YouOS wants the OS to be no longer a user's primary concern - it's your data and your apps that you only need to concern yourself with.

EyeOS (Open-Source) was developed in Spain and currently boasts 53,500 users in the main public server. In addition there are around 400 active servers installed by users. More in Richard's review.

Great Idea, Questionable Value

The Internet has changed how we access and use information. With a computer and a high-speed connection, no matter where you are, your world travels with you. Of course, while that might sound eminently desirable - the reality is sometimes not as romantic.

WebOS is a great idea, but in my opinion it has questionable value. It can be fun, exciting, entertaining and even convenient for some - but being as efficient, flexible and productive as a desktop is practically impossible. The majority of these applications are almost essentially superfluous, emphasizing novelty over substance.

Downsides of a WebOS 

• Works at the mercy of the network and the server load.
• While the many enabling capabilities of network-based storage architectures are of substantial value - issues of authentication, access control, and security/privacy of the stored data remain. Are you going to let someone else handle your data? Would you trust a startup to protect your critical data? [Ed: for an interesting side argument, see this discussion of IBM's SoulPad from a year ago]
• The privacy, control, reliability and performance issues prevent the WebOS from being an alternative to the ever-more-affordable and easy-to-use desktop.
• WebOS requires a fast and reliable (if not flawless) connection to work correctly.
• Inability to operate peripheral devices.
• Web applications rely on open source infrastructure and an array of technologies and formats - and these are constantly changing, often with no regard for being backwards compatible.

As Fred Oliveira of WeBreakStuff nicely put it:

"...after service outsourcing and personal outsourcing, we’re seeing a new age of web-service outsourcing. One with no regulations - only expectations and hopes. Everything is based on trust, and trust sometimes fails.

And the problem here is that even with web-services as a liability, there’s no fallback mechanism, no alternative route, and no “competitor service” that can be plugged into an app in the timely manner like web 2.0 applications require.

This proves that purely mash-up based applications have small foundations, and like a house with no foundations, they may fail to resist, should the unexpected happen."
(bold emphasis mine)

I should note that without a leap of faith, no idea or innovation can get off the ground. However, several other factors make web applications like WebOS less secure, less productive and unreliable.

Improve the desktop instead

I rely on various web applications to create documents, presentations, spreadsheets; share images, videos, data; manage and organize tasks, projects and life. But I still believe the future of computing isn't entirely web-based. It's necessary to have the desktop as the pivotal point, because the power of the desktop is important for a rich user experience - and will be, for a very long time to come.

What we require then are smart, webified, internet deployable desktop applications - that can reliably store data, serve it robustly, and interact with both remote and local databases. This connected model will ensure that applications will function in both online and offline states - for a seamless, uninterrupted experience. 

Companies that are vying to be the prime desktop development platform include Microsoft, Adobe and (increasingly) Google. Ryan Stewart has a good post summarizing the main desktop platforms. See also Techworld.com on Windows Vista and virtualisation.

Webified Desktop Applications

There are many examples of desktop applications that benefit from the connectivity and mobility of web-based data:

• Windows Live Writer provides a powerful replacement for web-based blogging. 
• Word 2007 will also allow blogging from Open API.
• Utilizing the power of desktop and a remotely hosted environment, SecondLife provides a unique type of gameplay that would be impossible on the desktop alone.
• The NYTimes Reader "enhances the on-screen reading experience" by providing functionalities in a desktop application that weren't achievable through a web-based interface (see also the R/WW review).
• iTunes integrates with its online music store and generates an impressive revenue stream.
• Using Excel 2007, a spreadsheet author will be able to save their spreadsheet to a SharePoint (Microsoft's web-based collaboration tool) document library and give other users browser-based access to the server-calculated version of that spreadsheet.

Other examples include Webaroo (offline search), PicasaWeb (Desktop Photo organizer and uploader), Omnidrive (data storage), Omniscope (data filtering and manipulation), Qube (browserless, desktop search), TouchStone (information management - private alpha) etc.

As the Web becomes increasingly interconnected and applications continue to blur the distinction between the desktop and web, we should expect to see more applications that allow Web/desktop synchronization. This will happen due to the increasing development of web services that enable apps to work equally well across web and desktop clients.

Summary

I will continue to use WebOS and other web-based productivity applications, just to appease the Web 2.0 spirit within me. But the fact remains that Webified (or "connected") desktop applications are noticeably superior, offering almost all the benefits of web applications without any limitations. Indeed, I think the two environments are not even directly comparable. 

However, in the end desktop and web are just small outposts in a much larger world of information creation, collaboration, distribution, management, and presentation. What ultimately matters is productivity, scalability and speed.

If (and it's a big 'if') the web will render the desktop obsolete someday, then I'll be more inclined to accept the new norm of web apps and services.

UPDATE: We've published a poll, for you to tell us which type of app you prefer - desktop or browser-based.

This article explores the new online advertising model of CPA (Cost per Action/Acquisition) and determines whether it will be The Next Big Thing on the Internet.

The CPA feasibility test

Let's dive straight into testing whether CPA is good for publishers, then we'll explain the theory behind it and explore whether CPA is really the next stage in online advertising.

The following CPA feasibility test enables publishers to calculate which form of online advertising is best for them - CPA, CPC, or CPM? With the help of past performance data, publishers can develop benchmarks to determine whether CPA will work for them. It's a simple 3-step calculation to check if your web property can bear the risk:

1. Finding pricing benchmark; Numbers of impressions (to be sold or from the past data) / 1000 x CPM = Pricing benchmark 
2. Finding expected click yield; Numbers of impressions (to be sold or from the past data) x % CTR = Expected click yield
3. Determining Target cost per click; Pricing benchmark / Expected click yield = Target CPC

If the Target CPC is any lower than your Average CPC, which is most likely for an average publisher, then it is a risk. 

Beyond CPC - the emerging CPA world

Over the years, search has evolved to become a full-fledged marketing & advertising channel. Internet advertising revenues reached a new high of $3.9 billion for the first quarter of 2006, which continued the trend of record setting quarters. It is abundantly clear that advertisers are seeing a compelling opportunity to leverage the Internet as a powerful medium that drives both branding and sales results.

Google is currently monopolizing the online advertising industry. Internet Advertising or Online Advertising is commonly associated with Google's Adsense/Adwords (and its derivatives), since it revolutionized web publishing by turning personal websites, blogs and forums into potentially lucrative ventures - by setting a new standard for affordable, targeted and effective advertising.

However, the recent issues of click fraud, click attack, ad tracking discrepancies, etc., are starting to cause cracks in online advertising. It makes one wonder whether or not the CPC (Cost-Per-Click) advertising model that Google, Yahoo, MSN and others espouse actually works. Click fraud and other critically contentious issues are a big threat to the CPC model.

Also in these days of budget cuts and profit woes, advertisers are struggling to link a clear return on investment by investing in various online (and offline) advertising platforms. 

So let's look beyond CPC to explore the opportunities offered by the CPA (Cost per Action/Acquisition) model. All the big search engines, including Google, are considering adopting CPA.

CPA - Cost per Action/Acquisition

In contrast to the CPC Model, which seeks to drive a high volume of traffic to the advertiser, the still-emerging CPA model provides action/acquisition opportunities by offering financial incentives - usually in the form of a revenue share percentage - to publishers. Incentives are solely based on actions such as acquiring qualified database entrants (e.g. opt-in email), driving sign-ups, downloads, inquiries or ultimately acquiring paying customers.

CPA is considered to be an optimal form of advertising from the advertiser's point of view, since the entire burden of responsibility is on the publisher. The commissions that publishers receive are dependant on good conversion rates from the ads. 

Indeed it could be argued that CPA, being virtually risk-free for the advertiser, discourages marketing innovation and diligence. If publishers overexpose their users to CPA advertising, it could have a long-term detrimental effect on the industry (not to mention annoy readers!).

The CPA Model - Google is key

To address problems posed by the CPC model, Google recently acknowledged that it's testing CPA. Some niche players (Snap, ValueClick, Jellyfish, etc.) have already adopted CPA, but Google's foray into the market would be a huge step to broaden acceptance of this concept.

Google's competitive advantage is its network size. With thousands of advertisers and publishers, grouping is relatively easy. Depth and variety can compensate for any flaws in the grouping algorithm. So a substantial user base is important - even ad networks with outstanding technology can still perform miserably without a large user base. 

Also eBay, which is in the same business of connecting people - and can be said to be nothing more than a glorified classified advertising business - has launched its AdContext program. This should make CPA more popular, because it will lure publishers by promising them a cut of auction sales made from the ads.

Problems with CPA

• Difficult to manage; balancing the risks of advertisers and publishers against each other makes the CPA model the most difficult to manage. Publishers should be responsible for influencing the consumer, not closing a deal too.
• Not immune to gaming; CPA might prevent click fraud, a major issue with CPC model currently. But soon enough, there will be people will who will figure out ways to cheat CPA too.
• Suitable only for medium/large businesses, because small businesses can't afford to pay relatively high CPA premiums to publishers (see this post by Seeking Alpha for more context).
• Ignores the value of brand building.
• Immature tracking technology; the CPA model may yet be unsuccessful too, because the tracking technology hasn't yet matured into something so robust and reliable that it would enable a vast number of affiliates to be utilized.

Reasons why publishers dislike the CPA Model 

While CPA is ideal for advertisers, publishers won't prefer this model for the following reasons:

• Most financial risk; if an advertising campaign fails and generates no response, the publisher receives no remuneration for displaying the advertisement.
• Low Earnings; in most cases, the revenue generated through a CPA deal works out to be the equivalent of a very low CPM.
• Tracking discrepancies; publishers are often reliant on the advertiser's figures, to calculate the number of actions generated from the campaign. 

Which Ad model is best?

For advertisers: CPA would be best, because ad cost is directly proportional to action conversion rates. Which means the advertiser only pays for actions which contribute to their bottom line.

For publishers: CPM (Cost per mille/thousand) is still the best option. CPM is an advertising model in which the costing is based on the number of times an ad is displayed to the user, regardless of the user's subsequent action. Most rich-media advertising, and nearly all offline advertising (Radio, Television and Print) costs are determined on CPM basis.

CPC is, and will remain, the most cost-effective, affordable and balanced ad model for both advertiser and publisher - IF its underlying problems can be addressed (click fraud, etc.), CPC can provide a radical improvement to overall ad performance and result in sustained productivity growth. Also, increases in productivity - which we've seen a lot of in recent years - is what most drives economic growth without causing inflation. 

To summarize: CPA is best for advertisers, CPM is best for publishers, and CPC is the best for both - as long as the underlying issues, like click fraud, are resolved.

Conclusion 

It is obvious that CPA alone is not the ultimate panacea for advertisers hoping to deliver campaigns that are branded or lead-generation focused. This is evidenced by the fact that many advertisers regularly shift dollars between several types of campaigns - including CPM, CPC and CPA. 

Therefore CPA, in my opinion, is not the holy grail of advertising. But I'm really hoping that Google will pleasantly surprise us, once again!

---------

Note: Ebrahim Ezzy is working on a Qube module called AdRoll, which will enable "free advertising". More details on AdRoll will be published in the coming months on the Qelix blog.

Photos: G0SUB and labnol

In our previous post we coined the term "Search 2.0", in order to compare third-generation search technologies (of, or pertaining to, the current era of social web) with traditional search engines - to see where the future of search lies.

Even if some of the startups we're profiling in this series may not survive the next Internet bust, the underlying ideas are evolutionary and have proven to be effective so far. We think the ideas showcased by these new social search apps are worth embracing, to ensure the future growth of the search industry. And, as we note at the end of this post, the big search companies (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft) think so too... 

Here then are some further profiles of search 2.0 apps, followed by our analysis of where the search industry is headed.

Gravee

While the new generation of search engines all have great technology, one area of concern is that most have no viable business model to support their operations. However Gravee is one that does have an interesting business model. Indeed it is attempting to change the economics of search, by sharing advertising revenue with the content owners and compensating them for making search results possible.

While this is a potential revenue opportunity for website owners, it doesn’t provide any visible value to end-users on the search side - apart from pseudo-useful features like tagging and community-based ranking.

Unique Feature(s): Revenue sharing

Jookster

Jookster is another community-driven, social search tool and it works primarily through a browser toolbar or button. It searches through a user's bookmarks and other associated sites of interest, derived from the user's social network. Essentially, it’s a cross between social networking and search.

Ironically, there are more ads than organic results to almost any query; perhaps the database is currently very limited due to the lack of significant user base.

Unique Feature(s): Social networking blended with search

Other similar services: Otavo (Private Beta); Outfoxed; Yoono

Krugle

A search engine for developers, Krugle makes it easy to search for technical information, source code and answers to code-related technical questions. It enables searching of code samples from open source repositories, archives, mailing lists, blogs and web pages. It allows tagging, along with sharing of code and sets of search results.

Krugle delivers the precise help and knowledge that programmers need to solve their immediate problems.

Unique Feature(s): Interactive browsing in code context, Connects developers

Other similar services: Koders

LivePlasma

LivePlasma is a visual music and movie discovery engine that covers bands, artists, movies, actors and directors - in a multilingual interface. It features a Flash-based data visualization tool and utilizes mind mapping. It's really a recommendation engine, because the aim is to discover similar music and movies. This may be useful when you're searching for new music or movies to explore. 

Unique Feature(s): Similarity Network Mapping or Mind Mapping, Recommendation engine

Other similar services: Truveo, Pandora, Last.fm

Qube

Qube is a desktop application that provides one-click access to search results - without having to use a browser, switch applications or even enter a keyword. It instantly searches any text already onscreen (or manually entered) and retrieves results in seconds, while also enhancing the search with features like real-time spell checker, history logging, dictionary results and more - all without any performance penalties.

Unique Feature(s): One-Click, Browserless & Progressive Search, Intelligent Text Capturing

[Disclaimer: Qube is Ebrahim Ezzy's company]

ZoomInfo

ZoomInfo scours the web (corporate websites, press releases, electronic news services, SEC filings and other public online sources) for people and their contact information. It compiles concise summaries about individuals and companies, in an organized manner. Social networking tools are available if you choose to be their customer.

With the growing Web population, there is a significant demand for a 'people search engine'. While TSEs like Google already contain large amounts of similar data, specialized people search engines process the data and present it in a comprehensive format.

Unique Features(s): Concise web summaries, Social networking aspects

So why use a Search 2.0 app over a TSE?

Traditional search engines are becoming increasingly more precise and expansive, however they cannot surpass human intelligence. It can only match words, not the meaning of the ideas discussed within them. Whereas the still-emerging technologies of S-2.0 can help make search more meaningful, subjective and task-based.

While TSE is good for finding information, S-2.0 is good at discovering new information at a rapid pace. 

S-2.0 enabled data is distributed through the lateral route of a user's interests - rather than the direct route of TSEs, which require a user to carefully craft his/her query to be an accurate statement of the information desired.

Can search 2.0 replace traditional search, ever?

Like metasearch, current S-2.0 technologies do not replace traditional search engines. They rather enhance and grow new possibilities. They work in conjunction with TSEs to provide a more powerful search.

Search 2.0 is rapidly evolving and proliferating, but still can't compete against traditional search. We have yet to see an application that blends the capabilities of Search 2.0 and traditional search synergistically, giving us exactly what we want. It’s likely that something will eventually replace TSE - perhaps there are two kids busy working in a garage as we speak, creating a future GYM competitor!

How is traditional search evolving to Search 2.0?

Perhaps a better way to look at this: how is traditional search evolving to become more personalized and specialized? 

Already we're seeing the big Internet companies moving towards the search 2.0 vision. Yahoo has a social search play called MyWeb 2.0 and is integrating more and more social aspects into its search. Google has quietly introduced bookmarking and tagging for search history and also has aspirations for social search. Microsoft's MSN is looking to get social too.

While the intelligence required to conduct social search still resides in people, the key to harnessing it lies in the network. TSEs have greater opportunities for traction, with their substantial user bases - a key ingredient of any social network. 

So this is more evidence that the latest search revolution is just getting started. Make way for social search!

Let's start be defining what we mean by "search 2.0" vs traditional search.

Traditional Search (TSE):

Traditional search engines are based on information retrieval technologies. They implement operations such as boolean queries, proximity searches, text relevance and link analysis.

Examples: Google, Yahoo, MSN, Ask

Search 2.0 (S-2.0):

What I'm calling Search 2.0 are actually third generation search technologies. To explain the generations:

• First-generation search ranked sites based on page content - examples are early yahoo.com and Alta Vista.
• Second-generation relies on link analysis for ranking - so they take the structure of the Web into account. Examples are Google and Overture.
• Third-generation search technologies are designed to combine the scalability of existing internet search engines with new and improved relevancy models; they bring into the equation user preferences, collaboration, collective intelligence, a rich user experience, and many other specialized capabilities that make information more productive.

Examples: Swicki, Rollyo, Clusty, Wink, Lexxe

The Search 2.0 Companies (Pt 1)

Search is a multi-billion dollar market and a lot of startups want to be 'the next Google' So lets take a look at what current hot technologies are shaping the future of search.

Swicki

Swicki is a community-driven search engine that allows users to create deep, focused searches on a specific niche. Search results from a Swicki are more focused than a TSE and can learn and adapt automatically, based on the search behavior of the community.

Key Feature: Pattern recognition and Adaptive filtering

How it is useful compared to TSE?: Sometimes, looking for specific information in huge web indexes is so mystifying that users feel lost. Services like Swicki promise to accelerate the evolution of Search, by providing hyper-contextual (to use Mike Arrington's term) search results.

Rollyo

Both Rollyo and Swicki pursue a similar goal: community powered, theme-based search. Rollyo allows users to create and publish their own personal search engines, based on websites they decide to include in their 'SearchRoll'. SearchRoll doesn't replace a TSE, it's just a great way to search your favorite things in your favorite places.

Key Feature: Community-driven Search

How is it useful compared to TSE?: It narrows your search down to only a few trusted sources. A welcome retreat from the current in-your-face information chaos of the web.

Clusty

As the name suggests, Clusty is a clustering engine that groups similar items together - organizing search results into folders. It goes beyond simple search and combines the power of clustering with meta-search (i.e. a search of other searches), to provide a productive and flexible search experience. As well as producing organic web results, Clusty also enables searching of shopping information, yellow pages data, news, blog posts and images.

Key Feature: Result Clustering

How it is useful compared to TSE?: The competition has shifted from crawling the web and returning search results, to adding value to the information that has been retrieved. Clusty has a few advantages over Google:

1) You don't have to come up with your own categories or subjects in order to narrow, or refine, the search.

2) You don't have to rely on Google's perceived emphasis on links.

3) You don't have to guess the keyword, to get to that perfect page you need. Navigate the clusters and sub-clusters, just as you would use eBay, to find that one specific treasure you've been hunting for.

Wink

Using the power of social networking, Wink enables users to tag their favorite results, block irrelevant spam and display the best sites - as hand-picked by other users.

Key Feature: Collaborative Search

How is it useful compared to TSE?: Humans can recognize spam better than any automated filter. Social Search battles search manipulation (i.e. Black Hat SEO) by allowing users to block spam directly. However, one issue is that this system can be easily gamed. But if improved, Wink can deliver a leap in value to Web searchers.

Lexxe

Lexxe does what TSE's already do, but more efficiently. Lexxe is designed to extract short answers on-the-fly, instead of finding the page on which the answer might be located. It emphasizes the processing of language rather than symbols - using the level of words and the meanings associated with them.

Key Feature: Linguistic Search

How is it useful compared to TSE?: Although they claim to be "50% more accurate and relevant than any other search engine, including google", I'm not convinced. However, they do have mechanisms in place to determine fairly accurate answers for short questions, compared to Google. For example: Who was Louis-Nicholas Vauquelin? Compare Google's answer to Lexxe's.

Summary

That wraps up Part 1 of our look into Search 2.0. In the next installment we'll be looking at other notable contenders like Jookster, Gravee, PreFound and Ebrahim's own company Qube. We'll also address questions such as:

How is traditional search evolving to Search 2.0? Can Search 2.0 replace Traditional Search, ever?

Update: Part 2 of this series is available now, with more profiles plus an analysis of how traditional search is evolving towards social search.