参与型架构：下一代网站模型

读者： 6751    发布时间： 2007
  只浏览译文    English <-> Chinese(simplified) 双语阅读
译文平均得分
0 分（共0人投票）
fold折叠 unfold展开

原文: Architectures of Participation: The Next Big Thing

Well, it seems to be finally happening.  The Web 2.0 sites are starting to bubble up  -- no pun intended -- to the very top of the traffic charts, with MySpace and then YouTube eclipsing each other in weeks.  The Guardian reported yesterday that YouTube is now commanding 3.9% of all Internet traffic, making it the #1 site on the Internet. That's more than impressive given that they only started out in February, 2005.  I've been covering MySpace and YouTube in my last two pieces (one, two) because they in particular seem to represent leading edge best practices in the social architectures of large-scale public Web sites.  Ostensibly very "Web 2.0", both MySpace and YouTube aggressively "harness the collective intelligence" of their user's combined contributions as their primary offering to the world.  In this sense, they have put their architectures of participation at the core of their product design.  And wouldn't you know it, it's made them both leaders on the world stage.
Web 2.0's Architecture of Participation

But are they actually a flash in the pan?  Do sites based primarily on participation really last? Won't the next big site come along, and like YouTube seems to be doing to MySpace, just eclipse them?  Yes, that's likely to happen.  In fact, it's possible we'll see an increasingly rolling wave of Web 2.0 sites overtaking each other, one after the other.  The reason for this seems to be that the techniques for explicitly leveraging network effects and viral feedback loops is just making its big debut to the global software community.  The techniques are still being refined and then one-upped.

And yes, of course, none of this is actually new, it's really all about the sea changes in the way people are using and designing for the Web, much more than the Web itself.  So it's less a technological change (though there are a few of those too) than a change in mindset and habit.  Yet it's having a very real effect on the sites that people visit and how they produce and consume information on the Web.  At the core of all this is collective intelligence, the user contributed information on a site that is its powerful draw; if it's the information they want that is.  This can be user contributions in the form of text, images, audio, video, etc.  Or it can be what John Battelle has long referred to as the Database of Intentions, which is often the 2nd order information about what other people thought about a given user's contributions including search results, popularity statistics, clicking, tagging, etc.  This can make contributions, especially popular ones, easier to find and locate, forming a sort situational awareness console for the Web (such as del.icio.us/popular) that creates traffic pile-ons spurring further growth.  Finally, there is data sharing, the simple act of making prior decisions and their outcomes available to others, which is seeming the final sort of user contribution.

But a network effect is only an actual effect if it results in a successful propagation of attention and subsequent value. By this I mean that the content must draw in others in some way (who then contribute as well).  And network effects are often be most effective when they're carried in a social "push" process, such as when a friend e-mails a friend about their favorite new YouTube video.  In fact, the end of each YouTube video makes it easy to do this.  Offering this option was clearly one important decision in YouTube's architecture of participation, as was making the video sharing badge process so easy to use by making the Javascript snippet to share it on your own site or blog available right next to each video, without having to ask for it.

Of course, you have to have valuable content or people won't come back and they won't push it to their friends.  And though my good friend Jim Benson says that in this regard people should focus on quality communities vs. meteoric growth rates, the truth is that they probably go hand in hand.  That doesn't mean that YouTube hasn't skirted copyright law to ensure it has the very best content to ensure growth. And that will be a question that will probably haunt them, and others that go down the route of that particular grey line, for a long time to come.

But generally, what this means for software, both inside and outside of organizations, is that the power of harnessing the innovation and output of your users will eclipse almost anything that centrally organized production could hope to match.  Admittedly that's with overall production quality a possible outlier in this model.  But the point is that whether it's consumers or employees, putting tools in their hands and driving creation fueled by self-interest (simple attention getting, but perhaps increasingly putting advertising in their contributed content?) can clearly result in a massive wave of relevant creative output.  This is what is called innovation at the edge of the network, and it's an amazing phenomenon that all of us are learning to tap by crafting the designs of our sites with an effective architecture of participation.  And I'll go on record, given the results so far, building competitive architectures of participation is almost certainly going to be one of the biggest topics in software design for the rest of the decade.

It's almost like an arms race, but soon everyone will have the tools and techniques.  What will happen after that? Equilibrium?

译文: 参与型架构：下一代网站模型

    事情最终还是发生了，那些 Web 2.0 网站正在展露头角（没有双关的意思），它们已经攀爬到互联网流量表的顶端，随着 MySpace 和 YouTube 之间的竞争和相互超越。从昨天 Guardian 的报告 来看，YouTube 现在已经占用了互联网 3.9% 的带宽，这已经让它成为了全球的头号网站。令人印象最深刻的就是它在2005年二月才对外推出服务的。我曾经在我的两篇文章（1 , 2）中分析过 MySpace 和 YouTube，因为它们已经在实践中验证了大规模社会网络的架构。表面上看起来非常的 “Web 2.0″，MySpace 和 YouTube 都勇于驾驭它们用户的集体智慧（中文翻译 - 驾驭集体智慧的五个有效方法），将用户贡献的内容传递给全世界。这样看起来，他们已经将参与的架构作为自己产品的核心架构，而且这种架构已经让它们两个成为了自己领域内的领导者。


Web 2.0's Architecture of Participation

    但它们是昙花一现吗？这种以参与架构为主的网站是最终形式吗？不会有另一个替代品吗，就像 YouTube 超越 MySpacae 那样？是的，超越肯定会出现的。事实上，Web 2.0 的网站浪潮正在一波接一波的袭来，他们会一个接一个的相互替代。因为触发网络效应（中文翻译 - Web 2.0 的秘方：网络效应）与产生病毒式回馈的技术将会在整个软件开发社区里面着陆，冲击大家的思维，并且影响今后的软件设计思路，这就是网站相互超越的主要原因。


    当然，这里并没有全新的东西，改变的只是人们使用与设计 Web 的方式，这种改变要远大于 Web 自身的变化。所以技术上的变化相对于人们思想和习惯的变化是非常少的（当然也有一些）。这里已经有个很明显的改变，在人们访问一个网站的时候，他们生产和 消费信息的方式。这些集体智慧的核心就是用户贡献在网站的内容依赖于自身强大的吸引力，这个信息就是他们所需要的。用户贡献的内容可以是文字、图片、音 频、视频等等，或者也可以是 John Battelle 所提及到的 Database of Intentions（意图的数据），这些数据仅次于那些用户贡献的原始数据，就像用户贡献的搜索结果、流行度统计、点击、标签等等。这就让贡献的内容，尤其是流行的内容，更容易被发现和定位，在 Web 上提供一个可排序的环境（就像 del.icio.us/popular 一样）能够带来流量更进一步的提高。最后，关于数据的分享，简单的形式就是让人们的结论与成果尽量的让其他的用户发现。


    但是网络效应最终能够产生结果还是依赖于注意力的成功传播和并发的价值。我这样说的主要意思还是内容必须在某些方面的吸引人。当网络效应附加上一个 社会化的“推动（Push）”方式时就会变得更加有力，就像人们通过电子邮件告知他的朋友们 YouTube 上的视频那样。实际上，YouTube 上的每一个视频都让用户能够很容易的做到这一点。提供这种功能选项是 YouTube 的参与架构的一个重要形式，他们让每一个视频都能够通过 javascript 脚本片断的方式分享在你们自己的网站上或者能够显示富文本的Blog上，而不需要去主动的索取，这样引用了 YouTube 视频的网站就都成为了他的 Push 节点。


    当然，你必须拥有有价值的内容，不然用户不会回顾也不会推荐给他们的朋友。虽然我的好朋友 Jim Benson 说： 这样人们需要在专注于社区的质量还是短暂的访问量之间做出选择，但事实上大家可能还是会联合起来。这也并不意味着 YouTube 为了保证内容的优秀程度和增长速度没有与版权保护法律打过擦边球，可以确定的是，这将会成为一个一直纠缠他们的问题，而其他的可能会在这样特殊一个灰色界 限后面倒下。


    但是总的来说，这对于软件来说意味着什么？意味着只要你有驾驭你用户的输出与创新的力量，你就可以超越任何以中心化形式组织的产品。无可否认的是， 完整的产品质量是在这个模式之外的。但是需要指出的一点就是，无论他是你的顾客还是雇员，你将工具交到他们手中，他们自身的兴趣就像燃料那样会带给他们创 造的动力，其结果就是你会得到大量的并且相关的创造性的内容输出。这个被称之为边缘网络的创新，大家都在学习使用参与的架构来设计自己的网站，尝试着用它 来叩开 这种疯狂现象的大门。我将会继续的纪录这些现象和结果，能够设计一个有竞争优势的参与架构将会是未来10年内软件设计设计领域里面最热门的话题之一。


    现在看起来还像是徒手搏斗，但在不久的将来会有更好的工具和技术来支持大家。接下来将会发生什么？还能够保持平静吗？

奖励翻译积分 3分     
该篇译作共有1个评论，您还未登录，暂时无法查看 登录 注册

翻译：

Find translators Chinese to English translatorsJapanese to English translatorsFrench to English translators
Translation Community Source PoolTranslation PoolSubjectRecommend SourceRecommend & Translate Dictionary
Profile ProjectElanPayResumeMessages
User AgreementPrivacy Policy About UsContact Us Partners

Copyright © www.elanso.com 沪B2-20060389