Web 2.0 Technology

So Tim O'Reilly popularized the term "Web 2.0" in 2004. Many people talk about Web 2.0, and the need for businesses to get on it. They talk about technologies like AJAX, XML, RSS, "mash ups", widgets, blogs and vlogs. They rave about community and social networking sites like MySpace, FaceBook, and Friendster and sites that encourage sharing like YouTube, Flickr, and Blogspot.

So on this post, let's talk Web 2.0 Technologies. First thought? It ain't new.

XML (eXtensible Markup Language)
Initially defined in 1998 by the World Wide Web Consortium (w3c.org), this is essentially a data communication protocol so that different systems can talk to one another. According to Wikipedia, "Its primary purpose is to facilitate the sharing of structured data across different information systems, particularly via the Internet". Groups of users - and in particular, industries - can come together to determine how to label their data so that their systems can exchange information easily. The labels or "tags" look something like this:

Different industries have come up with their own standard XML specifications - Like the OTA XML by the OpenTravel Alliance (whose members range from Accor to Hertz to Expedia to American Airlines to Pegasus). XML is not particularly new but it is important and is sometimes lumped in as Web 2.0.

AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript And Xml)
Wikipedia: Ajax, or AJAX, is a web development technique used for creating interactive web applications. As you can see by the unabbreviated version, AJAX is just Javascript and XML being used together. Javascript has been around since 1995 when Netscape launched their 2nd version. Proper implementation allows metasearch sites like Kayak.com to display information as it comes in from different data source. You do not have to wait for the page to finish before interacting with the content. Google made this technique popular when incorporated it in their Google Maps allowing users to pan in different directions by clicking and dragging the map and having the new maps load up without refreshing the whole page. So 1995 and 1998 technology? As I said, it ain't new. Just the implementation.

RSS (Really Simple Syndication)
RSS is a name applied to a particular XML specification and its usage. Anyone can build an RSS "feed" by wrapping their data (news, offers, promos) around specific XML labels/tags standards for the information. A few developers started building readers for the feeds, and RSS took off as more and more online media started pushing their content out. The readers allow users to filter and customize the news/content that they get. RSS development started out as earlier as 1995 at Netscape and was more formalized in 2002.

YouTube
Well the technology seems new (founded in Feb 2005) and the company's meteoric rise shouts Web 2.0, but the technology is not new. The videos are using a Flash-based video player which has been around since 2002 (and Flash was developed by Macromedia back in 1997). What was really cool was that you could upload almost any kind of video format (MPEG, MPEG-2, QuickTime, MPEG4, avi, etc.) and it would convert it to Flash-video within minutes. These converters have been available in software applications and some online. But YouTube made it so easy to upload, convert AND SHARE, that it became ubiquitous.


Flickr
Flickr did the same for pictures what YouTube did for videos. A nicer interface to upload and edit pictures and a great way to share.

Blogs
A blog is nothing more than another website. The difference is the content, the genre...the way in which the content is written. It is a personal online diary of sorts, written informally and "off the cuff". There is no new technology. Blogger.com. WordPress, and Typepad are well-known today as companies that let people blog easily, but they are essentially content management systems (CMS). But these CMSes are so easy to use, they should really be "CMS for Dummies".

*********

Ultimately, Web 2.0 is not about new technology. There are no new discoveries. But there are plenty of beautiful implementation of existing technology that makes it so easy for people to create and share. It increased the user participation in online activities and created new business models.

(UPDATE) As Max Starkov wrote in a wiwih.com post, "Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to Web technical specifications, but to changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the web as a platform."

But what does this mean to a business? To a company? To an industry? That's another blog entry for another day.

Digg This Post

302 & 301 Redirect Fun

Many of us who have engaged SEO consultants have often gotten the feedback or report that our site is not search engine friendly because we are using "302 redirects instead of 301 redirects". Any clarification by the consultants is however not very clear. Our IT administrators proceed to change the 302s to 301s, but either can not explain or don't understand how this is supposed to affect our search engine friendliness. Or if there are any other reasons why 302s are bad.

Before I get into this, let me give you some background. Firstly, my old website (I can whine about it now in public since it has been replaced last week!) was running on Lotus Domino. This fine product from IBM served as the webserver, content management system and database (non-relational of course). Secondly, our web analytics tool is Omniture, which is a great javascript based data collection system; their business model is ASP-based (Application service provider) so there are no hardware/software overheads.

Next let's get the w3.org official definition of the 302 and 301 redirects:

====

10.3.2 301 Moved Permanently

The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URL and any future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URLs. Clients with link editing capabilities ought to automatically re-link references to the Request-URL to one or more of the new references returned by the server, where possible. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise.

The new permanent URL SHOULD be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URL(s).

If the 301 status code is received in response to a request other than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which the request was issued.

10.3.3 302 Found

The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URL. Since the redirection might be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD continue to use the Request-URL for future requests. This response is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header field.

The temporary URL SHOULD be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s).

If the 302 status code is received in response to a request other than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which the request was issued.

====

(302 has also been more clearly defined as "Moved temporarily")

Now we kinda understand the difference, why is 302 bad?

As it turns out, when the search engines hits a 302, they must index both sites. But it is being told that the content is temporary. So..

1) Should a search engine give a high rank to temporary information vs permanent information?
2) In the case of Google, how does it assign PageRank? To the first link which was redirecting to the second link and has no content? Or to the second link which is temporary?
3) Actually, since a 302 redirect does not pass "referrer" information to the second link, it can not credit the second link with pagerank of the first link.

Yes this get a little confusing for us as well as the search engines. So they don't like it.

In the case of my old website, Lotus Domino only does 302 redirects. This is a nightmare from the above perspective. It was also bad for our Omniture web analytics. Omniture operates as an application service provider (ASP); they host all the servers and reports and we implement some Javascript tracking codes on our pages. Not unlike Google Analytics. But because referrer information is not passed in a 302 redirect, our reports had a lot of "Typed/Bookmarked" traffic instead of actual Referrers.

As for 301, it just tells the search engines that this change is permanent, ignore the first link, and only look at the second link. Any PageRanks or scores should be directly attributed to the second link. Easy enough... As for Omniture, it passes through Referrer information so it's fine there as well.

Then again... ideally, we shouldn't use redirects at all.....

Digg This Post

"Competing on Analytics" - a Must Read

I was at Singapore Changi airport on the way to Vietnam in early June for a holiday with the family when I decided that I needed to get some reading material. One of the new books that just came out that caught my attention was "Competing on Analytics: The New Science of Winning". This was published by Harvard Business School Press. The writers are Thomas Davenport and Jeanne Harris; both write articles for Harvard Business Review while being professor or research fellow or director of some institute or other.


Anyhow, I bought it as I was getting more and more involved in the web analytics implementation for my new site using Omniture. It turned out to be a very, very interesting read and I have been recommending it. Here's why:

1) Analytics Defined: "the extensive use of data, statistical and quantitative analysis, explanatory and predictive models and fact based management to drive decision and actions".

This may seem straightforward (and "duh") to some of you as it was to me, but this clear and concise definition is what is need to make others understand what it is and how it should be used. Trust me, there are those out there with other "definitions".

2) "The five stages of analytical competition":

• Stage 1: analytically impaired ("flying blind")


• Stage 2: Localized analytics (isolated, fragmented, disconnected, inconsistent, etc.)
• Stage 3: Analytical aspirations (sees need, begins to explore options)
• Stage 4: Analytical companies (enterprise-wide perspective, eager to innovate and differentiate)
• Stage 5: Analytical competitors (analytics are the primary driver of performance and value)

"Flying blind" cracked me up in an ironic, cynical kind of way. Stage 2 just smacked me in the face as that is exactly where Millennium & Copthorne is (more on that later). I salivate by the time I get to reading about Stage 5 companies.

3) Emphasis on company-wide understanding and adoption of Analytics. (Another "Duh!!!") Great case studies/examples with NetFlix , Amazon Google as well as Capital One, Boston Red Sox, Walmart and P & G.

4) There are a lot of strategic advice but there many tactical ones too, like:
========
Effective management of data requires correct answers to:

1. Which data are needed to compete on analytics?
2. Where can these data be obtained?
3. How much are needed?
4. How can the data be made more accurate and valuable for analysis?
5. What rules and processes are needed to manage data from their creation through their retirement?

========

However, with all these management books, it does tend to get dry half-way through. To be quite honest, I have only gotten halfway through, and had not opened the book for a month (prior to writing this post that is.). I don't know if I will ever read the book in full, but more likely I will skim the balance. The first half of the book is well worth it in any case. I have half a dozen pages dog-eared for future reference - pages 8, 23, 40, 52, 62, 72. ;-)

Amazon's got a good deal on the hardcover. Probably since the paperback is gonna come out soon...
Digg This Post

Shockwave Flash vs. Javascript

Always a fun debate to have... (for us geeks that is).

On wiwih.com, a guy from TVTrip.com - a meta search engine out of the EU - was saying that "I just dont get it: most of 'cool flash effects' can be made with Javacript."

So here's my reply:
======
New Javascript apps needs to be tested thoroughly to make sure they are compatible with all browsers and don't break up the page. Flash is - for lack of a better phrase - "self contained".

Functionally, Flash can do as much as Javascript if you know how to use ActionScript well (which is kinda like Javascript in any case).

Javascript is AJAX; the buzz word for the last 2 years. I see that your site - TVtrip - uses that extensively, as a Web 2.0 should. :-) AJAX is a better way to handle large amount of data streaming in. I am planning to use that for our booking engine interface next year.

Flash is easier to develop. Yep, any web agency can whip up a flash anime in a ... flash (hehehe). But most of them have very limited Javascript expertise beyond select boxes.

I noted that you use Flash for your destination map on your homepage as well, so functional flash has its place. But obviously once you hit the Google Maps, it's Javascript and AJAX or the highway.
=====

For the new Millennium & Copthorne site, we use Flash for the promotion banners on the main country homepages. However, if you look at the bottom, there are 4 slider bars. When you click on them, they slide up and displays info relevant to that slider tab. This is done using javascript layers. Each layer is like a new page and can have any components including Flash and video.

.... and probably NOT very SEO friendly either. You just can't have your cake and eat it too.

Digg This Post

User Generated Content: The Missing Link? Web 2.0 or Travel 2.0?

Hotelmarketing.com does a promo piece for EyeForTravel's The UK Young Professional & Online Travel Report with an article on UGC, um yes.. that's User Generated Content.

Interesting data nonetheless:
1) 72% say that consumer reviews have influenced their travel choice
2) 15.3% state they always use UGC for travel
3) 79.1% say they have actually used consumer reviews for travel before

See the article here.

I kinda have an issue with them labeling this as "Web 2.0 or Travel 2.0". According to EyeForTravel, the most popular UGC site is Expedia's Tripadvisor.com. But wait a sec, they have had their user feedback and ratings system up since 2000 - that's when they started. Ebay has buyer/seller ratings since inception as well. Amazon added this on around 2000 as well if not earlier. I think the first website to get UGC as the main USP was epinions.com in 1999. Their mission is "To help people make informed buying decisions."

So what's makes this Web 2.0 or Travel 2.0? Then again, what is "Web 2.0" and "Travel 2.0"?

- Is it technology (AJAX, XML, CSS)?
- Is it particular websites (Flickr, youtube, myspace, blogger)?
- Is it communities/social networking, or just new venture money?

We can point to kayak.com and bezurk.com and say that's "Web 2.0", but can we define it?

Let's check Wikipedia, shall we?

===
The phrase Web 2.0 refers to a perceived second-generation of web-based communities and hosted services — such as social-networking sites, wikis and folksonomies — which aim to facilitate collaboration and sharing between users. The meme became popular following the first Web 2.0 conference in 2004. O'Reilly Media titled a series of conferences around the phrase, and it has since become widely adopted.
===
See the full entry here.

Interesting words: "perceived", "collaboration", "meme"

Ok, so whatever it is... What does it mean to business? What does it mean for the Travel Industry? What does it mean for Hospitality eCommerce?

That's what we want to know... and umm... and also how do we exploit it.

Digg This Post

Shockwave Flash & Monitor Resolutions for New Website

From a discussion on wiwih.com:

For what it's worth, here are some stats for Flash Plugin penetration and also monitor resolution for visitors to millenniumhotels.com in the first 7 months of 2007.

Shockwave Flash Penetration (98.5% for our visitors!)

(Sorry, but I don't yet have the breakdown of Flash by versions.)

Screen Resolution (over 85% of our visitors have resolutions wider than 800 pixels)


The above are why our newly launched site caters for 1024 width and uses more Flash. We also use javascript to supplement the flash animation, but that's mostly only on the homepage. Lots more SEO work to follow...


Digg This Post

OTAs & TPIs are smarter than us hoteliers

This is from a wiwih.com posting (Login needed):

====
I am going to quite frank in my opinion here (And forgive me for the over generalizations):

1) Yes, TPIs are smarter than us hoteliers in the online space. They are more dedicated, more focused, and "hungrier". They invest in technologies to scrape sites for content and rates; they understand SEM techniques and how to game the search engines. They are numeric and analytical....

2) Despite travel being the top ecommerce industry online, hotel companies are not very internet savvy. Most sales and marketing people in the hotel industry come from the offline media. When it comes to branding online, we are comfortable. But when the discussion turns to search engines, spiders, pageranks, ROAS, tags, analytics, etc, many people have a hard time pulling it all in.

3) The large hotel companies/brands have done it by centralizing eCommerce as a corporate function and have the understanding and the willingness to spend CAPEX to put together a good system. Medium and smaller hotel chains and independents in many cases do not have the human resources and do not want to spend the capital. But this is obviously changing as you noted that you expect the ratio to be at 75:25.

4) Large OTAs like Expedia and Travelocity will always have the upper hand because they offer consumers the choice across brands in any particular destination. And they do have brand equity which consumers are comfortable with. So there will always be a share to TPIs.

I would guess that the TPIs will always be trying to innovate faster than hotel companies and take advantage of new technologies in order to retain or increase their share. This is good for us hoteliers as we do not have to spend money on R and D.

However, to effectively increase its ratio of direct vs indirect, a hotel company must adapt faster than TPIs innovate.
====
OTA = Online Travel Agents (the other OTA is here)
TPI = Third-Party Intermediaries

Digg This Post

Finally... creating this blog

Well, I have been telling myself to do this for over a year now, but have been too busy.

Finally, now that my new websites for Millennium & Copthorne Hotels is launched, I have a bit more time. See the new sites:
The United States site @ www.millenniumhotels.com
The United Kingdom site @ www.millenniumhotels.co.uk
The New Zealand site @ www.millenniumhotels.co.nz
The Singapore site @ www.millenniumhotels.com.sg

Yes a bit of promotion above. But more on the sites in another post.

At this point, I want to list what is this blog will try to cover:

- Search Engine Optimization
- Pay Per Click Search Engine campaigns
- Web Analytics for Hospitality
- Email Marketing
- eCommerce Technology & Platforms
- eCommerce Strategy
- CRS, PMS, and Distribution Systems
- Online Travel Agents (OTAs) & Third Party Intermediaries (TPIs)
- Meta Search Engines
- Web 2.0 (??)
- .......

I will try to steer my postings on the above.... and may be others as they pop up.