As
it happens, lots of people found del.icio.us valuable right from the
start, making it a proverbial grassroots hit. Schachter did no
advertising, no marketing. But the site was so successful that in 2005
he quit his day job at Morgan Stanley, raised some money from outside
investors, and launched del.icio.us as a regular business. Less than a
year later, Schachter sold del.icio.us to Yahoo, where he now works in
the Groups business, running the site full time.
Schachter's
original focus on the individual user has never wavered, and it remains
essential to the way del.icio.us works. But as more and more people
started to use the site, something interesting happened: when
aggregated, all those individual tags created a useful system for
categorizing Web pages. On the surface, del.icio.us doesn't seem
designed to do this, since each person makes his or her own tags, and
there's no overarching authority to maintain order. But even with no
one in charge, the product of all the individual decisions of
del.icio.us's users is surprisingly well organized--and surprisingly
intelligent. That is, if you do a search on del.icio.us for all the
pages that are tagged with a particular word, you're likely to come up
with a remarkably good--and well-rounded--selection of related Web
sources. In other words, although del.icio.us didn't need lots of users
to be useful, once it had lots of users, it became valuable in an
entirely new way. Almost accidentally, it became an excellent tool for
making sense of the Web.
What del.icio.us's users were
creating--without necessarily knowing they were doing so--was what
technology blogger Thomas Vander Wal has dubbed a "folksonomy," a
flexible system of organization that emerges organically from the
choices users make. We're all familiar with the alternative, the kind
of rule-bound, top-down classification scheme that Internet theorist
Clay Shirky calls "ontological" in nature. The Dewey decimal system is
an example: every object is assigned its place in a hierarchical system
of organization, and every object is defined as, ultimately, one thing:
a book goes in one place in the library and nowhere else. In a
folksonomy, by contrast, definitions are fuzzier. With del.icio.us, the
same Web page has many different tags, which often aren't even related
to one another, and no explicit rules are being followed. Web pages are
therefore listed not in one place but in many places, and sometimes
pages aren't quite where you might expect them to be. So folksonomies
are messier than "ontologies" are.
What del.icio.us has shown,
though, is that folksonomies' imperfections are outweighed by their
benefits. In the first place, folksonomies are dynamic rather than
static. A Web folksonomy thus allows us to reclassify content according
to our changing interests. An academic paper that's interesting today
might be equally interesting a decade from now--but why it's
interesting, why people care about it, might be very different. A
traditional categorization system has a hard time dealing with this:
once the essence of an object is defined, it's supposed to be defined
for good. In a folksonomy, the reclassification happens almost
automatically--as people start tagging the paper with new, more
relevant tags, for example. Web folksonomies are also better at
capturing the multiple meanings and uses that a given site has, rather
than constraining the possible range of meanings. It's useful, after
all, to learn that many people have tagged stories about Mark Cuban
"crazy," in addition to indicating everything else that's important
about him. Finally, folksonomies are cheap. Imagine the labor and the
time it would take to construct a traditional organizing system for all
the pages on the Web, and then to maintain and update it. Then
recognize that del.icio.us is producing a ceaselessly revised
organizing system--at almost no cost.
Comments