About a year ago, I wrote a post about a then-new social network called Quora. Soon after, the site took off in popularity, probably because of its clear differentiation from other social networks. Quora positioned itself as a superior Q&A service, declaring strict user guidelines and including social functions like “following” to edge out services such as Yahoo! Answers and Cha Cha.

I wanted to look back at Quora for a couple reasons. Evaluating a network during its infancy is inherently limited. User adoption is unpredictable, beta version kinks might need ironing out, and overall offerings might still be skeletal. A year since inception, Quora hasn’t changed all that much. A few new features have improved user experience, but haven’t dramatically altered anything. Thus, the following critique looks at the whole network, not just additions and improvements.

Design, or lack thereof?

Since the beginning, Quora has stuck with a fairly straightforward design style. That is to say, there isn’t really any design. The look and feel is very Wikipedia, which does seem to align with its stated goals from the outset (intelligent questions, intelligent answers). From a use flow standpoint, I give it a big thumbs down. It’s difficult to distinguish between a question, answer, byline, time stamp, button, etc. As I scroll down my feed, I am unable to scan for content, because there are few “landmarks” to designate where something starts or ends. I often find myself scrolling aimlessly, lost in a sea of text without any indication of where I should be looking.

Organization

I am convinced that Quora has a lot of great content, and am frustrated that there isn’t a method to discover where it’s hidden. It doesn’t seem too much to ask to have a pane for featured or trending topics.

Boards

Last December, Quora added “Boards” to the site, which are akin to the original Facebook Group, but with more emphasis on individual threads. Users either make the Board public, or invite people to join. In theory, Boards are places where users can carry on extended discussions and share content relevant to a topic of interest. In practice, it’s a me-too function that treads over worn out territory without adding value. Mashable published a short article titled: “Why Quora’s New Boards Feature Makes It a Better Network.” A more accurate title would be “Why Boards Make Quora More Like Every Other Network.” My guess is that this feature was implemented precisely to compete with networks that are inherently more social. I think it dilutes the Q&A core, muddling brand identity.

Content

At the end of the day, a network is only as good as its content. From the time I’ve spent browsing, I can say there are a lot of great questions and equally insightful answers. I will also say that these gems are a minority in a larger pool of less worthy inquiry.

To avoid sounding like a complete cynic, I want to first provide an example of the excellent content Quora can generate. The question was this:

Is it a good idea for a homeowner to carry a taser against a potential burglar?

The most up-voted response (with 416 votes), was from former patrol officer Justin Freedman, who composed quite an essay explaining why a TASER is inappropriate and ineffective against home invasion. The response includes a top-line answer (“No”), diagrams, step-by-step procedures, parallel considerations and practical advice (keep a baseball bat in your room).

Unfortunately, not all of Quora’s content is so exemplary. In my search for the best Quora content, I went to a topic page and looked at the “Best Questions” list. Ostensibly, this is a good representation of the most intriguing threads under that topic. The topic I chose was “Science Fiction.”  The second-ranked “best question” (of 49), reads:

Why are the aliens in the Aliens series of films so gross and scary?

…really? That’s the best Quora has to offer on sci-fi?

After investigating, I realized that questions are evaluated based on the ratings and votes that the answers receive. The top answer is a discussion of original artwork by H.R. Giger that inspired the concept design for Alien. It’s actually a pretty interesting read, but of course the response is a product of the author’s knowledge and prose, and I give little credit to the question poster. This raises an interesting question in itself: does an awesome answer justify a vapid question?

To continue this line of thinking, I’d like to make a general observation about the wider pool of inquiry on Quora. The majority of questions fall into one of two categories: 1) lazy or 2) opinion-seeking. For example:

1) What is the best way to get links to your blog?

2) What is a good anime movie or series?

I won’t spend a lot of time discussing these types of questions, but my overall point is that low-caliber questions generally don’t produce good answers, and when they do, they’re re-hashed opinions available all over the Internet. Any savvy user (presumably anyone who’s on Quora to begin with), can find answers to these questions quite easily, from a variety of sources.

To followup on my previous question, I will say this: enlightening answers do justify unworthy questions, with one huge qualification: users need to be able to find them among the slew of redundancy. Quora’s poor layout and non-existent discovery tools make this more trouble than its worth.

My criticism stems from personal disappointment: that Quora showed so much promise, but ultimately became waylaid by clutter. It brings to mind the long-gone promise of TV broadcasting. At the risk of sounding bombastic, consider this quote by E.B. White:

I believe television is going to be the test of the modern world, and that in this new opportunity to see beyond the range of our vision, we shall discover a new and unbearable disturbance of the modern peace, or a saving radiance in the sky.  We shall stand or fall by television – of that I am quite sure.

Communications expert Allison Cerra gives the lowdown about how identity and trust function in tandem with mobile apps. It’s all about presentation, protection and preference.

Check out the article and her co-authored book, The Shift

Former MySpace CEO Michael Jones recently wrote an article for CNN Money about the lessons he learned from managing one of the original social networks. He has boiled the key takeaways down to five key points (all of which lend good insight), but I am interested in discussing just one of those assertions: “Utility outlasts entertainment.”

Jones illustrates his point by talking about MySpace’s connection with music. Although MySpace provided great tools for aspiring bands to publish and share music, there was no such utility for non-musicians. He contrasts this with Facebook, which used real names and connections to add value through its social graph.

In brainstorming for new initiatives, we are often presented with a binary choice up front: do we build to entertain, or strive to give consumers new tools and utility? I can only imagine that other agencies face the same choice. There is a danger in taking one road or the other without ample consideration. For example, how long will this project last, and what are the long-term objectives?

For a short campaign to jump start sales, entertainment might be the way to go. Take the 2010 Old Spice social media campaign. There certainly wasn’t much utility there, but it sure entertained, and sales jumped 107%. That campaign was appropriately short-lived, and to Jones’ point, would not outlast a really useful app.

Compare that with the Charmin-sponsored SitOrSquat.com. Complete with a mobile app, the site displays public toilets by location, providing users with some much-needed information when nature calls. Charmin never has to worry about lagging interest or fresh content, because users will always benefit from existing functionality. We took a similar approach with the DEW Gaming Exchange app for Mountain Dew. Utility is self-sustaining, and leaves the app available for future initiatives when they arise.

Though it may not be an absolute truth, Jones’ takeaway is a good rule of thumb for strategic approach.

A couple days ago, Facebook and eBay announced a partnership to marry Facebook’s Open Graph will the e-commerce marketplace. The announcement coincided with the unveil of eBay and PayPal’s new X.commerce platform designed for mobile and social application development. What does this mean? GigaOm published a nice analysis; my own key takeaway is below:

With the new EBay Facebook integration, Facebook will be able to quietly gather data on e-commerce without having actually handle transactions. In doing so, Facebook doesn’t have to announce this as yet another attempt to jump into the e-commerce market; instead, they will work behind the scenes with users who already trust the network and continue pumping information into it.

It’s hard to say how this will affect the typical user, but I’m skeptical that it will improve his experience. Whereas other recent changes arguably create a more streamlined, intuitive experience, this does not. Facebook appears a little too comfortable with its dominance in the social space, acting in spite of its users rather than for them. Author Don Norman has called out Google for turning people into products; I believe the same argument applies here.

Users have fought back against Facebook on many occasions for encroaching on their private lives, but that concerned information gathered from within Facebook’s walled garden. Now, it is coming from without. Eventually, objections by the user base may hit a tipping point. So what happens if Facebook data gets rolled into the larger and more complex system of e-commerce? A mass exodus from Facebook could cause a lot of problems for everyone involved.

But where there is an exodus, there is Diaspora, a Facebook contender hopeful that has recently entered a new phase of development. The question is: is it too little too late? Diaspora provides nearly unlimited options for customization — as far as hosting your own “nodes” — and privacy is handled absolutely by users. Is there hope for Facebook competitors, or is the community already too dependent on a service that takes them for granted?

It isn’t really breaking news to say that navigation has changed. The question I want to ask here is: what does this new behavior mean for page design and web-based user experience? Web design is a field where methodology and best practices are in constant flux. Not only does user behavior evolve with new trends (like search and social media), but each project has its own priorities, such as visual aesthetic, intuitive functionality, lightweight utility, and so on. Usually, one of the main considerations is how easily a user can find the information he’s looking for. Over time, common practices like breadcrumbs and the “mega nav” have become prolific because they help users navigate. So I will ask again: if search has changed navigation, what else should change?

Picture a typical website in your head. What do you see in the top right-hand corner? I see a search bar. If you’re anything like me, you never use that bar because in your experience, it’s not very well implemented, and doesn’t return what you’re looking for. My proposition is this: what if we put less time into menus, and more time into perfecting that search box? If we categorize and label everything perfectly on the back-end, we can use something like Google Site Search to help users navigate through content. Site Search is to your website what Google is to the Internet, and the best part is, you don’t have to change behavior — it has already changed. This has its own implications for SEO and PageRank, but just go with me here. Why don’t we move the search bar out of that tiny corner and put it front and center?

In terms of design, I believe this loosens some of the constraints imposed by traditional navigation and allows page architects to get a little more creative. At the end of the day, the most important part of any business strategy is differentiation, which breeds memorability and repeat visitation. An innovative interface will set you apart from the masses. All that’s left is making sure it aligns with your brand message and doesn’t come at the expense of functionality. With in-site search optimization, it won’t. My prediction is that this approach will become more common, ushering in a much broader range of functional page design. What say you?

Over the past week, AirBnB has had its hands full with quite a PR crisis. The service, which allows private parties to list short-term accommodations for travelers and vacationers, saw one of its most-feared scenarios come to life: a host’s rented home was torn apart by the “guest,” who stole jewelry, credit cards, electronics and personal documents. Because the online community is populated largely by avid travelers, it is no surprise that EJ, the host, also authors a blog. Thus, the crisis.

It should be mentioned that EJ’s blog post did not unjustly decry AirBnB, and even describes its empathy and support in setting things right. However, the personal nature of the account and the raw tragedy it illustrates has elicited harsh criticism of the service.

Full disclosure: I recently used AirBnB to find a room in Bordeaux. With no more effort than it takes to book a hotel room, I wound up being hosted by a French librarian who provided us with fresh fruit and homemade yogurt every morning, not to mention a stack of tour guides and a view overlooking the city center. I became aware of the issue after receiving a sincere and compassionate email from AirBnB CEO Brian Chesky apologizing for the event and introducing new policies to protect hosts.

In terms of PR, the crisis has been relatively well-handled, and doesn’t insist on much analysis. What draws my attention are claims that AirBnB suffers from a flawed business model, and is doomed to undergo many similar crises in the future. The argument goes like this: as AirBnB attracts investors and goes mainstream, it will fall prey to criminals and con artists looking to take advantage of friendly travelers. This argument follows a simple set of logic, but doesn’t seem to take into account evidence to the contrary.

I currently live with a roommate I met on craigslist, and have been transacting with eBay sellers for years without issue. Of course, both these services see their fair share of problems (craigslist to be sure), but I doubt anyone can compellingly argue that they suffer from bad business models. For every bad apple, there are hundreds of trustworthy users to make these communities thrive. Wikipedia is another hugely successful project that flies in the face of behavioral expectations. AirBnB operates on the philosophy that “people are good, and we’re in this together.” After opening my bedroom window to a sunrise over the Porte Cailhau, I’ll take that bait — hook, line and sinker.

Just the other day I was running a search query on a computer I don’t normally use. I pressed Enter, and to my horror, I was presented with search results from Bing. It turns out the browser search bar had been set to run Bing searches.

A number of reflexive thoughts rushed through my head: Who uses Bing? Why was this set as the default search engine? Who would do such a thing?  My questions weren’t without some justification; after all, the result I was looking for didn’t appear anywhere near the top. Google, on the other hand, quickly identified precisely what I was looking for.

But wait. Bing must be good for something, right? I spent some time fiddling it around with it, and I think I have an answer. Use Google when you know what you want; use Bing when you’re not quite sure. While Google is adamant about maintaining a clean and clear interface, Bing does an excellent job of letting you browse through content you might be looking for.

Let’s say a friend of mine told me about a really cool time-lapse video that I should check out, but I don’t remember exactly what it’s called or where I would find it. One of Bing’s strengths is a sort of “click and nav” style of search where you can browse and filter within categories of interest. For example, from the homepage I can click Videos > Viral > Time-Lapse and find a large collection of, well, viral time-lapse videos. Chances are good that the one I’m looking for is somewhere in there.

Of course viral time-lapse video is a pretty narrow category, but the same process can be taken for “weird news” stories, desktop wallpaper, gift ideas for upcoming birthdays (via Facebook Connect), top image searches, etc. Even if I’m not looking for something specific, Bing can offer a lot of content that I didn’t know I wanted.

Bing also offers its own improvements on tools pioneered by Google. For instance, Bing Maps has a taxi fare calculator and a bird’s eye view perspective (different and cooler than the standard top-down view).

The bottom line:

Bing is no Google, and it’s not much of a substitute when you’re looking for speed and raw utility. That said, it’s much more than meets the eye, and has a lot of features Google doesn’t. Bing deserves a chance. Come on….click me.

Spend enough time reading about social and digital news, and the phrase “Google launches” becomes an almost quotidian headliner. The company broadens its service offerings so frequently that it can be hard to keep track of what’s useful and what can effectively be ignored. Although it’s too soon to decisively say which category they fall into, I want to look at two recent developments from Google — the +1 button and Google Offers.

Instead of detailing the specific functions of these offerings, I’m more interested in the strategic thinking behind them (to learn more about +1 and Google Offers, follow the the links above). Putting aside technical differences, +1 and Offers can be boiled down to familiar comparisons: the former is Google’s answer to the Like button, and the latter mimics collective buying sites like Groupon and Living Social.

At first glance, these look like “me too” services. But they’re not. They’re modeled on current digital trends. Collective buying sites aren’t mutually exclusive. If you use Groupon, you’re probably more likely to check out Google Offers, too. Deal hunters will rejoice at a more diverse spread of products and services in their area.

The +1 button plays on our compulsion to “check the box” after experiencing something online. The Facebook Like achieves this to an extent, but may not always be appropriate. Perhaps the content is irrelevant to my social network. Or maybe I want to put my stamp of approval on a resource without suggesting that I “like” it.

Maybe these services will take off, or maybe they will fall by the wayside like Google Wave. Either way, the strategy is sound, and shows Google’s willingness to follow as well as lead. At the very least, no one can accuse Google of a failure to launch.

When it comes to brainstorming new social media ideas, we’re always trying to push the limits of what’s possible. But pinpointing exactly what can be done is a tricky task when the digital landscape is constantly changing. New web standards, APIs, apps, social platforms, popular trends — the palette of possibilities is always expanding. Instead of “what can we do?”, we try to ask “what can we do now?”

Awesome ideas often get snagged on small technical issues that preclude some essential function. On Facebook, for example, the success of a campaign might be contingent upon interactions appearing in each user’s news feed. In a system as complex as Facebook, a huge amount of PR potential might be unlocked by a simple tweak in site’s code. Brainstorms reach new heights because ”we can do this now!”

So what am I talking about? Yesterday Facebook announced a new feature that allows users to tag Pages in photos. In addition to tagging friends, you can tag brands, musicians, public figures and any other Facebook entity with its own public Page. It may seem like a small change, but this opens up lots of doors for brands to increase their exposure and recognition online. Campaigns can revolve around users tagging products in pictures that will go on to be viewed by hundreds of friends. Brands can form symbiotic relationships by tagging each other’s products and build associations between complementary goods. I predict that we’re going to begin to see some of these things implemented very shortly by a wide variety of Pages. We’re excited to see what creative new applications will come from this little (and big) announcement.

One of the greatest advantages of the social web — instantaneous communication – can be one of a brand’s greatest threats. This isn’t exactly breaking news. Brands that are heavily involved in community management typically understand public concerns are best handled with timely responses.

Yet, even savvy brands don’t always heed this advice. Apple took its sweet time responding to week-old user concerns about location-tracking data transmitted from iPhones, finally issuing a public statement this morning. Between the time the story broke and the statement was issued, the blogging community was free to run rampant with worst case scenarios and conspiracy theories. Even Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts weighed in, writing and publishing a letter to Steve Jobs and requesting an immediate response to several pertinent questions.

But I’d like to look at another example of a big brand delaying an important announcement — Sony. Last week, Sony’s Playstation Network (PSN), a major online component of the Playstation 3, was compromised by an unidentified hacker, exposing millions of users’ personal information. This information included what you would expect — names, email addresses, etc. — but because users can make various purchases with the service, everyone’s credit or debit card information was exposed as well. Oops.

What came next was, well, nothing. The service went offline for several days, but until last night’s announcement (members were notified via email), nobody knew their personal information had been compromised. Now, in light of these developments, the Playstation community is far more annoyed than they would have been had they been notified immediately. Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal got involved, criticizing Sony for mishandling the breach:

“Compounding this concern is the troubling lack of notification from Sony about the nature of the data breach. Although the breach occurred nearly a week ago, Sony has not notified customers of the intrusion, or provided information that is vital to allowing individuals to protect themselves from identity theft, such as informing users whether their personal or financial information may have been compromised.”

The point is that keeping information under wraps ultimately makes your brand look negligible when it surfaces. You can’t afford to be silent, even if no one suspects anything. Take the necessary time to craft a careful, cogent response, but waste no time. The best thing you can do is be candid and punctual in your response.