As Wikipedia defines it, Web 2.0 is…”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.”

This definition has a few bugs, but the point is clear. The idea of having two-way communication, or dyadic communication, is the goal of those applications seeking the illustrious designation of 2.0, at their very minimum. Ultimately, the concept, at least in my opinion, is that the posting of information in a social context, is to share ideas and incite discussion about the topics that are discussed by a relatively informed and intelligent readership. Although, readership still implies one-way communication, doesn’t it?

Maybe a more appropriate Web 2.0 term should be ‘dyadership’ or ‘commership’ (implying commenting-readership) or some other clever bastardization of technobabble. I honestly can’t think of an appropriate massaging of ‘Dyad’. Of course, having that opens a whole new rabbit-hole for measuring and discussing how a blog measures its engagement and its apparent value to the public. Not how many people “See” or “Read” your stuff, but what percentage of those visitors volunteer perspective to grow your footprint for that specific subject on the web.

Recently, while attending a Shop.org conference event in Las Vegas, I had the opportunity to listen to a presentation given by David Weinberger, PhD (a Research Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School). While a portion of this was dedicated to bridging the gap between his two major works: ‘”The Cluetrain Manifesto” and “Everything is Miscellaneous“; a significant idea advanced by Dr. Weinberger was the inversion of a long-established social and commercial truth that the agency which controlled data, controlled the message. This is, by many standards, no longer considered absolute, and much less manageable with respect to the internet and the infinitely exponential calculations of people x opinions x venues.

Controlling the message now has a negative reaction from the perceptive open dialog of the world. Whether your site’s purpose is informational, functional, or commercial there is a measurable population comprising a ‘well of opinion’ about your brand, your product, your message, and, sadly, your personnel. To paraphrase Carrie Fisher as ‘Princess Leia’: ‘The more you tighten your grip…the more (insert Web 2.0 term) slip through your fingers”.

As a high profile example of this behavior, I would like to point to exhibit “A”: Washington Wizard’s Gilbert Arenas making predictions on his “Blog” about scoring and upcoming games, as well as compiling a catalog of excruciatingly calculated self-laudatory injections about his skill set and value as a player. Disclaimer: I’m a huge Boston Celtics fan. I also do not personally know Mr. Arenas and limit my commentary to his publication.

If anyone has been paying attention, the NBA season tipped-off last week. With its commencement, the Boston Celtics, a team which I am a lifetime fan, amped up their crowd in a pleasing display of teamwork and success with new additions Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, a determinant Paul Pierce, and the sharp-shooting of Rajan Rondo. Late in the third quarter of this collaborative clinic on teamwork, the rowdy and playoff-starved crowd, and the newly knighted Red Auerbach Court began rumbling and repeating the word “Gilbert”. I became curious. The commentators eventually divulged that the Gilbert to whom the crowd referred was Gil Arenas.

Mr. Arenas days prior posted on what he and others call his blog:

“So listen here. On November 2nd, we’re going to go into that building, we’re opening up Boston. Right now I’m telling the Boston fans: You guys are going to lose. It’s not going to be a victory for Boston. You might as well just cheer for me, because Boston isn’t winning in Boston for the season opener. I’m sorry.”

The outcome was a decisive Boston win: 103-83 final. A fitting start to a season which began with a gift from former Celtic Kevin McHale trading out Garnett from Minnesota. The win was apparently the only comment which held any meaning as far as Arenas, the Washington Wizards, or the NBA was concerned. No other commentary is allowed on his blog.

Sure, there are certainly reasons why this makes sense. There are too many people in Boston willing to comment on such statements before and after the game - memory consideration. The platform is hosted on NBA.com - obscenity and liability considerations. He talked trash in the town where it was invented - bandwidth considerations. But, no matter what the consideration, this ‘Blog’ is really no more than bad single-mode PR. On the other hand, what if commentary was allowed? How would that affect his play? How could he improve his image, his accuracy, and his public perception if he could be so bold as to gain insight from the feedback he received? What about Gilbert Arenas - the Open Brand….?

From an analytics and a Web 2.0 perspective, this is an example of a hit-counter. Nothing more than sophisticated than the electronic media equivalent of the tree in the woods. If a blog exists and produces information that nobody can share in and help define, it will soon be relegated to dusty shelves like the Atari and the Betamax.

I paraphrase words of one of my favorite songs (Talking Heads, ‘Once in a Lifetime’) to introduce an explanation of the forces and events which led me to write a blog at WebAnalyticsDemystified.com. As a reader, or analytics practitioner, you may have questions about: who I am, what I do, why should you trust my information, when I’m available, or where I work. The purpose of this submission is to help shed light on many of the main points behind each of these very valid facets of my existence. As a writer and web analytics practitioner, I feel its only fair to give a certain level of disclosure to present context for my content.

Brief Personal Bio:

• Hometown: Scranton, Pennsylvania - That’s right, the Electric City. I grew up in Scranton, the 7th of 8 children. None of us ever worked at Dunder-Mifflin.
• Education: Attended college for Psychology/Art/Communication Sciences at University of Scranton. Moved on to Florida Atlantic University where I continued and completed studies in Communications/History as of 2002.
• Experience: Worked in quantitative collection and analysis for a legal service provider to the State of Florida Department of Revenue. From 2003-2006: Spent 3 years building business, contacts and municipal policy for a FEMA/US Army Corp contractor. Saw my share of hurricane disaster efforts. Then, at New Year 2007, I was hired as a web analyst for the business research & development facet of CableOrganizer.com, Inc..
• Interests: In my current capacity, I find most of my time dedicated to development and implementation of highly advanced testing methods. I’ve now run about 8 or 9 unique multivariate tests using Google Website Optimizer and replicated these methods for refinement. Additionally, our team is very focused on on and off-site behavioral targeting, usability, and proprietary process development for business methods. (I can’t even wait to announce the patent work I’ve participated in)
• Personal: I’m thirty next month. I have a wonderful wife, Jenine, who is very patient with the level of attention she is denied by my analytics practice devotion, and a little boy named Logan (not after the airport, but after the Wolverine). We’re also expecting baby number 2 next April.

It was not a long shot that I tripped into computers, the internet, or web analytics for that matter. As a kid, I was a younger brother to at least 3 older siblings involved in formal computer education. I learned basic when I was 5; installed systems in my grade school, built a TriBBS bulletin board file sharing system at 13; hammered-out Lotus spreadsheets for Apple Bank in NYC on vacation when I was 15, built websites with Composer by 17. Data and measurement seemed a logical part of my life. This is what I do.

So, why should you trust me or my research? You shouldn’t…Wait. Let me clarify. Web Analytics is a funny thing. From site to site, or even from section to section on a single site, you have different goals, markets, people, and even micro-economies. As much as I, or Judah, or Eric, or any other advanced practitioner could tell you where to take your process, it is the context which is ultimately the determinant. So, my point really is that I can produce papers and research on practices until I’m blue in the face, and I do and will, but if you aren’t testing it or juxtaposing my findings versus some other viable strategy…we’re talking about religion, not science. I will always back up my assertions with numbers which I work hard to produce and protect from bad data. That does not mean they are infallible. Check’em out, work’em over, and let me know what you find.

Availability? - I have a full time job. I’m an analyst, full time. Responsibilities associated with this are pretty consuming. However, I’m always up for good conversation on practices and emerging methods. I can always be reached by email and I will almost always respond.

As a motion of gratitude for being given the opportunity to participate here at WebAnalyticsDemystified.com, I’ll refrain from any laudatory posting or linking in these installments. I plan on bringing dozens of useful posts based on sound findings. Please do not hold back on any comments or perspectives. Its my position that these are opportunities to grow the practice.

Thanks for reading.

Daniel W. Shields