Revolving around the ephemeral “web 2.0″ and the future of the internet, Web 2.0 Expo New York wrapped up over the weekend, and already the talks are up at the blip.tv Web2Expo page. (The San Francisco talks from April are also up for viewing.) The expo runs the gamut from technology to business, but most interesting were the talks on web 2.0 structure by Jay Adelson of Digg.com and author Clay Shirky. Shirky’s talk, It’s not Information Overload. It’s Filter Failure., especially titillated my nerd bones, so here it is in all its bald-headed, fast-talking glory:

Basically, Shirky proposes that consequences we normally attribute to an explosion of available information thanks to the internet is actually attributable to a failure of the filters in place to deal with an already abundant amount of information. Since the invention of the printing press, he says, we have lived amidst “information overload”, such that we can no longer look at the phenomenon as a problem, but as a fact. An appropriate response, then, is to build better filters.

Notice that the solution is to build, not to fix. An overload of information has been our oxygen for centuries, but the type and amount of data we deal with now is vastly different than whatever has come before. Shirky ends by separating the types of filters needed into two categories: programming and social. The latter category is pretty nebulous, but “programming” is much more concrete, and already in use today. Digg, Netflix, Google, and every other website run on extrapolating from its users’ actions is utilizing so-called collaborative filters, and these are a pivotal part of the internet’s future.

Collaborative filtering works by ranking content according to prior users’ actions (e.g., Google looks at links, the paragraphs surrounding search terms, other mysterious data), then analyzing your own actions to serve up relevant content. With sites like Digg and Reddit, this involves users upvoting or downvoting submitted sites, and then you seeing the best sites in descending order (with maybe some specializing depending on if you’re at a subpage). With sites like Netflix and Amazon, your own consumption is compared to other consumers in order to serve up recommendations.

As we approach the singularity and the web becomes more ubiquitous, collaborative filtering will become increasingly sophisticated (and accurate). As Jay Adelson mentions, Google’s search rankings have become more powerful simply because of the diversity of its users has increased. Collaborative filtering thrives on multifarious data, and this will come quickly with a larger number of netizens, and more slowly through the growing number of connections between web services. Adelson points to the economic advantages of shared data (read: better advertising targeting), but this is of course of huge value to users and developers as well.

Low-level web curation, from Metafilter to Undress Me Robot, will always have its place online, but the future is definitely in these automated processes which leverage what each user is already doing to provide a highly personalized and more effective experience. However, obviously, collaborative filtering is simply an update of the sort of filter that has been around since the 1500s, moving from the editorial eye of a single person to the gaze of millions. The next big jump in information overload might break down even these strong filters, taking a paradigm shift to get back on top. And who knows where that will take us?

What Newspapers Still Don’t Understand About the Web is a short article by Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0 on, you guessed it, how newspapers fail online. As a test case, Karp uses The Washington Post and a recent storm in Washington D.C.:

This is the WASHINGTON Post, right? So where’s the news about Washington? We just got pounded by a nasty storm — but it’s not homepage worthy.

Despite his initial difficulty in finding information on his first go, he did later find it in the Metro section, but not before heading to Google and getting it there. A few readers lambasted Karp in the comments for being a “stupid user”, but Karp makes a good point in a rejoinder post.

Here’s the problem — my failure to find the information I wanted is not MY problem, because I went to Google and found it. I succeeded. The failure is the site’s problem, because I abandoned it and went instead to a site that would help me succeed without having to be smarter.

Basically, the solution to Karp’s difficulty finding information on the Post website is logging in (or digging deeper through the website). He logs in, customizes his homepage, and bam! local news is the first thing he sees. But who cares about how smart users navigate? If any users are leaving your website to find information that is ON YOUR WEBSITE, something is wrong.

Karp addresses his criticisms to the newspaper industry, but it is hard to not to generalize them to any type of website. The web is a new beast, and users are expecting more-and-more to find information nonlinearly (or, you know…hyperlinearly). Having navigation that forces users to traverse the website as if it were comprised of sequential pages is wrong. This isn’t print.

So what is the solution? It differs on a case-by-case basis, of course, but the bottom-line is that newspapers (specifically) need to bring more focus to their web-only content, while still allowing easy access to the traditional news that is their bread and butter. Basically, as Karp says, good content is no longer enough. Websites also need to make that content accessible to users at all levels.

I’ll sign off by saying Karp has a lot of good ideas in the above links, but they are drowned beneath nitpicking and cat-calling. Kidiot.

This post’s title draws from the seminal work of Walter Benjamin: The Work of Art in the Age of its Mechanical Reproducibility. In no way do I mean to put forth anything approaching the deeply insightful and influential arguments made in The Work of Art, but I want to reference Benjamin’s basic assertion. The essence of the treatise is that the ability to mass produce art has profoundly changed the art itself. He delves much deeper, but I think this general idea is relevant. We are approaching a time when reproducibility is going to change yet again. Really, as far as software goes, we’ve reached that point (the Internet), but the hardware (e-book readers, etc.) still needs to catch-up in order for this change to spill from the “virtual” world to the “real” world.

I do not mean to exaggerate here, and I recognize just how momentous was the move from absolutely unique (e.g., painting) to mass reproduced (e.g., film), but the near-future of entirely digitized media strikes me as equally transformational.

So, of course, let’s consider this in the context of comic books.

Warren Ellis (see: wiki, site) recently opened a new forum, ostensibly as a “community system behind the webcomic“, but really just a message board dedicated to anything you want (just Don’t Be An Arsehole). Whitechapel merges Ellis’ previous creations The Engine (comics, comics, comics) and Die Puny Humans (future/tech/culture), resulting in something much more open welcoming (just in case you aren’t so interested in comic books). Of course, with (1) the Kindle making waves (here and here), and (2) the crowd of comic nerds that follows invariably that lovable Brit anywhere he goes, there was bound to be a long discussion of downloading comics and the digital future of comics.

Books (comic or otherwise) receive special privilege in the digital future dilemma, most visibly because the form of a book is so intertwined with the content it holds within. Comic books are especially troublesome creatures, given how engrained the idea of collecting and hording has become. However, even comic book publishers are bound to be feeling the push (or, more realistically, the kick in the ass) toward better utilization of the Internet and digital technologies in general. Why? Comic scans.

Motivated by nothing but self-satisfaction, groups of avid comic lovers spend their weeks hunched over a scanner, transferring page after page to their computers. A large community (more like chaotic mess) of comic downloaders has grown, and the comic scanning community with them, such that any comic from the Big 3 (Marvel, DC, Image) is available for free online within the week. (Indie comics are much more difficult to find.) Spurred on by cost and convenience, this phenomena should be a pressing concern to an industry historically know to be in a constant struggle to survive.

Comics differ from other books in that they can currently only be read in digital format on a computer. There is no commercial electronic paper device that supports color (though color e-ink is not far off). Nonetheless, while no one wants to read an entire novel on their computer, spending ten or fifteen minutes reading a comic is no problem.

So how should comic publishers respond? At the very least, publishers should begin to offer free previews of series, whether that be in the form of a free download of the entire first issue or a substantial number of preview pages. This would appease readers who download so as to not waste money on bad comics (which are all too common). From there, a streamlined (a la iTunes) e-commerce system should be developed. Print comics subsist on advertising, and digital comics could live similarly (either as ads within the comics or within the program). Pricing here can be anything, from $1.50 to the usual $2.99, but the less the better if publishers want to reach readers who download because of the price. Even better might be a subscription-based service, with a fixed price per month for unlimited comics.

Obviously, incentives are necessary, both to provide a worthwhile alternative to freeloading as well as justifying payment for a digital version of a very non-digital medium. The reduced price (feasible because of no overhead from printing or distribution) is a start, but publishers should expand their offerings. Digital-only content, such as interviews or scripts or sketches or even free downloads of less popular comics (subscribers might not be so swayed by this last one), would go a long way to securing the success of the service.

And, of course, like any good e-commerce system, this so-called iComics service should be as much one-stop-shopping as possible. Consequently, the service is likely to come from a third-party rather than any of the publishers themselves (unless some miraculous alliance occurs) . Either way, comics from Marvel, DC, Image, Avatar, First Second, Oni, Top Shelf (and so on and so on!) need to be available. Pricing is complicated by this all-inclusivity (indie publishers tend to put out “graphic novels” rather than single issues), but the service fails before it even begins unless it has the backing of the industry. Cost out of the way, a service that has the inconvenience of only offering a small smattering of comics is doomed.

(I’ve said this before, but despite its flaws, the Kindle will be immensely popular (at least relatively) because of how easy it is to both read AND get books. Similarly, iTunes Music Store and Netflix are popular for the same reason.)

All that’s needed on top of this is a way to not leave local comic shops in the dust.