User-generated content is certainly a revolution and those that are harnessing its’ power are winning the web game to attract customers. But are they?

I am involved in a very interesting project with Base Backpackers that has somewhat run aground. I first proposed the use of inbound RSS feeds from blogs etc as a means of building up independent content about the 11 hostels across Australia and New Zealand, however, following a strategy session in Sydney it was decided to take a gigantic leap of faith in the product and take comments about the hostels directly from Hostelworld.com (the largest online booking website for hostels and backpackers with many many user reviews). Of course, I was right into the idea - an awesome real Web 2.0 initiative. The decision in the strategy sessions were that Base Backpackers was focusing on delivering a superior product and therefore this was very much firstly about facilitating the flow of information between customers to spread the word that Base Backpackers hostels were good; and secondly about setting transparent checks and balances for hostel managers to strive to.

All sounded good those days in March when the plan was hatched. However, as we moved toward going live on Friday we struck a huge snag - comments are not as appealing as it was hoped. In the majority they are not that bad - but there are those that are simply not complimentary. Surprisingly, the one that has caused the most problems is kind of completely left-field, encouraging customer to stay there if they want sex (in a few other words) - not really a complaint against the hostel but certainly not something you want displayed on the front page of the website.

We have not really been involved in the design of the website only the execution and now it is crunch time in the project. The plan is to make the Hostelworld reviews appear on the site automatically, but at present we are simply taking them to text file and then manually putting them onto the site at regular intervals. The most recent comment is displayed as a leader on each hostel home page, which then links to the other comments. We also take the ratings of each hostel from Hostel World and display these on the website. Once we automate the process the ability to edit is completely removed.

So, now in going live the questions are overarching - do we intervene and only show positive comments on the home page as the leader to all the comments? Or, do we go a step further and delete all the negative unwarranted comments from the site completely?

The theory of Web 2.0 is that the masses generate a collective intelligence, that a bad review is outweighed by good reviews (that is, if the product is good) and that one off reviews such as the review posing problems for Base Backpackers are immediately seen through by the customers. All good and well, and you know that I am a huge promoter of this, but what if there is simply not enough comments to generate the critical mass of collective intelligence? Moreover, what about travellers on long travel time frames, such as Backpackers - also tight on a budget; are they not less likely to take the time to write in a good review? Things were fine, thank-you very much, stayed for a few days, moved on - can’t really be bother filling in the online survey, reviews and ratings form.

So there you go - a real world Web 2.0 conundrum!

Tags: Base Backpackers, Hostel World, Web 2.0

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 9:15 pm and is filed under Opinion, Xebidy clients. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.