Knol: Too soon for Google scrap heap

Evidently trying to inject a little more life into its Knol project for sharing and storing bits of information, Google has begun a Knol for Dummies.com contest.

With a grand prize of $1,000, the contest isn't likely to stimulate the economy out of recession, but it was enough to spur Silicon Alley Insider's Eric Krangel to wonder why Knol is still alive. He's not the only one: my colleague Rafe Needleman suggested Knol is a good candidate for cancellation based on its buzz-free state.

Here's how I see it, though. Knol may not be the vaunted Wikipedia-slayer that some thought Google wanted to be, but it's probably not a huge drag on Google resources, so why not let it live? Knol is nascent today, but if Google can attract content and readers, Knol has the benefit of leverage: the labor of a few Google programmers can be amplified by the voluntary labor of outsiders to produce something useful without Google having to spend much.

Unlike some now-extinct Google services such as Dodgeball, Knol fits closely with Google's core mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." And it houses famously cheap user-generated content, of course--and users even are helping Google translate the Knol site itself into other languages besides the eight for which there currently are interfaces.

Judging by the Knol release notes, the project is gradually moving ahead, but it doesn't look like the kind of thing that requires an army of coders. Some of Knol's features are produced by Google programmers during their 20 percent time, according to technical lead Michael McNally.

Besides, unlike some of the services and projects Google canceled, Knol is relatively new. It hasn't generated much buzz in its half year of public existence, but it hasn't been around long enough to assess whether it's a dud. Knol hasn't baked long enough to see whether its potential advantages--ad-revenue sharing and individual-controlled editing--produces pages that Wikipedia or other sites don't have. And there's a silver lining to Knol's low prominence: it's silenced those who feared Google would use its search engine to artificially boost prominence of Knol content, in the view of Google Web spam fighter Matt Cutts.

Google said earlier this month that people have created more than 100,000 Knol entries. And the company has added a variety of improvements:

• A scorecard to review low-quality or plagiarized material.

• A custom search engine on Knol pages specifically for Knol content.

• Badges to show top-viewed and top-rated articles and authors.

• The ability to add Google spreadsheets, gadgets, Picasa pictures, and YouTube videos into Knol pages.

• A "most discussed" tab on the Knol home page (though so far the thin Knol discussions reflect how little social activity the site has generated).

• Knol templates such as city profiles or dog breeds.

There's plenty of dreck on Knol, to be sure--I found this tip on how to bunny-hop a bicycle less than helpful, for example, and it didn't take me long to find seemingly plagiarized Knol articles. But there also are pieces that are reasonable: bird-watching in Guatemala, bass fishing, and standard tips on photographic composition.

In short, while Knol hasn't let the Net on fire, we should give it another year before writing it off as a flop.

[earth79]

4:20

[jaxstephens]

I don't see the point of Knol at "ol." (Ha ha ha, knee slapper.) Bad joking aside, for me Wikipedia is where it's at. I like that Wikipedia is run by more of a non-profit organization than a for-profit one, and I even donated to the cause recently. For me it just seems more fitting that such a repository of human knowledge not be locked up with a dollar-driven company like Google--though I have nothing against them personally. I also think Wikipedia perfected this space first and already has a heck of a headstart. I checked out Knol once upon a time, but now I'll probably never look back. Sorry, Knol, but you ain't "ol" that. (Cue more corny laughter.)

[ghostofitpast]

Unlike jaxstephens, I am no fan of Wikipedia, even less so since jimbo himself is finally recognizing the value of good editing and discovering how hard it is to implement. I documented my initial impressions of Knol at:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/07/knol-challenge.html

I just revisited the home page, and it is hard to conclude that things have changed much since I wrote that about half a year ago. About the only change I could observe is greater proliferation of unchecked and nonauthoritative "junk content." Frankly, I do not see the point of maintaining a project just because "it's probably not a huge drag on Google resources" when its signal-to-noise ratio is just as bad as what we find at "The Wikipedia Fight Club," if not worse.

[tobybot11]

The space of Encyclopedic Wikis deserves much further evolution and I'm not sure the minimally funded Wikipedia is the way to get there; Look at their approach to growing toward allowing larger media files.. Wikipedia is going at the problem in the old cheap monolithic architecture way. Google's infrastructure can scale way better as this space evolves. Despite the lack of buzz, interestingly, Knol is growing on pace with Wikipedia's original growth. I wouldn't count Knol out quite yet.

[sdeshpan]

excuse me but what is the point of knol? how is it diffrent from a blog?