Pat: As usual many great thoughts, and perhaps I should have said search will not decline- it will change radically.

This leads me to a new thought…I may try.

Thank you both.

Two thoughts for you here…

I’ve heard that phrase “trusted network” before. I see tools where your friends will be compensated in some ways to refer you to stuff. The same factors apply to that behavior as it did to the earlier folks I was supposed to trust. Largely, they became untrustworthy. The term friends may hold a future linked to trackless communications, which in itself, would have an impact on social web’s viability, at least regarding it’s investors and remoras.

And really, your friends influence all you buy or most of it or even a big chunk of it, even absent rewards? No way, you’re a thinking man who likes to discover at least some things on your own – or those in your social network surely do – social web limits extend nearer than search’s limits. To decline, I assert it must be less active than it is today – perhaps you’d turn to people more often through the convenience of your social webs, but that assumes the decline in per capita use can’t be overcome by ever growing capita. I guess that’s a relative decline in any case, so I won’t argue with you much here.

We might discuss how search will indeed crawl over the borders and integrate with the social pieces, monetizing the social web is all about search related functions and as such, is even still experimental. People won’t stop looking for new things and more information bits (which are new things themselves) about those things that interest them. So before we drive a nail into search, we might ask if the social web is financially feasible if search, as an activity, actually did decline overall… or of we consider search and social to be different worlds.

On a side note, proud to be an affiliate and to call myself one, but it’s been a long, long time since I remotely considered myself anywhere near the bottom of the food chain. I’ve never considered affiliate to adequately describe myself or my peers who use it themselves… in nature, both real and virtual, when someone says “I’m an affiliate”, the usual thought/reply is “what kind?”… affiliate is more a synonym for “i don’t own a store/cart, but i sell things online for money”, beyond that, it’s a poor descriptor and everyone already knows that.

The folks I consider at the bottom of the food chain are those who don’t produce things in the environment – things can be tangible (like products) or actions (like sales). Those who watch and talk about it aren’t inputters, they’re commentators. That phrase “those who can’t, teach” comes to mind – everyone knows that statement’s absurb, but switch it to “those who can’t, observe” and you’ve got a winner. And I’d say that it’d be even more obviously intuitive if it were “those who can’t, object”. Mahalo’s will come and go, so will affiliates (including me eventually), but the blow hard observers along the way aren’t the judges of what’s happening, they are the wind chimes of affiliate marketing… and when the activity on the field is furious, along the sidelines, the dangling clatterers are cacophonous.

As usual this looks very cool. I get a sense, from reading post at your personal site and the other posts, that you either feel no need to thank Jason for pointing out the obvious or probably blame yourself for not going to influencers to help with the problem. Don’t blame yourself. I know what you did and accomplished and if I never said thanks I am now. Thanks for pushing the boundaries, thinking ahead and hitting the bad guys head on. What Jason does is up to him. You are saying this “Caledon” is a prototype for curation and community. Jason should heed your advice. It is easy to look back through Revenews and find you dead on. As usual, way ahead of the game. Is that your pattern recognition?

David