Elsevier’s Digg del.icio.us Clone
[Edit #1:Mr. Gunn is absolutely right. 2collab is more a Connotea or del.icio.us clone than a Digg clone. I've corrected the title of this post.]
[Edit #2: It turns out I'm not alone in my current view of 2collab]
Science Library Pad has a post all about 2Collab, Elsevier’s Digg Connotea(/del.icio.us) clone.
2collab is a social bookmarking site where you can store and organize your favorite internet resources – such as blogs, websites, research articles, and more. Then, in private or public groups you can decide to share your bookmarks with others – stimulating debate and discussion. Members of groups can evaluate these resources (by rating bookmarks, tagging and adding comments), or add their own bookmarks. You can browse public groups and bookmarks, but must register (your name and email address) to access the full functionality – such as creating groups, adding comments, and adding bookmarks.
I find myself again asking: Why use Elsevier’s tool when there are so many other, similar tools available that don’t benefit for-profit companies?
Like this post? Subscribe to the RSS feed!
November 27th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I don’t know, David. It seems like someone on the 2collab team kinda gets it. 2collab is totally free, open, and will be publishing an API. Having an actual business model and team working on it might make it a little more useable than Connotea, where development has kinda slowed down.
/BTW, It’s not so much a digg clone as a Connotea clone/dissectmedicine clone mashup. Get your 2.0 lingo right, man!
November 27th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Hi Mr. Gunn-
There’s a business model to 2collab? I must have missed that. Can you tell me where to find that information?
You’re absolutely right that it is sort of across between the Digg model (Dissect Medicine *is* built on the Digg model) and the del.icio.us model (like Connotea). But it doesn’t do either part especially well, does it?
I can’t figure out why Elsevier is getting into this particular game in a market where there are so many other tools for collaborative evaluation/bookmarking of scholarly literature that are much more powerful and useful. Is it just so they don’t look lame next to Nature? How long will it take for them to get to the point when I’d see an advantage to using 2collab instead of del.icio.us, Connotea, or CiteULike?
I’m probably letting my library-centric habitual distaste for Elsevier influence my views- but I really don’t get it.
While I’m picking on them, I may as well point out that 2collab has no plug-in or instructions for Firefox. I think that might indicate that they *don’t*, as you say, “get it.”
That’s all the snark I have left in me today. If you come back tomorrow, I may have more.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
[...] First a disclaimer. I have been playing around with 2collab for some time already since my library is an developing partner for Scopus (Elsevier). My first reaction to the initiative by Elsevier to develop 2collab was a bit hesitant. I agree with David Rothman that there are already plenty (scientific) bookmarking tools available. However none of the exisiting bookmarking tools have satisfied my needs to date. Certainly not del.icio.us, even though I use that quite regularly. [...]
December 1st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
[...] Since I’ve been thinking about 2collab lately, I decided to add a button for that, too- just to see if I could. [...]