Is Web 2.0 Just Numbers?

Bebo outranked Google, but does the fate of Web 2.0 hinge on numbers?

Web 2.0 is such an interesting subject for discussion and investigation. Lately I have been a little focused on some credibility issues we should all consider in evaluating sites, startups and other elements of our communal experience.

One big problem I have is the term "unique registered users", because it implies that a site has say 300,000 dedicated regular people who go there. Sites often try to validate these numbers (honestly) by illustrating the number of page views, visits and a host of other techniques for saying: "Hey look, we have all these cows in our corral."

I think the quantitative problem here goes much deeper than we might think, and especially in the video sharing/viewing venue. Take me for example; I am probably a "unique registered user" on every video community in either hemisphere by virtue of signing up to test them for you guys! Think of all the bloggers who are in the same places on and off, then multiply that by video enthusiasts.

My point is how do we qualify and quantify all the numbers thrown at us about sites? Video users in particular are cross registering accounts on every video site for sure. Advertisers may only be effectively reaching the same people over and over again. Investors could be putting their life's savings into companies that are based on the wind off of the traffic that flows through them.

I read a really good post today (once again by Pete Cashmore) that had the headline: Bebo Bigger Than Google In Ireland? Pete breaks the claim down into its proper perspective of course, but this is also illustrative of my concern for validity. According to the post, Bebo has perhaps 31 million users. The Alexa rank of the site does show an increase in reach, but how effective is any of this in evaluating real dedicated users much less site quality?

This is troubling (I hope not just to me) because we could likely take all the numbers quoted for users on all the sites and exceed the population of Earth. A much greater qualifier of site quality or success might be a system that rates the people and activity at the site. I think we need to get away from mass hysteria because a site or thing is "in" and start to focus on our "quality of life on Web 2.0".

These are just some thoughts, but imagine a site or place on the Web that is so compelling and wonderful, but no one knows about it for some indescribable reason. What if all the millions at MySpace had effectively wasted parts of their lives searching for community, entertainment, creativity and a host of other uplifting things, when all the while they could have been at some smaller place doing exactly what they had searched for. Maybe we can get away from large numbers for the sake of numbers and find Web 2.0 in the process. Let me have your thoughts please.