Reportr.net

Image by ToastyKen via FlickrResearching honeymoon plans for Thailand, I’ve been using a combination of legacy media in the form of a Lonely Planet guide, and new media, in this case TripAdvisor.

The two fulfill very different purposes and illustrate the difference between static and networked media.

The Lonely Planet guide is a good place to start. But, of course, it suffers from the limitations of being a paper guide. Even the most recent edition is likely to be a year old, given the time lag between research and publication.

And one former Lonely Planet writer has raised doubts over how many of the locations are re-visited and checked for every new edition.

On TripAdvisor, the comments are all time specific, with a date of each contribution. Reading these in chronological order can provide an insight into how a hotel or resort has improved or deteriorated.

But there is a more radical difference between the two guides which demonstrates how media is different in a Web 2.0, networked globe.

Lonely Planet presents travel information from the point of view of the expert. It is a sole source, trusted on the basis of the brand. In other words, it serves the role of an authority.

With TripAdvisor, the individual contribution is irrelevant. An individual contribution lacks authority.

People don’t visit the site to read about the experiences of one traveler. What matters is the sum total of the experiences of the contributors. Authority comes from the aggregate of the comments.

As a whole, these contributions create a valuable resource, which far outweighs the value of any one, individual comment.

In this sense, TripAdvisor is a good example of the wisdom of crowds and how something can become an expert resource, without being produced by what would considered a traditional expert authority.