Skip

Beggr Beta
February 17, 2006 7:49 AM   Subscribe

Web2.0 hits the skids. Someone has finally taken the Web2.0 trend to its logical conclusion. Good luck to him, I say. My only question - why didn't 37signals think of it first?
posted by TiggleTaggleTiger (61 comments total)

 
[h]
posted by slater at 7:54 AM on February 17, 2006


I thought MetaFilter was the logical conclusion of Web 2.0?
posted by MarshallPoe at 7:54 AM on February 17, 2006


Who is this, Karyn's little brother?
posted by Gator at 7:57 AM on February 17, 2006


wankr
posted by muckster at 7:59 AM on February 17, 2006


What? You humans are STILL only on web 2.O????
posted by slatternus at 8:02 AM on February 17, 2006


Needs more Ajaxy goodness.
posted by JeffK at 8:02 AM on February 17, 2006


I hate Web 2.0 hatrs.
posted by Plutor at 8:02 AM on February 17, 2006


Not to be all like this, but you aren't shilling here, TTT, right? Your site is hosted by the same company, which is a big company. But it's a little suspiscious.
posted by frecklefaerie at 8:03 AM on February 17, 2006


I'd say Web Twenny is still the ultimate Web 2.0 experience.
posted by milov at 8:03 AM on February 17, 2006


Oh my - that website Gator linked to just made me really, really sick to my stomach.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:07 AM on February 17, 2006


frecklefaerie - no, I'm not shilling. Thanks for bringing the tone of my thread down with your random paranoid accusations though.
posted by TiggleTaggleTiger at 8:16 AM on February 17, 2006


Your site is hosted by the same company, which is a big company.

Which is Dreamhost, BTW.
posted by smackfu at 8:21 AM on February 17, 2006


Not to be all like this, but you aren't shilling here, TTT, right? Your site is hosted by the same company, which is a big company. But it's a little suspiscious.

Holy crap. Are you joking?
posted by glenwood at 8:26 AM on February 17, 2006


Cmmntâ„¢
This comment is in beta. Please sign up to be on the mailing list when this comment becomes available.
posted by freudianslipper at 8:27 AM on February 17, 2006


TTT -no, I'm not shilling. Thanks for bringing the tone of my thread down with your random paranoid accusations though.

Sorry, I had thought I was polite.
posted by frecklefaerie at 8:38 AM on February 17, 2006


Lame, lame, lame. There's absolutely NOTHING "Web 2.0" about it, even in the most pejorative sense of the word. What, rotating tagline? Please. All it needs is an embedded MIDI of him jerking off.

This guy needs publicity like I need a hole in my head.
posted by mkultra at 8:40 AM on February 17, 2006


I got a "server could not found errror." Somehow, I think it's more fitting as the conclusion of this "Web 2.0" stuff.
posted by Godbert at 8:42 AM on February 17, 2006


Grr ... " 'Server could not be found' error."

Damn you, lack of preview!
posted by Godbert at 8:42 AM on February 17, 2006


This guy needs publicity like I need a hole in my head.

How does this constitute publicity? He doesn't have links to any other sites, projects, etc. and doesn't even have his name on it. Shit publicity stunt.
posted by influx at 8:47 AM on February 17, 2006


All it needs is an embedded MIDI of him jerking off.

Wow, what would that sound like?
posted by delmoi at 8:48 AM on February 17, 2006


Also, whats wrong with linking to this? I'd send him some money if I didn't hate paypal so much. At least he's honest, unlike all those other preening wankers who act like they deserve the money.
posted by delmoi at 8:49 AM on February 17, 2006


I'd send him some money, but I think he owes me a fiver.
posted by influx at 8:52 AM on February 17, 2006


Where's the "shitty link" flag?
posted by klangklangston at 8:56 AM on February 17, 2006


I'd send him some money, but I think he owes me a fiver.


That should be spelt "fivr".
posted by flashboy at 8:59 AM on February 17, 2006


If I change my username to Gatr, will you all send me a dollr?
posted by Gator at 9:00 AM on February 17, 2006


I thought this was funny, but I've built more than one 'Web 2.0' website and am currently working on another for my employer.

Why do people hate the concepts in Web 2.0 so much? The interfaces (asynchronous updates) are better, the design is generally quite clean. The naming conventions (Flickr, etc.) could use some work but they're really no worse than what existed before (Alexa, Orbitz, Google, Ebay, Netflix, etc.).

Because it's popular? Fine...better delete your mp3s and throw away your iPod. Because it works? Stop using Google then.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:01 AM on February 17, 2006


Momus's The Penis Song comes to mind. (Sorry, can't find a decent audio link.) Not for the lyrics, but for the actual cheap-fast-blippy-MIDI feel of the song, which probably would define Beggr's sound quite well.
posted by diastematic at 9:04 AM on February 17, 2006


freudianslipper:

I am not signing up to a comment from someone with a VOWEL before the 'r' in his nickname. Your lack of web2.0ishness offends me.
posted by qvantamon at 9:09 AM on February 17, 2006


You'd think someone kicked your puppy Kickstart.
posted by smackfu at 9:11 AM on February 17, 2006


oh, by the way, back in the late nineties, IRC nicknames were limited to 9 letters (on Undernet), so I was nicknamed "Gunfightr". Bow to me, I am a Web2.0 pionr.
posted by qvantamon at 9:11 AM on February 17, 2006


You'd think someone kicked your puppy Kickstart.

No, I'm not particularly bothered, honestly. I'm just unclear on what the reasoning is. People obviously are hating Web 2.0 and if there are rational reasons why this is so, then I'm like to know about them so I don't make the same mistakes (as far as naming goes, none of the projects I've worked on are missing vowels in their names).
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:19 AM on February 17, 2006


no hay el web 2.0
il n'y a pas un web 2.0
there is no web 2.0

it's web 1.0 beta 2
posted by blue_beetle at 9:24 AM on February 17, 2006


OKay, this is a sad, sad, attempt at getting some clarification. One that may expose the fact the I apparently live in some kind of hole: What is web2.0? I've seen it referred to, examples linked and even attempts at explanation, but I still don't get it.
posted by elwoodwiles at 9:42 AM on February 17, 2006


But I wasn't finished with Web 1.0 yet!!!!
posted by Ynoxas at 9:42 AM on February 17, 2006


kickstart I think the hatred is not directed at the concepts and applications that are being built, but rather the branding, marketing, and general level of hype. Javascript, DHTML, XMLHttpRequest, and all the 2.0 stuff has been used for quite a while before the 'Web 2.0' brand came around.

While I think all the new interactions, interfaces, and functionality are really cool, I also find a lot of the 2.0 gimmicks (plastering the word beta on every application, AJAX everything, 4px by 4px icons) to be slightly pretentious.
posted by cmicali at 9:43 AM on February 17, 2006


People obviously are hating Web 2.0

Just gleaning context from this thread ...

What is Web 2.0? What set of standards or technologies does it consist of? Is there a W3C or OASIS page on Web 2.0? How does it differ from Web 1.0? What is Web 1.0? Can I advertise for Web 2.0 engineers? How do I get to this Web 2.0?
posted by clearlynuts at 9:47 AM on February 17, 2006


Wikipedia to the rescue, elwoodwiles. (The criticism section also articulates what a lot of people have a problem with, too.)
posted by Gator at 9:47 AM on February 17, 2006


Kickstart70: I thought this was funny, but I've built more than one 'Web 2.0' website and am currently working on another for my employer.

Why do people hate the concepts in Web 2.0 so much? The interfaces (asynchronous updates) are better, the design is generally quite clean. The naming conventions (Flickr, etc.) could use some work but they're really no worse than what existed before (Alexa, Orbitz, Google, Ebay, Netflix, etc.).


Ok, step back a bit. What is disliked is not the interfaces or the attempt to build more socially aware software. What usually draws the dislike is the hype, buzz, and the over-inflated techno-utopian claims that everything is different this time around.

What especially bothers me is the claim that Web 2.0 is radically different because it is social leaving those of us who have been involved in community computing for the last 20 years wondering exactly what the heck we've been doing with countless hours of our lives.

edwoodwiles: What is web2.0? I've seen it referred to, examples linked and even attempts at explanation, but I still don't get it.

Well, there are two definitions floating around out there:
1: A combination of interface features incorporating JavaScript that offers new possibilites in user interface design (for example, scrolling maps on Google Maps that automatically load the next image when you scroll across the landscape).

2: A proposed "convergence" (one of those terms that increasingly triggers my bullshit reflex) of the technical and the social as demonstrated by sites like del.icio.us and flickr.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:52 AM on February 17, 2006


Thanks, I should have checked there. What I get is that "web 2.0" is an attempt to brand approaches and applications that have existed for quite awhile. That "web 2.0" is, well, a concept, seems slightly disapointing. So web 2.0, as far as I can tell, is the web + design majors. which is good, don't get me wrong. But along with good design we have a bit too much hype. Just build the damned website. I don't need a manifesto, I need functionality.
posted by elwoodwiles at 9:56 AM on February 17, 2006


And yes, when I say 20 years, I mean 20 years. In addition some of my colleagues look at data that goes back 30 years to the first mailing lists. And I would argue that the history of ICTs should probably include Ham Radio as well.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:03 AM on February 17, 2006


How does this constitute publicity? He doesn't have links to any other sites, projects, etc. and doesn't even have his name on it. Shit publicity stunt.

I believe mkultra was referring to the publicity he has gained by being a FPP on Metafilter.
posted by thanatogenous at 10:05 AM on February 17, 2006


calculations indicate that IRC circa '94 was about 1.381E3492 times more "social" than today's social apps.
posted by nervousfritz at 10:16 AM on February 17, 2006


Why do people hate the concepts in Web 2.0 so much?

Kickstart, it's not that people actually hate Web 2.0, it's just that it's not hard to see it as more than just the latest sensation du jour in net culture. It'll be old news by the time you can say "Joshua Davis" and click your heels three times.
posted by slatternus at 10:27 AM on February 17, 2006


slatternus: Specifically, I suspect that a chunk of it is a marketing thing by O'Reilly to turn around flagging sales.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:30 AM on February 17, 2006


Personally, I quite like the look of Web 2.0 designs, but I'm really sick and tired of Betas. Beta means "Not ready to launch". So, don't launch.
posted by slatternus at 10:32 AM on February 17, 2006


I'll just wait for Web 2.1, after they really fix the bugs.
posted by wendell at 10:44 AM on February 17, 2006


There's absolutely NOTHING "Web 2.0" about it

Thus making it the perfect "Web 2.0" site!
posted by Artw at 10:50 AM on February 17, 2006


or see Heaths' skint from 1996. Maybe that was Web 0.2.
posted by silence at 11:00 AM on February 17, 2006


INTERNET PANHANDLING IS THE LATEST THING!!!! IT'S GOING TO BE HOT HOT HOT
posted by slatternus at 11:25 AM on February 17, 2006


Actually, wouldn't the whole Joshua Davis/Praystation/Flash movement really be better called Web 2.0 - and what's going on now be Web 3.0?
posted by slatternus at 11:31 AM on February 17, 2006


In addition some of my colleagues look at data that goes back 30 years to the first mailing lists.

They could look at data going back hundreds or thousands of years, in medieval epistolary networks, or the oral transmission of myths (which might be stretching the definition of technology a bit, but the techniques for memorising vast amounts of data might just count).

Er, anyway, this site is almost amusing. Wonder if he's getting any cash.
posted by jack_mo at 11:31 AM on February 17, 2006


jack_mo: certainly, and I think you can make a strong argument that the internet as a medium for communication can be understood using theories and methodologies developed for studying earlier forms of communication.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:40 AM on February 17, 2006


Gator: Thanks for linking that Wikipedia article. I keep getting surprised by the high quality of Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is, I would argue, a fine example of Web 2.0.
posted by Triplanetary at 1:53 PM on February 17, 2006


Oh jesus. I almost never say stuff like this but...

1 link post to a 1 second joke that isn't actually all that funny?

There is nothing on that site but a tiny stupid joke.
posted by RustyBrooks at 2:20 PM on February 17, 2006


But it sparked some interesting discussion in the thread.

Social, collaborative discussion, powered by javascript! Crap, I think this post brought Web 2.0 to Metafilter! Praise the Lord!
posted by breath at 2:51 PM on February 17, 2006


Web 2.0 is so 2005.
posted by NewBornHippy at 4:20 PM on February 17, 2006


I'm thinking I should rename my site to Blendr. If this guy's site is "Web 2.0" then my little wordpress blog is, too.
posted by blendor at 5:09 PM on February 17, 2006


ha, nevermind, it's taken
posted by blendor at 5:09 PM on February 17, 2006


Why do people hate the concepts in Web 2.0 so much?

Envy is a powerful taskmaster.

Triplanetary: You should have seen that entry before I gave it a whack.
posted by dhartung at 5:20 PM on February 17, 2006


I panhandle all over the place, but I don't have a bank account so I can't accept payments. :(
posted by exlotuseater at 2:21 AM on February 18, 2006


Envy is a powerful taskmaster.

Ok Anil Dash...
posted by Dreamghost at 6:52 AM on February 18, 2006


« Older Oops! Peppered ya.   |   Amal of Borg. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post