Comments on: Web 2.0

Web 2.0

bobbyelliott — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:44:05 -0800

What is Web 2.0? [PDF] The best description of Web 2.0 that I have read. The six big ideas... 1 Individual production and User Generated Content 2 Harness the power of the crowd 3 Data on an epic scale 4 Architecture of Participation 5 Network Effects 6 Openness

By: matty

matty — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:48:33 -0800

I thought it was just about pastel colors and bubbly logos?

By: mrballistic

mrballistic — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:50:42 -0800

damn matty, beat me to it. i'd also say that it's about chunky colorful logos on wet floors. can't forget that reflective surface. heck, now you can do that in powerpoint 2007, so that design has officially jumped the shark. not that it didn't 2 years ago, but...

By: Dizzy

Dizzy — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:51:07 -0800

...and pornier porn!

By: quonsar

quonsar — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:58:29 -0800

it's big "top x percent" gifs and guys in pink shirts holding microphones!

By: keswick

keswick — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:59:28 -0800

web 2.0 is about getting rich off other people's work while hiding behind fancy-sounding-yet-poorly-thought-out concepts like "the wisdom of crowds." also, it is about echo chambers and circlejerking with people who are just like you

By: xjudson

xjudson — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:00:30 -0800

"Architecture of Participation?" Wow, post-postmodern

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:00:33 -0800

Harness the power of the crowd... Yeah, because me and everyone I know can't wait to all pull the chariot of the next big rich idiot.

By: xjudson

xjudson — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:01:58 -0800

drop shadows baby!

By: boo_radley

boo_radley — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:05:37 -0800

DON WADERS NOW

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:09:43 -0800

Ecstatic fucktarditude! That is the secret to web 2.0. In web 2.0, anyone can post a dopey PDF on a blog! If anyone can do it, so can I! Fish on.

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:12:11 -0800

AskMetafiltr: getting rich off other people's work while hiding behind fancy-sounding-yet-poorly-thought-out concepts like "the wisdom of crowds." I kid.

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:15:00 -0800

also, it is about echo chambers and circlejerking with people who are just like you In the echo chamber circle jerk, everyone can hear you moan.

By: xjudson

xjudson — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:17:16 -0800

w e b 2 . 1 i s p u t t i n g a s p a c e b e t w e e n e v e r y t h i n g

By: sequential

sequential — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:18:27 -0800

Yeah, because me and everyone I know can't wait to all pull the chariot of the next big rich idiot.

Yeah, because none of these websites provide useful services. Instead, sites like del.icio.us and flickr enslave you to do menial, joyless tasks that are exactly analogous to pulling a chariot. Saving a bookmark? Whip me, wealthy master, I don't think I can do this without proper motivation. Share my images with the world? Oh, mighty rich idiot, don't water me the next time we stop for a drink. I promise, I'll do better without. Not defending the branding of these sites as Web 2.0, but it's not like these sites rely on their users to be horses or slaves to the aristocracy.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:19:47 -0800

Well now that I've actually tried to read the piece, I agree even more with what I already said. Blech! Sidebar: One of the reviewers is from Lowbrow University! I went there too! PS: I love that movie where bobbyelliott wants to be a dancer but his hard-bitten Irish dad thinks he's a poofter.

By: thirteenkiller

thirteenkiller — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:21:02 -0800

Web 2.0 is so 2006.

By: gum

gum — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:21:08 -0800

Web 2.0: Choosing to revert to a PDF document to communicate something important.

By: notyou

notyou — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:22:38 -0800

That sounds a lot like Web 1.0.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:23:05 -0800

1 Individual production and User Generated Content 2 Harness the power of the crowd 3 Data on an epic scale 4 Architecture of Participation 5 Network Effects 6 Openness What does all this shit mean?

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:27:34 -0800

sequential, I'm mainly griping about the brainless doublespeak of a philosophy that pretends to celebrate the "individual" but really depends on the predictibility of its needs just as much as ever. Congratulating us on being special and for doing whatever we want on the internets, while straining to funnel those deeds and wants into certain areas so that every action becomes a transaction. Even the concept of Web 2.0 is a way to create subtle limitations on what is considered "new" and modern and marketable.

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:29:24 -0800

Waht, no RSS feeds and mash-ups?

By: tittergrrl

tittergrrl — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:29:27 -0800

Web 2.0: Choosing to revert to a PDF document to communicate something important. That wins the thread.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:36:43 -0800

From the delicious and meaty 64 page PDF: 'I have always imagined the information space as something to which everyone has immediate and intuitive access, and not just to browse, but to create.' Tim Berners-Lee, 1999 I know a IT professional or two that would just laugh at that.

By: DU

DU — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:37:08 -0800

The term "Web 2.0": Dumb The hype over "Web 2.0": Dumber The agonizing over the hype over "Web 2.0": Funny, for a while Actual features of "Web 2.0": Pretty cool

By: ruthsarian

ruthsarian — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:39:08 -0800

Seriously? Web 2.0 is rooted in AJAX. The idea of using embedded tech (of a web browser, usually JavaScript but possibly Flash as well) to talk to servers without you having to "load" another web page. Basically, it was just a cheap trick to remove the perception of page loads and maybe reduce the need to manage multiple web pages by keeping it all within a single page. It started with simple stuff like news tickers and didn't have any real name associated with it. Now it's getting some media buzz and someone slapped what was suppose to be a fancy sounding name to it. Now anytime I hear someone say "Web 2.0" I just groan internally because it's a term used by people who don't understand what they're really talking about. I'm sure there are a million parallels that others could provide to other industries. Like people who pull phrases out of there ass when talking about their car. Now, as the term continues to proliferate, people are making up their own definition, as seen in the linked PDF. Most (actually all) of the concepts discussed in the PDF are not new at all. They're quite old; in use in the mid 90s and some in use since the web's creation. In actuality, the "2.0" thing is just a pile of bullshit. It's a term marketing execs latched onto for promotional purposes. It's unfortunate that the term has reached mainstream. It just confuses everyone.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:39:31 -0800

Web 3.1

By: ardgedee

ardgedee — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:42:36 -0800

In before LOLOLWEB2.0. crap. Web 2.0 is a handy marker for those services which accommodate a liberalization of information usage without assuming this surrenders their information ownership. As a label it's permanently tainted by all the misapplication and appropriation of the term driving it into meaninglessness. Which is kind of ironic, when you think about it. If you're worried about buzzwords, beware the coming misappropriation of the phrase 'social software'. Currently it has specific meanings relevant to information sharing, but sometime soon a startup (or Microsoft) is going to use it as a marketing term to make their default installation of DotNetNuke sound special. As for this paper? Well, it's got an Executive Summary in lieu of an abstract, so it's got my back up already -- it's a position paper, not academic research regardless of who reviewed it.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:42:48 -0800

More happy horseshit

By: drjimmy11

drjimmy11 — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:47:14 -0800

Web 2.0 is rooted in AJAX And even the term "AJAX" tends to be mis/overused. The "X" is for XML, but people apply the term to anything that uses javascript to display something on a page, when all that is good old 1997-style DHTML. (and even DHTML was a somewhat pointless buzzword that pretended to be some kind of new language, when really it just meant using javascript with HTML)

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:57:36 -0800

...and pornier porn! Impossible! The "real-world" maximum on porniness was reached in 1998, and while the theoretical Maximal Pornic Quotient (MPQ) is some 30% higher than any laboratory MPQ achieved to date, significant increases in MPQ are quite impossible with the pornotech systems in place today. Nanopornotech may increase MPQ slightly, but come on, that's a pipe dream! In the meantime we will have to be satisfied with mere transpornigration because the era of easy super-pornification has ended! That's right, we've reached peak porn!

By: boo_radley

boo_radley — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:01:54 -0800

Mister_A : You're dismissing the giant untapped popper reserves up north, as well as the Microsoft/Vivid partnership which is researching promising leads into theoretical ultra-porn. We're nowhere near peak porn, and to raise an alarmist voice now does nobody any good.

By: Thorzdad

Thorzdad — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:02:44 -0800

Wow. I always wondered what an entire document written entirely by constantly pounding the button on the New Economy Bullshit generator would read like. I just never got around to it, myself.

By: sequential

sequential — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:03:11 -0800

sequential, I'm mainly griping about the brainless doublespeak of a philosophy that pretends to celebrate the "individual" but really depends on the predictibility of its needs just as much as ever.

Fair enough, hermitosis, point well made. Mea culpa.

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:10:50 -0800

From what I can tell, Web 2.0 is sort of a catch-all for any significant innovation that has become popular in the past 5 years.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:10:53 -0800

1 Individual production and User Generated Content 2 Harness the power of the crowd 3 Data on an epic scale 4 Architecture of Participation 5 Network Effects 6 Openness What does all this shit mean? posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:23 PM EST on March 8 It means no revenue other than adsense clickbots.

By: solistrato

solistrato — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:15:38 -0800

And cat macros.

By: treepour

treepour — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:22:44 -0800

Metafilter: dismissing the giant untapped popper reserves.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:22:57 -0800

I'm even cooler than the rest of you. I am jaded about yet to be invented technology.

By: sephira

sephira — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:23:54 -0800

Here's web 2.0 in all it's finest: a Web 2.0 bullshit generator, Bullshitr! Web 2.0 lets you: -harness peer-to-peer folksonomies -post viral ecologies -disintermediate user-contributed ecologies and -engage citizen-media communities

By: sfts2

sfts2 — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:26:46 -0800

Punt peak-porn. Those promoting peak-porn points of view are pointless partners of the porn-profit complex. A-rabs are sitting their sheep pelicled poopers on plenty of prime porn. A plethora of porn. A virtual plentenseous profusion of priceless premium pornographic paraphenalia.

By: chairface

chairface — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:27:58 -0800

Show me the spec. Then I'll believe "Web 2.0" is actually something.

By: rzklkng

rzklkng — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:30:21 -0800

We did this before - within the past year, didn't we? IMHO, web-double-ought is important because it's now a cultural movement, albeit mostly vain, shallow, and superficial. Instead of worrying about how you make money off of it, howsabout we look at the potential benefits to society? 1. UGC is a big deal to Old Media because it's free content. And just like Hollywood, the "best" content will rise to the top and translate to old media. But those millions of people who are "practicing" writing, or YouTubing, or photoshopping, or collaborating on things are cumulatively adding to society, and gaining skills that are transferable in the workplace, plus they most likely are learning something new that they are enjoying. 2. Wisdom of Crowds: Individuals are dumb, markets are efficient, and crowds can be smart (and dangerous). But democracy is a messy thing. We pay a lot of attention to stock markets, Vegas, futures markets, and prediction exchanges, don't we? 3. Examining big data can mean new discoveries. It can also mean false positives (ie. MySpace sex offenders). 4. The greater the level of engagement (or interaction, for people), the stronger their feelings, and the more likely they are to link it to positive emotions. Doing online research to pick the camera you want and reading the opinions of others may likely cause you to enjoy the purchase more afterwards. 5. Network effects: When you are composing a MeFi post, how useful is del.icio.us versus Google for finding those esoteric BOTW links? 6. Openness: More transparency = more trust. If you share everything, then you have nothing to hide (within reason). And allowing other people to "mashup" your data gives you new ways to look at things, new insights, and potentially new opprtunities for monetization. Web 2.0 might be a pretentious buzzword, but it's a part of the culture now, which means it can become a real force for change.

By: chlorus

chlorus — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:33:33 -0800

Jews did Web 2.0 Lol Jews. Lol Web 2.0.

By: lostburner

lostburner — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:39:16 -0800

1 Individual production and User Generated Content 2 Harness the power of the crowd 3 Data on an epic scale 4 Architecture of Participation 5 Network Effects 6 Openness 1, 2, 4, and 6 seem to just be "LOL PEOPLE" 3 and 5 seem to just be "LOL INTERNETZ"

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:52:02 -0800

Hey you guys want to go around with your heads in the sand about peak porn, that's fine with me. Just try and explain it to your kids, who will be stuck jerking off to the Sears catalog.

By: caddis

caddis — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:52:38 -0800

Web 2.0 does not exist.

By: Demogorgon

Demogorgon — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:07:41 -0800

Well here's the best description of Web 2.0 that I have read. See also.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:16:24 -0800

Web 2.0 is rooted in AJAX. The idea of using embedded tech (of a web browser, usually JavaScript but possibly Flash as well) to talk to servers without you having to "load" another web page. I'm pretty sure "Web 2.0" as an umbrella term came out before "AJAX". Plus, Wikipedia is canonically web2.0, and doesn't use AJAX. try again. What makes things confusing is that Web2.0 was actually defined by a number of sites: Flickr, Google, Wikipedia, etc. The "essence" of these sites define web2.0

By: badstone

badstone — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:17:51 -0800

Because the web now is *just* like it was in 1999. No really! Get off my lawn you kids!

By: badstone

badstone — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:19:52 -0800

What does all this shit mean? If you dumb it down much more, there's not a whole hell of a lot left to say: Web 2.0 does things! With data! And people!

By: poweredbybeard

poweredbybeard — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:21:57 -0800

I think it's pretty telling that a parody of flash intros and Web-speak from seven years ago remains entirely relevant to this discussion. And speaking of Flash intros, remember that within the last few years people have more or less got over the urge to MACROMEDIA EVERYTHING, and Flash is finding its due (and secondary) place in tasteful web design. The same will be true of many of the things that are being developed under (or in reaction to) the ridiculous "Web 2.0" hype; the good stuff will float, the bullshit will rot. But there will be a period of great discomfort while all that bullshit is rotting.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:36:23 -0800

delmoi: What makes things confusing is that Web2.0 was actually defined by a number of sites: Flickr, Google, Wikipedia, etc. The "essence" of these sites define web2.0 I thought that web2.0 was defined (vaguely) by Tim O'Reilly in an effort to sell conference seats and books? Beyond that, there is nothing here that is new to people who have not been looking at CSCL/W and Online Communities since the mid-80s.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:40:52 -0800

But, the basic problem with CSCL/W and Online Communities is that they are not things that can be simply built by just throwing computer system cookbooks at them.

By: YoBananaBoy

YoBananaBoy — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:47:04 -0800

I always thought web 2.0 meant the web went from read only perspective for users to a read-write-exectue deal.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:56:05 -0800

I always thought web 2.0 meant the web went from read only perspective for users to a read-write-exectue deal. And that happened, ohh, back in 1994?

By: pdb

pdb — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:05:09 -0800

What is Web 2.0? Based on presented evidence, 64 pages of self-referential wankitude, in handy PDF format. I just want to know: will web 2.0 work on my current interweb tubes, or will I have to buy a new interweb, or is there some sort of an adaptor or something? I live in an apartment and don't want to have to tear out my walls to get this great new "web 2.0" thing I keep reading about.

By: jouke

jouke — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:05:24 -0800

Ok, so I learned from you guys that user generated content & folksonomies & ajax => web 2.0 & web 2.0 => bad, evil overlords, corporate speak, old hat, etc. But mefi => user generated content & folksonomies & ajax are we resonating so strongly in our groupthink way that discussing mefi itself is forbidden? Am I out of tune? Or is mefi exempt from web 2.0 criticism because we only got ajax goodness recently and our look & feel is so clunky and Matt is the good shepherd? no offense intended to christians Or am I breaking the rules for not posting this on metatalk? Or am I asking to many questions?

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:18:06 -0800

You are so fired from MetaFilter, jouke.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:21:16 -0800

jouke: Let me put it to you in simple words that can satisfy the infantile short attention span of Web 2.0 advocates. THE FUCKING INTERNET HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT USER GENERATED CONTENT AND FOLKOSONOMIES!!! Web 2.0 advocates need to be hit in the face with a good volume on the history of computer-mediated communication until they stop taking credit for things they didn't invent.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:21:40 -0800

But jouke, metafilter has been doing user generated content for seven years now, folksonomy for several years. Only the ajax is new, so calling it Web 2.0 now, would mean web 2.0 has either been around forever, is rather arbitrary, or is essentially meaningless.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:24:55 -0800

or Metafilter: Web 2.0 before it was cool

By: wendell

wendell — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:26:30 -0800

And that happened, ohh, back in 1994? And that was Web 1.0. Version 2.0 is not doing anything "new", it's trying to push doing the same things to another level. Adding "Bleach Borax and Brighteners" to detergent. Going from Windows 3.1 to 95 (but, hopefully not from 98 to Me or XP to Vista). Connecting the readers, the writers, the servers and the owners in a way that'll make most if not all of them happier. Until something blows itself up (real good) or collapses under its own weight, following which is a period of quieter progress until it's time to burst forth with 3.0!

By: ed

ed — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:30:17 -0800

Every time a geek mentions "Web 2.0," a kitten dies.

By: jouke

jouke — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:34:00 -0800

I'm fired. I knew that you guys in the US are allowed to do that on the spot.... I shouldn't have come here. I'll go back to the Dutch internet now. There I can stay after not being welcome for at least a few months to half a year according to labour law. Kirkjob: I think that using all caps has been bad form since way back when. And using expletives doesn't make you more convincing either. drezden: I like the conclusion that you inferred from my set of implications.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:38:21 -0800

Is the Dutch internet all porn and weed? If so, I'm buying a ticket to Dutchland so I can check it out ;)

By: jouke

jouke — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:50:05 -0800

While I'm 'cleaning out my desk' in the famous cardboard box that you use according to movies; yes, weed and porn to your hearts content. And also abortion & euthanasia. We're famous for that too.

By: The Power Nap

The Power Nap — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:54:05 -0800

"I think it's pretty telling that a parody of flash intros and Web-speak from seven years ago remains entirely relevant to this discussion. " I entered in order: Pizza food eat pizza, it's food and I was treated to the funniest 30 seconds of my day, if not week. Thank you. That all being said, the semantic web looks to be a bit more interesting. With OWL and Knowledge base reasoners like Pellet, attempts are being made to generate a framework where meta data allows automatic discovery of information and services. Of course ontology in the computer science field was around well before before the web, but this application of it could yield the ability for any user to bring online an application or dataset that would be incorperated into a large coherent navagatable Knowledge base. Or that's the hope, there's some serious problems on the whole with domain merging.

By: chrominance

chrominance — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:16:09 -0800

Ok, so I learned from you guys that user generated content & folksonomies & ajax => web 2.0 & web 2.0 => bad, evil overlords, corporate speak, old hat, etc. But mefi => user generated content & folksonomies & ajax Yes, I believe keswick already noted that Mefi is Web 2.0: also, it is about echo chambers and circlejerking with people who are just like you (zing!)

By: stet

stet — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:18:16 -0800

Of course ontology in the computer science field was around well before before the web, Even longer in library science.

By: infini

infini — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:04:54 -0800

every generation thinks they invented sex

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:41:10 -0800

This is the worst thread I've ever scrolled to the bottom of. I guess that makes me an idiot. Let me check. Yup, I'm an idiot.

By: The Power Nap

The Power Nap — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:57:37 -0800

"Of course ontology in the computer science field was around well before before the web, Even longer in library science." Not arguing that. The CS version of ontology is actually a dumber subset of REAL ontology.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:12:30 -0800

Here's web 2.0 in all it's finest: a Web 2.0 bullshit generator, Bullshitr! I made that, by the way. It remains the single most popular page on my site, to my eternal chagrin.

By: solipse

solipse — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:56:44 -0800

Web 2.0: Geeks learn Marketing.

By: scheptech

scheptech — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:41:58 -0800

So basically, anything other than static HTML is Web 2.0.

By: infini

infini — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:20:36 -0800

OMG I'm in the same blue room as the creator of the Bullshitr? *falls to the floor to kowtow in abject submission to his intellectual might and superiority*

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:52:47 -0800

s'only a bit of javascript (and some sarcasm)

By: algreer

algreer — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 04:48:22 -0800

I thought Web 2.0 was still in beta?