Museum of Modern Betas
January 28, 2006 1:11 PM Subscribe
The Museum of Modern Betas lists the newest in web 2.0 kinda stuff. Blog? Check. Feeds? But of course. Tags? You betcha.
Theres some awesome Web 2.0 bullshit in this months wired, including some staggeringly meaningless graphs.
I was particularly blown away by the downward-trending graphs that were said to be a good thing!
posted by beaucoupkevin at 2:26 PM on January 28, 2006
I was particularly blown away by the downward-trending graphs that were said to be a good thing!
posted by beaucoupkevin at 2:26 PM on January 28, 2006
Why do all these "Web 2.0" applications have some of the dumbest names? Is it becuase of the lack of 'normal' domain names?
posted by punkrockrat at 3:33 PM on January 28, 2006
posted by punkrockrat at 3:33 PM on January 28, 2006
Also, can we get a Web 2.0 equivalent of this please?
posted by killdevil at 4:00 PM on January 28, 2006
posted by killdevil at 4:00 PM on January 28, 2006
Well, look at that. The wonderchicken's very own Web 2.0 Bullshit Generator, in with a chance.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:23 PM on January 28, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:23 PM on January 28, 2006
Oh, poop. I just noticed Firas linked it already.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:23 PM on January 28, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:23 PM on January 28, 2006
The score for http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/48661 is 8 out of 43
posted by Ayn Marx at 6:28 PM on January 28, 2006
posted by Ayn Marx at 6:28 PM on January 28, 2006
I can't belive all this prejudice against us Folksonomitarians. Typical anti-taggist backlash. I bet you believe the Web was intelligently created by some master designer and didn't arise from millions of tiny emergent behaviors. For shame.
posted by todbot at 7:57 PM on January 28, 2006
posted by todbot at 7:57 PM on January 28, 2006
That's funny. Some of the biggest Ruby people out there, 37signals.com, get less than Metafilter. rubyonrails.com gets less than metafilter. Their "uses AJAX" criteria seem to be flawed at best.
posted by lackutrol at 8:12 PM on January 28, 2006
posted by lackutrol at 8:12 PM on January 28, 2006
People bitching about "Web 2.0" bother me.
Please specify if you're bitching about the level of functionality and the various implementations provided, or the concept of version incrementing the internets.
The namescheme itself is stupid, but the ability to interact with the server after the page has loaded and without having to redraw the entire page is great stuff. And it's cool. And what's more, you agree. You were all "ooh" and "omgawesome" when Google Maps came out.
It's only when they started to put a name to it that you balked. So at least clarify that you're upset at the name. Hell, I was calling it XMLHttpRequest before I even realized its mainstream name had become AJAX. Now, I just think of cleaning the bathroom...
posted by disillusioned at 3:02 AM on January 29, 2006
Please specify if you're bitching about the level of functionality and the various implementations provided, or the concept of version incrementing the internets.
The namescheme itself is stupid, but the ability to interact with the server after the page has loaded and without having to redraw the entire page is great stuff. And it's cool. And what's more, you agree. You were all "ooh" and "omgawesome" when Google Maps came out.
It's only when they started to put a name to it that you balked. So at least clarify that you're upset at the name. Hell, I was calling it XMLHttpRequest before I even realized its mainstream name had become AJAX. Now, I just think of cleaning the bathroom...
posted by disillusioned at 3:02 AM on January 29, 2006
I bitch (well, okay, I haven't yet, but here it is) because I think the concept of putting a namespace around a milieu of application-specific technologies is pretentious as hell, and in this case, very premature. The web is the web. It evolves. But it's nowhere near version 2.0. How about instead it's web 1.345a? Oh, but that doesn't sound so cool, does it?
Maybe web 2.0 describes a bubble, or a way for an early adopter to feel good in cool sunglasses, or whatever.
Web 2.0 as defined today is a very small set of technologies within hundreds, all confined to the keyboard, because you STILL have to go TO it - use a computer and manipulate specific software to access your tags. If all you see as web 2.0 is the ability to update content after the page has loaded, then this points out to me that we're a long, long way from done. My cell phone screen updates its page constantly. I don't have to refresh it. Why would I expect less from my PC or Internet access? Why is the bar set so low for version 2.0?
Nope. Web 2.0 won't exist until there is a real reinvention of the whole package - instant access to data- whatever that data is, from anywhere to anywhere - without needing to push tiny little Treo buttons or learn some crap PDA graffiti.
That's more than just draggable web snotlets or whatever that you use to create a personal page. And it's not Google Maps, fercryinoutloud. It is a total revamp of the IP protocol - or doing away with it altogether - to provide true stateless and secure public data transfer. It means revamp of SMTP - or more likely, doing away with it altogether - to provide much more secure person to person data transfer.
We are a long way from 2.0. Especially when you consider that your average American user is just now getting the concept that the high-speed access they have now means more than opening up the chat rooms faster in AOL.
The CB radio paved the way for the cell phone, by making us humans aware that talking to each other without wires and at a distance was possible. It's taken iteration upon iteration on the theme - cell towers, small and effective batteries, an infrastructure - to make portable phones viable for the average consumer to adopt. A similar shift in Internet technology is underway - we're getting used to the idea that information is/should be available almost anywhere and anytime - but the infrastructure is still at the CB radio level. I still need my computer, my browser, and my keyboard to get to it. I still need to GO to it, not pull it out of my pocket. Until that infrastructure is there, we're at 1.5 or something.
Because as cool as Google Maps is, the phone company still prints one hell of a lot of phone books.
Anyway, my two cents. Web 2.0 is an overused term that will hopefully die a quick death. Otherwise, my perfect future will be Web 23.5 or something.
posted by Slap Incognito at 6:57 AM on January 29, 2006
Maybe web 2.0 describes a bubble, or a way for an early adopter to feel good in cool sunglasses, or whatever.
Web 2.0 as defined today is a very small set of technologies within hundreds, all confined to the keyboard, because you STILL have to go TO it - use a computer and manipulate specific software to access your tags. If all you see as web 2.0 is the ability to update content after the page has loaded, then this points out to me that we're a long, long way from done. My cell phone screen updates its page constantly. I don't have to refresh it. Why would I expect less from my PC or Internet access? Why is the bar set so low for version 2.0?
Nope. Web 2.0 won't exist until there is a real reinvention of the whole package - instant access to data- whatever that data is, from anywhere to anywhere - without needing to push tiny little Treo buttons or learn some crap PDA graffiti.
That's more than just draggable web snotlets or whatever that you use to create a personal page. And it's not Google Maps, fercryinoutloud. It is a total revamp of the IP protocol - or doing away with it altogether - to provide true stateless and secure public data transfer. It means revamp of SMTP - or more likely, doing away with it altogether - to provide much more secure person to person data transfer.
We are a long way from 2.0. Especially when you consider that your average American user is just now getting the concept that the high-speed access they have now means more than opening up the chat rooms faster in AOL.
The CB radio paved the way for the cell phone, by making us humans aware that talking to each other without wires and at a distance was possible. It's taken iteration upon iteration on the theme - cell towers, small and effective batteries, an infrastructure - to make portable phones viable for the average consumer to adopt. A similar shift in Internet technology is underway - we're getting used to the idea that information is/should be available almost anywhere and anytime - but the infrastructure is still at the CB radio level. I still need my computer, my browser, and my keyboard to get to it. I still need to GO to it, not pull it out of my pocket. Until that infrastructure is there, we're at 1.5 or something.
Because as cool as Google Maps is, the phone company still prints one hell of a lot of phone books.
Anyway, my two cents. Web 2.0 is an overused term that will hopefully die a quick death. Otherwise, my perfect future will be Web 23.5 or something.
posted by Slap Incognito at 6:57 AM on January 29, 2006
uh Slap, I think you're describing Web 3.0.
Or Web 3.11 for Workgroups.
posted by merelyglib at 9:12 AM on January 29, 2006
Or Web 3.11 for Workgroups.
posted by merelyglib at 9:12 AM on January 29, 2006
Merely, that's exactly my point.
The current bar for "web 2.0", a collection of technologies such as tagging, blogs, et. al. is so low that content updates after page loads is considered "cool".
Social networking should have taken off much earlier. The technology has existed for a long time. Now someone takes one set, wraps a cool moniker on it, and we're at 2.0? Nope.
I just think it would be nice, instead, if people looked for a higher standard than just Google Maps to set the bar for programming/web excellence.
posted by Slap Incognito at 10:01 AM on January 29, 2006
The current bar for "web 2.0", a collection of technologies such as tagging, blogs, et. al. is so low that content updates after page loads is considered "cool".
Social networking should have taken off much earlier. The technology has existed for a long time. Now someone takes one set, wraps a cool moniker on it, and we're at 2.0? Nope.
I just think it would be nice, instead, if people looked for a higher standard than just Google Maps to set the bar for programming/web excellence.
posted by Slap Incognito at 10:01 AM on January 29, 2006
I'm with Slap on this one. I don't feel like what's happening is cool enough to be dubbed 2.0...in fact, no matter how cool things get, I think it's silly to name it - it's the web, full stop. Web 2.0 is for venture capitalists.
posted by sharpener at 10:25 AM on January 29, 2006
posted by sharpener at 10:25 AM on January 29, 2006
See... while I'm happy to make fun of this phenomenon, I kinda dig where the web is going. It's undeniable that the language of the www is evolving. Whether or not something counts as "web 2.0" or not, I have no idea, but I'm excited about the addition of new levels of interactivity. I dig it that a lot of these folks have embraced the standards and api's, a concept that isn't necessarily cutting edge, but is still different than your standard HTML web page.
From a programming perspective, dealing with javascript applications is a lot different than standard stateless web pages... so it's not really business as usual at all, at least for those of us who cut our teeth on regular old cgi/php types of things.
posted by ph00dz at 11:21 AM on January 29, 2006
From a programming perspective, dealing with javascript applications is a lot different than standard stateless web pages... so it's not really business as usual at all, at least for those of us who cut our teeth on regular old cgi/php types of things.
posted by ph00dz at 11:21 AM on January 29, 2006
The current bar for "web 2.0", a collection of technologies such as tagging, blogs, et. al. is so low that content updates after page loads is considered "cool".
The whole concept of "content updates after page loads" is extremely cool and fairly earth-shattering. The fairly simple protocols of the Web enforced a cadence of request, response, request, response. This synchronous behavior informed everything about the culture of the Web. Just look at metafilter and everyone pressing 'reload' on the posts they're keeping tabs on. When the protocols advanced to allow an asynchronous way of dealing with the Web, it's pretty important, and allows for an entirely different mode of interaction. I don't mind calling the transition from synchronous to asynchronous interfaces "Web 2.0".
I'm not saying that that mode of interaction is right for every application. Take metafilter again. Matt could make every post's page do an AJAXy event-based refresh anytime new comments are made. That would be neat, but would turn metafilter into a chatroom, instead of a forum for informed and carefully considered debate. (okay, maybe metafilter was a bad example, but really, I've seen those good kinds of comments happen a few times)
posted by todbot at 11:46 AM on January 29, 2006
The whole concept of "content updates after page loads" is extremely cool and fairly earth-shattering. The fairly simple protocols of the Web enforced a cadence of request, response, request, response. This synchronous behavior informed everything about the culture of the Web. Just look at metafilter and everyone pressing 'reload' on the posts they're keeping tabs on. When the protocols advanced to allow an asynchronous way of dealing with the Web, it's pretty important, and allows for an entirely different mode of interaction. I don't mind calling the transition from synchronous to asynchronous interfaces "Web 2.0".
I'm not saying that that mode of interaction is right for every application. Take metafilter again. Matt could make every post's page do an AJAXy event-based refresh anytime new comments are made. That would be neat, but would turn metafilter into a chatroom, instead of a forum for informed and carefully considered debate. (okay, maybe metafilter was a bad example, but really, I've seen those good kinds of comments happen a few times)
posted by todbot at 11:46 AM on January 29, 2006
I appreciate that asynchronous interfaces are very cool. And I think it's a significant step forward. But I don't think it's 2.0 of anything. I don't think it's earth shattering. It's just an advance. It's positive, it certainly has application, but its not going to change the world.
I think "web 1.0" was born with Tim Berners-Lee, hyperlinking/http, and Mozilla. The concept is pretty simple and we all know it: traverse data stores by linking elements within documents. Access information without having to know the storage location of the information. Then, the use of a fairly simplistic language to describe/present page content.
That's certainly request/response and it changed well, everything. It took the concept of the BBS - multiple users creating communities in one "fenced yard", and coupled it with the use of hyperlinking/massively available networks spread over a wide area. Suddenly the "yard" became enormous.
And I just don't think you can compare asynchronous interfaces as the "version 2.0" to Mozilla's Web 1.0. I just don't think they're in the same league. I think Web 2.0 will be a complete rethinking of how this technology - the internet as an information access tool - is built, used, and interfaced with.
Until then, Web 2.0 will continue to be a buzzword and a VC magnet, and that's about it.
posted by Slap Incognito at 1:55 PM on January 29, 2006
I think "web 1.0" was born with Tim Berners-Lee, hyperlinking/http, and Mozilla. The concept is pretty simple and we all know it: traverse data stores by linking elements within documents. Access information without having to know the storage location of the information. Then, the use of a fairly simplistic language to describe/present page content.
That's certainly request/response and it changed well, everything. It took the concept of the BBS - multiple users creating communities in one "fenced yard", and coupled it with the use of hyperlinking/massively available networks spread over a wide area. Suddenly the "yard" became enormous.
And I just don't think you can compare asynchronous interfaces as the "version 2.0" to Mozilla's Web 1.0. I just don't think they're in the same league. I think Web 2.0 will be a complete rethinking of how this technology - the internet as an information access tool - is built, used, and interfaced with.
Until then, Web 2.0 will continue to be a buzzword and a VC magnet, and that's about it.
posted by Slap Incognito at 1:55 PM on January 29, 2006
I think we're coming from different places. I remember a Web before text entry fields or forms or even JPEG support. Each of those things deserved a rev-up in the version-number-of-the-Web (if there were such a thing). After over a decade, I'm surprised people are still considering it only a "1.0" system. Surely the recent transition in layout semantics from tables & font tags to CSS also deserves a rev-up? For me, calling this new, richer way of interacting with websites "Web 2.0" isn't a buzzword as much as a more general recognition that the Web is an ever-changing entity, one that continuously re-invents itself to become better. And if that encourages VCs with too much money to throw some of it into the Web, all the better. Sign me up.
posted by todbot at 2:00 AM on January 30, 2006
posted by todbot at 2:00 AM on January 30, 2006
« Older Republican Comedy | Mexican "Old Lady" Serial Killer finally caught. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Artw at 1:23 PM on January 28, 2006