Web 2.0 jumped the shark days after its invention. (29)

1 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-10-04 16:55 ID:6D5C7A89

Right now I am seeing appreciation for "Web 2.0" on the rise. As a user of many Web apps, I have been fed up with this since practically the week the phrase was invented.

I will use this list of examples of what Web 2.0 means:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Here's a list of what I hate about Web 2.0:

  • Tagging/folksonomies. Sorting your bookmarks with other people? Fine idea, if you are that bored. Sorting them without any kind of structure or moderation? No. It sounds like fun, but God help us if we're actually looking for good content among all that rubbish that a million amateur librarians have filed away. Has this technology helped anyone? I doubt it.
  • Mass contribution in general. Peers don't do everything better. They can offset your bandwidth (BitTorrent), but they can't provide backup hosting for your website (Akamai). Wikis are great when you can fix a page, but you'd better have help on hand for the people who will be constantly abusing that service.
  • AJAX. I have seen three good implementations of this. All three are complete-as-you-type searches. Hint to webmasters: Once I load a website, I expect it to be LOADED. I don't want my browser running off to fetch more information that you failed to provide me, without a damn good reason.
  • Google. Google is a great company. I love Google. But it isn't a herald of paradigm or whatever. It's cool because it does cool things and plays nice. That has nothing to do with Web 2.0 programming.
  • Retarded CSS. NO MORE THAN 5PX OF PADDING PER OBJECT. PADDING DOES NOT MAKE YOUR WEBSITE COOLER. THIS GOES FOR LINE SPACING TOO. STOP IT. GODDAMN YOU.

The following things are great and all, but they aren't part of the "Web 2.0":

  • Blogging. Nothing new. This has been easy to do since Geocities was founded.
  • RSS. RSS has been around since 1997.
  • Unclunky release models. Durr. Free software has been doing bazaar-style programming and releases since the Neolithic era.
  • Javascript.

If anyone sees "Web 2.0" doing something useful for the world, let me know!

2 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-10-04 18:36 ID:6D5C7A89

Here is all the evil things about Web 2.0 in one pastel-colored package:
http://www.netvibes.com/

3 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-10-05 02:34 ID:z7pyPs+n

As for Web 2.0, I don't get it. Is it just server-based web applications? That what that article seems to make it out to be. It seems to me like all the "concepts" the article is listing are just the effects of using a server-based application model. Do we need an extra term for this? By the way, I've actually never heard this term before.

>>2
That thing is pretty cool, but I automatically hate anything that refers to itself as a "solution".

4 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2005-10-05 12:14 ID:JJwSVQXg

> AJAX

First off, that's a retarded acronym made up by some consulting company to make themselves sound important, and Slashdot fell for it hook-and-sinker. It's meaningless, misapplied and retarded.

Second, of course it won't make a static webpages any better. That's hardly the point, is it? The point is to make applications.

Look, I made one: http://wakaba.c3.cx/desktop-test/desktop.pl (login "test, password "test").

5 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-10-05 13:21 ID:Heaven

1995 called. They want their pundits back.

While I'm at it, someone remove that "3.0" from IIchan's front page.

6 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-10-06 04:13 ID:i6V4oRfT

>>4
I was under the impression "Web 2.0" meant applying the technology of your desktop app to regular Web pages. I might be wrong.

Of course the phrase is jibberish anyway.

7 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-10-10 15:18 ID:Heaven

>>4
slashdot fell for it because AJAX has that X in it, and has Microsoft taken out of it, unlike XMLHTTPRequest

8 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-10-10 18:12 ID:N585nTBA

>>6
I thought the main idea of "Web 2.0" was "harnessing collective intelligence", turning all Websites into services offering anything-goes collections of user-contributed content of questionable veracity, thereby relieving webmasters the trouble of having to come up with anything worth reading or being responsible for their own site's content.

The future belongs to lab rats, a future made possible by programmers so enamoured with their experimental paradigms that they're content to let their end users do all the contept-proving for them as they tirelessly work on the next big thing.

Woe be unto those who need to be told how they like to work.

9 Name: Daily 2005-10-11 00:16 ID:NA8Jzose

Web 2.0 IS nothing but jibberish
All it signifies is the modernization of web in general.

"harnessing collective intelligence" is a nice fad, if applied correctly it could really make a site worth-while.
But both web 1.0 and 2.0 is/was prone to abuse. Google 1.0 had problems with web-page makers abusing meta-data. Google 2.0 has problems when peers abuse their click-ranking system. For an example, search "failure" =P

Web 3.0 might harness really powerful AI to improve web usibility, or whatever.
Either way, I won't be impressed until they do an overhaul of the net. The net was never designed to be used the way its used now. An anti-hacking/virus layer to the new net would be nice :)

10 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-10-11 02:32 ID:X84iKhWp

11 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-11-18 18:06 ID:pU0/xuky

>>9

"Harnessing collective intelligence" in context is bullshit anyway, because intelligence implies an ability to learn. You do not harness people's ability to learn by having them regurgitate data at a screen. At most, it's easing the harvest of wisdom, but said wisdom is questionable at best, as it always was, and always should be.

To me, web 2.0 is a set of technologies, and a way of applying them which eases the aggregation of often dubious data from a variety of sources. In otherwords, it's like Web 1.0, only "better". Some of it is more streamlined. Some of it is utter shite without someone at the helm who understands the technology, and doesn't assume that it's the perfect software solution. Wikis are a good example. They can be good, if you take the right precautions, and know how to run one with your eyes open to it's pitfalls. If you don't, it becomes yet another place for people to stroke their egos and push each other around.

The again, the goddamn thing is such a buzzword, that I'm not sure what the hell people think they mean when they talk about it. I don't even think they know anymore.

12 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-12-03 20:28 ID:8xhwWTXn

>>2
1998 called. They want their portals back. So you can drag and drop them now to shuffle the crap around, whoop de doo. It's still the same overcluttered portal design that every search engine and general interest website was trying to become way back when in a quixotic quest to shackle eyeballs.

13 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-12-04 02:17 ID:Heaven

"Web 2.0" is a relatively new meta-buzzword being used to try and wrap up all the web-related little buzzwords flying around right now into one single even-more-nebulous buzzword. It has two distinct aspects: technologies/concepts (some of which are actually good) and user base (most of which are drooling bandwagon-jumping people who think their blog Matters). Buzzwords are generally hard enough to decipher on their own, and Web 2.0 is a buzzword about other buzzwords, so the goal here is to try and explain this mess.

http://shsc.info/Web2.0

14 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-12-04 07:18 ID:nlH0pNJA

>>1
Make that four good implementations of AJAX: http://www.backpackit.com/

Great site, I use it for organizing all my school, work, and family crap. :) The SMS reminders by themselves are worth signing up for a free account...

15 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-12-06 08:34 ID:pU0/xuky

>>13
Thanks for the link. It's a good read.

16 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-12-07 07:05 ID:Heaven

17 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-12-08 00:43 ID:iuxZ0++G

18 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2005-12-09 20:30 ID:GUX/46q6

Did you hear? Web 2.0 Has A Ballistic Trajectory! You've really gotta get on the bandwagon now!

http://webservices.sys-con.com/read/161874_p.htm

19 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-12-10 23:25 ID:Heaven

>>18
You don't have any idea what your talking about. Web 2.0 is poised to expedite e-business platforms and mesh sticky supply-chains with integrated transparent interfaces that transform visionary markets. Through iterating one-to-one paradigms, it revolutionize cross-media mindshare.

20 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-12-14 03:55 ID:iuxZ0++G

  • What the Dreamweaver is.

Dreamweaver is a professional Web site development program for creating static pages and dynamic Web applications, and managing Web sites. Dreamweaver is considered the first Web authoring tool which has the capability of interfacing with multiple server models so it made Dreamweaver easier for the developer to deal with either the server-side code or client-side code. This software is not only for creating HTML pages but it is also suitable for coding a wide range of Web formats such as Cascading Style Sheet (CSS), Javascript, Xtreme Markup Language (XML) and ActionScript.

http://lupus.ecs.fullerton.edu/jozefg/public/CS589/Guidelines/Examples_%20of_1st_%20round_%20presentation.doc

21 Name: Redhatter 2005-12-14 12:33 ID:Heaven

Bah! Seems Macromedia mis-understood the definition of XML. I always understood as E*x*tensible *M*arkup *L*anguage...?

22 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-12-14 13:49 ID:Heaven

XML: It's XXXtreme to the MAXX!

(while quantities last!)

23 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-12-15 04:57 ID:iuxZ0++G

>>21
no shit?!

24 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-12-15 15:03 ID:snfo2XzO

Macromedia didn't make that mistake; whoever made that document did. It appears to have been written by a college student as an essay assignment or something.

25 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-12-23 21:13 ID:Heaven

Is this the kind of thing people mean when they say ajax?
http://www4.mississauga.ca/ClicknRide/TVPOptionsForm.aspx

26 Name: Redhatter 2005-12-25 13:00 ID:Heaven

Don't know about you... but last time I checked... AJAX was a brand of household cleaner.

What are these IT people smoking? :-) Something strong I'll bet.

27 Name: CyB3r h4xX0r g33k 2005-12-25 18:39 ID:Heaven

>>26
It's not the "IT people", it's the bloggers. In "IT", we write web applications that get information from the server without reloading the entire page. In the "blogosphere", they slap a silly name on it and say it will revolutionize the Web.

And ... that's the first time I'd seen somebody expand XML like that. sobs Love is over.

28 Name: Redhatter 2005-12-26 13:23 ID:Heaven

Blogging is overrated. Yes, I have one myself, but it's primarily my way of delivering news to the masses. (e.g. in Gentoo/MIPS circles when I put out new stage tarballs or netboot images that need testing) However, I very rarely put up posts of a personal nature.

As far as Web 2.0 goes though... it's far too wishy washy for my liking. Supreme newbies congering up whatever rubbish sounds good. I've read a little on the topic, but even then, it's not clear which problems this solution attempts to solve, if any.

29 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2006-01-09 14:37 ID:Heaven

The saddest thing about the dumbass "AJAX" acronym is that it's just a lame marketing trick thought up by some consulting company, and people just ate it up.

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.