Web 2.0 Misconceptions Revisited

The comments made on my previous post on Web 2.0 Misconceptions made me think. Specially the comments made by Hash and Warren. This point turned my head sideways, twisted my thoughts three times, clicked my (mental) heels and POOF! I was off to see the Wizard of Oz…

“I agree with Warren on this, our time would be better spent on just
making better sites/apps than discussing what some particular
pop-terminology really means.”

I thought “Damn! They have got a good point! Why are we so bloody hung up over something as stupid as a pop-term?”

Then it dawned on me… How did I get to know new killer-apps on the net? When I was looking anything new, I Googled Web 2.0 and more often than not, I stumbled across a blog or two hundred that reviewed new Web 2.0 applications. I’d go to those blogs and discover a world of new services on the web.

So my point is, that if we did not give it a name, we would NOT have found it so simple to discover these new killer-apps on the web! The issue however is that you get a bunch of developers confusing the issue and cashing in on the Web 2.0 pop-term, thus making us discover things we are not really looking for!

The funny thing is that the debate around the “what-is-web-2.0-really” issue is only among the online community. The developers, marketers, bloggers, designers etc… Ask any motor mechanic, and I can almost guarantee he has never even heard of Web 2.0!

The other problem is that now that we have given it a name, it will die! (I will explain that in a future post.)

Oh and on this, Hash, I totally, absolutely, whole-heartedly, 100% agree:

“Good points. However, I’d argue that the concept of Web 2.0 revolves
around certain features and technologies used as well as an overall
concept. It’s a perception argument, not just a features argument.

In other words, if I create a simple tool that allows open feedback
for anyone, is that Web 2.0 just because it democratizes communication?
No, I’d call that a message board. What are the features that
differentiates a Web 2.0 message board from a Web 1.0 one?

So, I agree to you in general, but I’d also argue that it’s not just
about democratization and that features do play a part in the makeup of
Web 2.0.”

Web 2.0 is not just one simple thing, but consist of many, MANY, things that can be combined in many, MANY ways to make up many, MANY variants of killer-apps!

The difference between a Web 2.0 message board and a Web 1.0 message board would be the Web 2.0 one would have RSS feeds on all the topics and would use tagging to link topics together. (BTW, BBPress is a Web 2.0 message board example!)

technorati tags:web2.0, marketing, socialweb, socialnetworking

Blogged with Flock

5 Comments to "Web 2.0 Misconceptions Revisited"

• warren said: On 12/15/2006 at 10:58 am

  yeah, the name is really important. it acts as an achor for a lot of loosely related ideas and helps focus the discussion. but like you mention the dicussion is only relevant to the dev community, you say web 2.0 to anyone else and they won’t know what you’re talking about “web 2.0? what’s that? a new version of the internet?”

  Bruce Sterling’s ‘Spime’ is great example of how just naming something, even if it’s just an idea, can act as a catalyst and spur growth. I saw him at a talk a few months ago and his reasoning really struck me. the reason he created the word spime was create an achor for his idea. he google’d spime before publisizing the idea and it came back empty. if you google spime now you’ll get hundreds of results are directly related to his idea.

  and this is what web 2.0 has done. it’s become a conduit for ideas, tools, discusion and services.

  haha! i’d disagree about your web forum example, feeds and tags dont make it 2.0! just my opinion though

• Skuff said: On 12/15/2006 at 12:25 pm

  The way I see Web 2.0 ( and I am beginning to hate the term) is its a more user focused experience.

  If you have a developed a so called “Web 2.0″ site, then it primary goal is to enhance the “standard Web 1.0 (whatever!)” user experience.

  AJAX etc… are tools to enable a better user experience, if anyone ask me about Web 2.0 I generally say it a good thing, its helping to promote the point of the internet, good content displayed well

  I like your posts, great read

• Stii said: On 12/15/2006 at 1:16 pm

  Thank you Skuff! I really like your site! Its different and interesting!

• hash said: On 12/15/2006 at 1:47 pm

  Stii, you sure know how to keep a discussion going. I don’t know Warren or Skuff, but now realize that we need to go grab a beer or coffee together sometime…

  I remember hearing Bruce Sterling give his talk on the “internet of things” and use the word spime to anchor it. And I think that Warren is spot on (again). Even though we’re only a small group of people who actually know this term, it does give us an anchor around which to conversate.

  So, I was wrong earlier. It’s not just about doing the work - creating great apps and websites. We do need to take the time to discuss and share ideas, to define the term and the features and functions that it represents.

  It’s on par with those times in college where you would get together and discuss issues late at night with your friends. You’re not necessarily going to change the rest of the world’s views on issues, but you’re likely to crystalize and define your own. So, Stii, thanks for opening up the discussion and keeping it going.

• skuff said: On 12/15/2006 at 4:30 pm

  cheers mate I wasnt really sure what to do with a site so i just used what i had i really should keep it more up-to-date tho - i get so side tracked on other projects i dont have time for my own :S

  never mind hey

Spit it out!

Filed in: Social Web, Web 2.0 by: Stii