rtroxel — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:12:10 +0000

Web 2.0 is back in the news again. Check out these people:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/biz2/0707/gallery.web_world.biz2/

Arch — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:41:44 +0000

(bump)

JeevesBond;187581 wrote:
...
...
So what does everyone else think? Am I wrong about what Web 2.0 actually is?

There are some things I agree with you there. But I do think Web 2.0 is more than just a marketing catch-phrase and it's definitely something that is rapidly catching on in certain areas of web development. The thing is, a lot of these "Web 2.0" technology didn't happen overnight and it's something the O'Reilly publisher want to coin and define. I do feel, however, that the "2.0" in "Web 2.0" is a bit condescending toward simple, but efficient, web design that doesn't have all that AJAX, Flickr, and understandable URLs and that's probably why some may feel awkward to brand sites as Web 2.0.

At any rate, I plan to incorporate elements of this "Web 2.0" into an upcoming website, but certainly won't want to tout it that way.

autoecart — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:55:35 +0000

Web 2.0 is all hype besides if you have ever taken a look at a supposed Web 2.0 compliant website they are down right ugly with alot of bold contrasting colors and whitespace (blah)

Nameslot — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 14:56:50 +0000

Interesting Read.

Well everyone has their won agenda for the things. And internet is moving at great speed.

rtroxel — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 12:45:02 +0000

Back to Web 2.0....

According to Wil Harris, behavioral marketing is at the bottom of many Web 2.0 sites:

The one thing the Web 2.0 sites have in common is that they are furiously mining information about you and your buddies. What you like. What you like that your buddies like. Digg knows what stories you've submitted, what demographic you're in, how other people in your demographic react to what you post. MySpace can break its users down by almost any statistic imaginable, then mine that data for more information about what it is you're doing and sharing online, and how that relates to your friends in the same (or different) demographics.

Flickr is perhaps one of the most interesting ones. Search for 'cat', and Flickr will record the most popular photo clicked. By associating the colour and picture data within photos with keywords used to search, Yahoo is slowly building a database of human identification. It has often said that the differentiator between Yahoo and Google, going forward, is that Yahoo wants the web processed by humans and Google wants it done by robots. Google uses algorithms to generate anything to do with its business. Yahoo, with its acquisition of Flickr and Delicious and whatever else is on the horizon, wants people - and social networks - to define how it does business.

..................."Why Web 2.0 will end your privacy"

rtroxel — Fri, 05 May 2006 13:02:57 +0000

was not aware of the economic climate at the time (especially in the US).

Another investment practice was "buying on margin." Simply put, the investor would take out a loan and invest the money in a high-tech company. If he was paying 5% interest on the loan, but receiving 10% return on his investment, he was making 5% in profits. However, by 2000, he was probably getting no return on his investment, but still paying the 5% interest. Not a good thing!

Is there a mental syndrome for this, like groupthink but on a massive scale?

I guess so. Maybe it means that people are always looking for the easiest way to make money. One condition for a boom, I've read, is that intelligent people must support it. In the US, many college professors, professional economists and politicians spoke enthusiastically of the "information highway", so the average investor figured if these people were putting their money into it, it must be valuable.

JeevesBond — Fri, 05 May 2006 12:30:06 +0000

rtroxel wrote: did some research on the 1990s boom-bust (to aid me in my investment choices) and one of the factors fueling the boom was low interest rates. This meant it was very easy for startup businesses to get loans. These days however, interest rates are rising in the US, so I don't think you'll see a rash of dot-coms in the near future.

Good point, was not aware of the economic climate at the time (especially in the US). I would also expect that having been bitten once, investors would be twice shy.
It's also interesting that there have been so many booms, despite all the predictions of companies being massively over-valued, and lessons from the past the dot com boom/bust still happened.

I remember watching a TV programme at the height of the boom that referred to it as the "dot com bubble" and warned it was going to burst. So why did this still happen even though people were warned? Surely seasoned investors, and even an amateur would know when to take good advice?

It's like house prices in the UK, £200K for a semi-detached 2-bedroom rabbit hutch. No normal person can afford even that and people are still trying to buy, thinking that prices will carry on going up? Are they mad?! There are no first-time buyers, so the market is stagnating, no growth will mean a drop in prices. Yet these silly people carry on, just like during the dot com boom.

Is there a mental syndrome for this, like groupthink but on a massive scale?

demonhale — Thu, 04 May 2006 14:35:35 +0000

Thoughts to ponder:
They even name actual designs now as web2.0 ... some people require such logos or banners as "I want a web2.0 style"...

rtroxel — Thu, 04 May 2006 12:59:25 +0000

Hopefully one that wont end in a boom-bust scenario this time!

I did some research on the 1990s boom-bust (to aid me in my investment choices) and one of the factors fueling the boom was low interest rates. This meant it was very easy for startup businesses to get loans. These days however, interest rates are rising in the US, so I don't think you'll see a rash of dot-coms in the near future.

If you're interested in investments, you might enjoy reading The Future for Investors by Jeremy Siegel. Among other things, he traces the history of various booms, including the South Sea Bubble in the early 1700s. (That's the one in which people like Isaac Newton lost heavily.) All booms seem to have one thing in common: At some point, they become totally irrational.

JeevesBond — Thu, 04 May 2006 12:09:49 +0000

That's an interesting article Roy, thanks for that.

I hadn't considered it like that actually, definately a valid viewpoint. Problem with Web 2.0 is that it's become a catch-all term, like XML was a few years ago, you'll see it on lots of idiots CV's next.

This viewpoint is different and welcomed by me, economically the Web is in a renaissance, a second phase. Hopefully one that wont end in a boom-bust scenario this time!