Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
The 2006 Best of Web 2.0
news.designtechnica.com — Designtechnica has published their list of favorite Web 2.0 sites out there and categorizes them. Topping the list includes Digg.com, Flickr.com, Vimeo, and several others. Congratulations to these site.
Ioman- 1034 diggs
- digg it
- wiredgonzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0No real surprises here, but they are all good sites in their own right. Good job to all!
- chrisc2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3When will this "Web 2.0" garbage die already?
- CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i was really hoping we'd get more web 2.0 top ten lists, and now that dream has become a reality.
- MissionSix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3the term web 2.0 needs to die. Nothing is new, its just some intensive javascript frameworks that communicate with serverside scripts.
www.mypagestyle.com - eNthem, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2WHAT IS THE WEB 2.0? IT'S ALL BALONEY....
--
"If you think you know everything, you should know about http://www.enthem.com by now" - 6tong, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0it seems we are over-informed and under-involoved in today's internet world. Pls get involoved with http://www.NetNobel.org
- CatfishJones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I add my voice to the growing crowd of 'net surfers shouting "Die!" to "Web 2.0"
+Lame. - whackaxe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3a best of 2006? it's only febuary or christs sakes
***** 2.0 methinks - anarckie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Nothing new here...
/lame - fuentes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with whackaxe. Who the heck puts out a "Best of 2006" roundup in February?! Ludicrous.
- vh1`, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0man, whiteboard.com is a sick web2.0 site
reported as lame - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Always interesting to see people saying "Web 2.0 = teh suckage" on a popular Web 2.0 site.
Web 2.0 != AJAX
Web 2.0 isn't just scriptaculous, or whatever AJAX/prototype.js based framework you're using.
Here's a quick example:
Slashdot = Web 1.0 (Super users pick stories, only select few are (randomly) moderators)
Digg = Web 2.0 (Everyone picks stories, everyone is a moderator) - G-RaZoR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, because all of them sites are new in 2006. All of them sites feature this Web 2.0 crap, and they are all the best...
- HottSauce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A better link...
http://reviews.designtechnica.com/print_guide46.html
A link to a printable version is always better (all content on one page, less clutter). Just my opinion anyway. - TokenUser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What was Web 1.0? HTML? DHTML? CSS? XML?
Was Web 1.0 introduced with the first Mosaic browser or prior to that with Lynx?
Was Lynx perhaps Web 0.9 beta?
Were the BBS systems Web 0.1 alpha?
Web 2.0 is evolutionary, not revolutionary. The collaborative paradigm that characterises Web 2.0 sites is great - but not appropriate for all presence on the web. Does that relegate all other sites to just being another web site?
No digg - because the whole Web 2.0 meme blows. - bryan986, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This is a pretty bad list. The award categories are so carefully crafted that there would be few if any alternatives to the sites they listed!
- vh1`, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Digg = Web 2.0 (Everyone picks stories, everyone is a moderator)"
the thing is, there is no solid definition of "web 2.0". and plenty of people are throwing it around without knowing anything it could mean. hence, web2.0 = lame buzzword
I've been creating these kinds of sites for years. community driven sites are nothing new - bpinard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+02006 isn't even over yet.
- bpinard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+02006 isn't even over yet.
- techlinks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Umm. I'd say web 2.0 is anythign based around the user.
- techlinks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Oh, and Google Maps and Google local are the same thing now.
- daltonvoss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Web 2.0 = social engineering, power to the people (Cool)
AJAX = Javascript instead of frames (Big Deal) - pushcrm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Please add http://pushcrm.com web based CRM-contact, client and project management
- Sonic_Molson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow, I wonder if we will see the 2007 best of list anytime soon. This is pathetic, no digg.
- ScottTaylor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+02006 isnt over :S
- dutchrapley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lame. no digg. More like, this is all the cool sh*t that became popular last year. Only last week, did we first get wind that any of these exist.
- chromaphobic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Digg is "social bookmarking"? I thought it was a news site, silly me.
- Hoohoonick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Where's LIVE.COM? Muhahahah
- Wolfghost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0For those complaining that 2006 isn't over yet...If it was named "The 2005 Best of Web 2.0", you would complain it was old news. Just relax and let digg.com have the title for most of the year.
- ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i prefer google.com/ig as a startup page, has every feature their pick did and then some
also, youtube is more than good enough to be on the list, even if it is for angsty teens or nostalgic twentysomethings who want to watch commercials from their childhood... - thespace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is sooooooooo damn lame
- JMJimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What is Web 2.0?
It is not specifically AJAX, it is NOT "based around the user" or any other such jazz.
Web 2.0 is stateless internet browsing. AJAX is certainly a part of it, certain types of DHTML are as well. Its anything where the page doesn't need to refresh to change what is displayed. So a DHTML example would be simply loading several frames and showing one at a time based on user clicks. AJAX takes that a step further and brings in the content only as its requested instead of sending it all at once. Flash could even be considered a bloated Web 2.0 since it's often downloaded all at once.
Digg is a great example of this in the way it uses its digg buttons and digg spy.
Flicker, great as it is, is a Web 1.0 technology - you must download an entirely new page every time you click something.
Simple as that.
If you want to see a good implementation of a photo site check out http://www.phpdev.ca/minishowcase/ (note its currently in development for DougJohnson, these are not his photos, and it is also being developed as a plugin to the popular minishowcase script.)
JMJimmy - JMJimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A side note to my last comment: if you notice any bugs on that site in your specific browser I'd love to know! Its currently only been tested on the latest IE and Firefox. mlegate at phpdev dot ca
- CatfishJones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Everything that uses http is stateless. If you define "Web 2.0" as accessing the server after a page load, then any web-based chat application since the early 90's would qualify. Please, Web 2.0 is a buzzword coined by managers to impress their bosses.
As was already mentioned, the Internet is an evolutionary beast. Now, come up with a protocal that can keeps state, call it lttp (or something) and you may have a candidate for Web 2.0. Teaching an old dog (http) new tricks (AJAX or what have you) doesn't make it a new dog (Web 2.0) - vh1`, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Web 2.0 is stateless internet browsing."
personally, I think that's a terrible definition, and nowhere near what it's said to be. browsers for web 2.0 won't have back buttons? looks like I'll wait for 3.0 - JMJimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That could be said about any technology - they're all "evolutionary" - and I do agree that Web 2.0 is a buzzword - however its one that marks a major step forward in the way a designer builds a page. If a client comes to me and says "I want this site, and I want it to be Web 2.0" I know immediately what he's looking for, he doesn't care what technology is actually behind the scenes so long as what the user gets (and the load on his servers) is what he expects - a page that doesn't need to reload to change its content or layout.
And you could say that any web-based chat would qualify - except that the early versions did in fact re-fresh the page or at least the "chat frame". Later versions improved upon that by incorporating Java, Flash, and then AJAX. But so what - we could have called them web 2.0 back then - but no one would have know what we were talking about because the technology was still limited by the available browsers at the time.
Anyway, I think its a term that's here to stay - though I think it will be over if internet 2.0 becomes available (a complete re-work of the http/ftp protocol, if it happens great but I'm not holding my breath! ;) - calebrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Stories are “dug,” which allows the most “dug” stories to be showcased on the homepage."
Last time I checked, it was "dugg" - asdren, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah, that's pretty much right
except for word processing
http://www.writely.com/ - v3xt0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0marketing hype, buzzwords, n00b CSS coders, muttering things like DIV.vs.TABLE, DOM.vs.AJAX, Web 2.0, etc.
It isn't even the end of the 1st quarter of the year yet, so how can the be 'the best [buzzword compliant] sites of 2006'??
When you Web 2.0 kiddies wake up and realize you are just way behind only trying to remodel the wheel before you reinvent it, do me a favor... STFU!
thanks =) - herrin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hate top ten lists but the ones chosen are all herrin approved.
- JasonPrini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0there is no Web 2.0
It's just a label for people to refer to the current snapshot-in-time of the web.
Things are just getting started. If you like Web 2.0 you're going to love the chindonet.
Too bad the US will become a backwater from fascist gov+industry like control attempts that will fail.
A billion+ people can't walk across an ocean, but their consumption can set standards better than any lobby, monopoly, or cartel. - Anviltongue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Meh, I like http://www.protopage.com as a start page (does the whole customizable RSS lists, google-email, notepad, whatever). It's not as pretty as most 'web 2.0' sites, but it gets the job done.
I believe I have heard of most of these at one point or another. - Macc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0link directly to the story next time
- Zipp425, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0haha, im trying to make a web 2.0 page and i cant figure out what the heck it is really....
- saurabhv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is lame !!!!
- lordelric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Isn't it a little early to have the best of anything 2006 ???
- goaliegirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Next week we'll be seeing "Best of 2007" sites.
- SparQy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Slashdot posted this story, omitted DIGG
http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/06/02/24/2050253.shtml - OmarNYC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Slashdot, so sad.
- eatasandwich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah. Everying is crap. Everything is lame. I must tell everyone that everything is lame. I must sit down at a computer posting comments about how lame everything is while life passes me by.
Is it really necessary to make a comment if you don't like something someone has posted, but have nothing more interesting to say than "this is stupid"? Is the digg/no digg feature not doing it's job for you? You have to also post and tell people which option you chose?
I thought the article was worthwhile even if it is only the beginning of the year. I didn't know about many of those sites before reading it.
When I catch the bus home from work there is an elderly crazy woman who always rants on and on about how late the number 66 is with anyone and everyone who makes the mistake of catching her eye. She complains over and over and over...I've seen her miss her beloved 66 bus because she was concentrating on her ranting.
People who post "this is so lame" every time they don't like something on digg.com remind me of that woman. -
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by