What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers’ points of view on the headlines making news.
80 Comments
- Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -18/+60My 10 definitions of Web 2.0:
1) Stupid
2) Marketing
3) Buzz
4) Lame
5) The same crap we've always done, just newer.
6) Web 1.1 (evolution not revolution)
7) Moot
8) A technical word without meaning, so we can all use it and not look dumb.
9) A string of posts on digg taking up space.
10) Irrelevant. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Web 2.0 is a meaningless buzzword used by Starbucks-slurping cretins.
When discussing such pointless topics, here's a much more important term to know the definition of:
marketroid - /mar'k*-troyd/ (Or "marketing slime", "marketeer", "marketing droid", "marketdroid") A member of a company's marketing department, especially one who promises users that the next version of a product will have features that are not actually scheduled for inclusion, are extremely difficult to implement, and/or are in violation of the laws of physics; and/or one who describes existing features (and misfeatures) in ebullient, buzzword-laden adspeak. - robweber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9i am a web-developer and I hate the term "web 2.0".
i really like the great and creative use of technologies that make websites like digg possible, however I hate the stupid web 2.0 buzzword - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Digg is made up or XHTML, PHP, MySQL, Javasript and CSS not ***** Web 2.0
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8That's because we're bashing the meaningless buzzword known as "Web 2.0", not any site or service in particular. Do you even know WHY we bash it? I seriously doubt it.
- LeeVal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6its 2006 and your website gets cut off if it used more than 20% of the cpu.
- defe007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota"
- Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I don't have a problem using it. It is the addition of yet another useless buzzword like "Web 2.0" that I hate.
- konforce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The 10 parts of a web 2.0 site:
1) Big Fonts
2) White background, flowery colors
3) Diagonals and gradients
4) Replace JavaScript with "AJAX"
5) Include at least 15 "AJAX" scripts, including protoype.js, effects.js, scriptaculous.js. (Note that you don't have to actually use them.)
6) Misspelled domain name - bonus points if stupid usage of dots.
7) Buddy List.
8) Google Ads
9) Users who do the work for the (possibly rich) site owners.
10) Nothing Original - Thorpe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4http://www.duggmirror.com/tech_news/10_definitions_of_Web_2_0/
- Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Web 2.0 baby!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Phocion55: Thank you for answering my question and proving my point.
- MrKite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If a million people could hit a server at the same time without bringing it down, then I'd agree that the web got an upgrade. But the 'buzz' definition of Web 2.0 means nothing. AJAX has been around for years, and some of the best web apps ever created have been around for years, too. Examples: "online stores", "online auctions", "web mail", and "discussion forums".
I like my word processor local because I don't want some web 2.0 site to know my business plan for the coming year.
I like putting my financial information in a spreadsheet that's local because I don't want some web 2.0 site to know my company's financial situation.
I like my email system to be secured within my company's Intranet because I don't want some web 2.0 site to have all my company's emails on file (and I don't want 80% spam).
I like to keep my calendar local because franky, I don't want some Web 2.0 company to know what I'm doing.
and so on... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"The developers of these amazing services are not STUPID."
You're right. The ones who are stupid are the people who give these services the name "Web 2.0". I like many sites that people like you call "Web 2.0", but this is an irrelevant point here.
When you break it down, the ONLY thing uniting websites that you so foolishly call "Web 2.0" are conformity in design.
As someone intelligently pointed out a bit lower in this discussion:
"Digg is made up or XHTML, PHP, MySQL, Javasript and CSS not ***** Web 2.0" - somespecialist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is an article worth digging. At least it's not one of those "TWENTY WEB 2.0 SITES FOR THE NEXT CENTURY!!" lists that crops up every week.
And unlike those lists, this article actually explains a few times that Web 2.0 is vague and buzzword-y rather than forcing a specific definition down your throat. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Phocion55, my god, would you just freaking LISTEN to what we're saying instead of assuming what we're saying?
Web 2.0 is a "term". This term is irrelevant, lame, and stupid. The TERM, get it? Not the websites that clueless people like you associate it with. Get it? I seriously doubt you get it, but man, I gotta keep trying... - kayroline, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Sometimes, the techy words get in the way of enjoying the technology. Thanks for a somewhat brief, somewhat techny explanation. Actually, it was helpful.
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ilyag: Ok, since you're the Slogan Machine.....come up with a better name. I can't believe these arguments are over something as pointless as what it's called rather than what it actually is and can do.
P.S. - It's evident that Digg users have absolutely no clue what (insert ilyag's new term for Web 2.0) is, seeing how chris9902's comment stating that Digg "is not made with Web 2.0" is getting modded up. Lame. - jeffyjones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I hate the term, because the press eats it up. It's meant to sell magazines and books.
While there is certainly another great generation of stuff being built on the Web, it's not nearly as special as people make it out to be. - NerdyNinja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think you guys are missing the point here. Web2.0 is just the trendy way to design websites.. but it has its uses. It takes advantage of the latest technologies, which is good for developers because when extremely popular sites use these things, it drives browsers to provide better support for it. Also, what's so wrong with bright colors, big text, and making things more application-like? Do you really care that much that the logo has a reflection? I agree, web2.0 is overhyped, as it's not right for every website, and you can't make everything into a social hub, nor should you want to... but the ideas behind the design are good, which is why they're so successful.
- SanderSpies, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nice article, I personally also believe that important aspects of Web 2.0 are open standards and open api's. By opening up, new business opportunities become possible. Just as users participate, companies should participate too. If they have an open api, which others can use, new possibilities emerge. Just think of company Y in New York that uses a web functionality of company Z in Amsterdam.
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@ akinbanjo
I'll tell you why I don't like it. It's a meaningless buzzword cooked up to over hype ***** we don't need/want.
If you make a site now and it doesn't have some stupid fade or javacript thing flying at you it's (by some) considered Web 1.0 or inferior. Google, Amazon, eBay etc etc are all "Web 1.0" and I would much rather make those sites than a ***** to-do list.
I like the concepts and if they work they work (for example digg) but at the end of the day it is just a website, nothing more nothing less. - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@ rchtr 3
clearly you don't make web sites.
Web 2.0 is a buzzword, it is nothing! So Digg or any other site is not Web 2.0, there is no second gen web there all just websites. Call it whatever you like but it's just a website that use tech that has been around for many many years. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Nice generic unsubstantiated comment"
You mean like what you just said right there? You basically went on a multi-paragraph tirade that can best be summarized as "You're wrong. You're not a developer. You don't know what you're saying." Lots of substance there, eh? - akinbanjo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Yeah, people talking about Web 2.0 just show that they don't know what they are talking about."
What a complete joke. The developers and companies making and owning these services don't know what they're talking about?
You must be trolling to say something that stupid. - Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How do you use a word without meaning? Who do you tell it to? What meaning does it have when you use it?
If I type a bunch of random caracters here, should it help my point? What if I said it did "because I said so"? - akinbanjo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@chris9902:
"It's a meaningless buzzword cooked up to over hype ***** we don't need/want."
No...it's not. Web 2.0 can be best described as a collaboration of technologies, and using the standards of best practice, as well as incorperating a social and interactive element as the basis of the service.
Some javascript animations do not make a site Web 2.0, not by a long shot.
Web 2.0 is a step up from the Web standards movement. To most of you this is just mumbo jumbo, and you'll digg me down, because you've never put any of this to any real use.
But you'll find few developers of the best "Web 2.0" services telling you that Web 2.0 is "meaningless".
So all bitch and whine about Web 2.0 meaningless buzzword marketing term, whatever - but it's not nothing, and sure as hell isn't going anywhere, so get used to it. - robweber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"next-gen" actually makes sense since it is the "next-generation" of gaming consoles. In case you still think i'm wrong think of it this way. PS1 -> PS2 -> PS3, see how each one has a higher number than the last one, that means a progression or generation...get it.
web 2.0 has no such progression associated with it. as many people have pointed out a lof of these technologies have existed for some time, and it is not as though the entire internet went through some sort of upgrade. standards and bandwidth may have progressed, but a website is a website. - EV1L, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota
this is weak - billybob476, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I could probably make a lot of money if I learned how to program in Web 2.0.
- neilbakker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The tubes are down...
- nianox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks for the attention, digg, and sorry about the host's CPU quota thing - it's my site and I've just discovered it's not a truck ;)
I'll try to post a round-up of your comments over the weekend. - nianox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've switched off the AJAX and some of the other scripts on the site. Hopefully, that will let a few more of you in. To be fair, this may say more about me choosing a cheap host than any of those technologies...
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Me - "yeah, hi. I'm here to look at this website"
Webserver 2.0 - "i'm afraid I can't let you do that" - sarguin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Web 2.0 = A new way for consulting companies to make a LOT of money by "upgrading" their clients from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0... ;)
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Also apparently the HURD has a lot of Web2.0 features.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Web2.0 is just another thing that your boss can ask you to do without ever knowing that he is asking for nothing.
- TimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Candle + Monkey
and thats all I have to say.... - atmofunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The fact that nobody can really nail the definition proves that "Web2.0" isn't a term to describe today's web technologies, but rather, a cool-sounding trendy expression that people are desperately trying to justify by force-fitting today's state of the web into that term.
MySpace? wtf.. how long has that been around? Is it because it so closely fits some arbitrary definition of "web2.0" by todays standards that it has now suddenly been lifted to "web2.0" status, even tho nobody had even heard of the expression 3 years ago? Same for wikipedia... just the fact that it's logo is on the "web 2.0 logos" list makes me laugh. People are making it sound like it's some grand new thing, but it's one of the most old school websites out there.
But hey, they fit the profile, so they *must* "web 2.0"
Yeah, i'm a web developer -- i "get it", and i bet most of those behind the scenes get it too. 10 years from now "web 2.0" will sound as ridiculous to all of you as "cyber surfing" and "information superhighway" does now. - GentlemanFox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you are ninja
- smotheredinhugs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If it came up during a conversation about VC funding for digg, it's relevant. Let's not forget someone has to pay the bill for this development. If it helps sells them, and therefore allows digg to exist, it's meaningful. There's nothing wrong with relying on these definitions to help characterize something for someone, or to put it in context for those not so close to it.
- NerdyNinja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I disagree, age does not indicate wisdom. It barely indicates experience, which is an unreliable barometer anyway. Besides, this is just like the myspace stuff - how are you going to guarantee someone is the age they claim to be.
But yes, flashy graphics is not a replacement for functionality by a long shot. - sembetu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What is Web 2.0?
It is the sound of one hand clapping. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I never said the term "Web 2.0" is "annoying", as you put it. I said it's meaningless and irrelevant.
As I've said before in this discussion elsewhere on this page, the only thing tying "Web 2.0" websites together is conformity of design. Everything else you so lovingly associate with this term has existed since the invention of the World Wide Web. Just because they now use gradient-filled pastel-colored logos with reflections does not mean this is a new thing.
And if you think that user-driven content has never existed before Digg, you're clearly new to the internet. - Elrod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For those of us who run with Javascript disabled on most sites, Web 2.0 is meaningless. Like Flash, it is doomed to be abused for the gee-whiz coolness factor until people figure out what, exactly, to do with it. Digg.com is a start. But I will continue to block Javascript et al. unless your site uses it for some good purpose.
A turd decorated with flowers still stinks. People don't want a bunch of new effects. They want the features that currently exist in the browser to work correctly. Stop freezing font sizes. Stop using tiny fonts that nobody can read except twenty-something web geeks. Use text that wraps when the browser window is resized, so that horizontal scrolling is not necessary. Get the basics right. If what you have to say is relevant, it won't matter how many gradient/fade effects surround the text. - gleapsite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So. I replied in a comment and copy pasted my comment to my blog.
http://connecting.themachinery.net/
In the spirit of web2.0 I’d like to request that if you read this, you contribute something to it…
or you know not, thats cool. but everybody'll make fun of you and your little web1.0 too. - alloneword, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Ruby on rails is fully buzz word complient" - L.L.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know you aren't serious, but it's quite ironic (not to mention stupid and pathetic) that, after 2 seconds, I found a job ad on Monster.com looking for a "Web 2.0 Developer"
http://jobsearch.monster.com/jobsearch.asp?cy=us&fn=6&lid=473&q=&re=104&x=1&y=1
What a joke. - Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Dude, all I'm saying is "Web 2.0" is a combination of things (yes, some which have been around for awhile) that when used together, form a new and innovative approach to using the web. It's like throwing stuff into a melting pot, mixing it, and getting something new.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i digg websites with XHTML, PHP, MySQL, Javasript and CSS
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is