What is Digg?79 Comments
- MrWhipplemen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15neat... in informational PBS kinda way
- josho, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16yeah. http://*****.com
- drewhenson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12buried? yeah you are...
- kfconme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10there wouldn't be trendy buzzwords without web 2.0
- ikickass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8pretty awesome video. helped me understand whats going on
- Demq, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Web 2.0 is a MYTH !11!1 The Internetss has no succesor.
- grungegbunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6very well made video.
- drewhenson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8sweet video, I wish I could dig it more than once. although it is pretty bad that they are using IE.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Look at Ajax. There is nothing new about it. Ajax is just innovation on something that already exists; javascript and xml. The video is saying we have reached a point where we are taking older technologies such as XML, CSS, etc and finding new ways to use them. New interesting ways never done before. Digg is the perfect example. The languages that Digg is made of have been along for a long time.
- psylence, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That is easily the best Web 2.0 site in existence.
- Run4ny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Very neat video. I enjoyed it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's a made-up, ***** term, copyrighted so someone can sell seminars to the morons who believe it exists.
- michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think my mom could actually understand that.
- afreakinninja, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Using the phrase "Web 2.0" and talking about new internet paradigms omgz0rz is still just pathetic masturbation
- MattS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Wait... Isn't myth an open source pvr? ;)
- anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Unfortunately, no one can be...told, what Web 2.0 is. You have to see it...for yourself.
- AcidPhysx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@g3r4
Well, just the fact that no one can understand what the hell it means, and also that it uses existing technologies, shows that this is ridiculous. User experiences vary infinitely. If your talking about user interface, this alleged Web 2.0 does not help.
Social interaction? It can all be boiled down to IRC and BBSs. If you want pretty graphics, long load times and even more clogging of the pipes, the head over to MySpace.
That was not a definition. It still seems like Web 2.0 still doesn't have one. And "ifWeb, maybe"? That proves it. No one knows. No one's fooling anyone. There is no Web 2.0. - wolver1ne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And I still have no idea what web 2.0 is.
- theGOG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I will organize all of this information.
- anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3AddictIVE. IVE. Not ing. IVE. Addictive.
Please stop with this mistake before I shoot you. - Run4ny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@theGOG
Thanks. - theGOG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2at the end of the video, it tells you what song it is.
Deus - There's Nothing Impossible - evilbeatfarmer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Get back to work.
- meshman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Excellent video. But. You can't focus on the content and ignore the technology. It's the same technologies. This was more an explanation of what XML can do. The approach, thought process and concept are all valid and intruguing but this isn't "Web 2.0". From someone that works with this technology every day (I mean administrating web server farms, planning infrastructure, etc.) Web 2.0 is an IPv6 based provider, carrying an immergence of our best technologies to deliver the content they're talking about. They've defined the content but 'Web 2.0' cannot be complete without defining and utilizing the future of technology as well. The vision is short sighted and highly incomplete. Web 2.0 is a revolution that will span both our social and technological advance and understanding. When those consortiums that define accepted standards in hardware, software and design propose a new model called Web 2.0 then you can use that term. But that's not what this is.
- gameguy43, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@rhinopig
agreed, it doesn't really explain web2.0 at all. it starts off in a good direction, but only names xml as responsible for differentiation between form and content, which is just plain inaccurate. xml has no formatting, css is what allows format to be separate from (x)html (that and dom-oriented styling js). then he says that this differentiation between content and style is what allows sites like blogger and flickr to give voice to the average user, which is again completely inaccurate, it's strong server-side programming architectures that allow this effect. sites like blogger and flickr tend to do a mediocre job of separating content from styling to ensure backwards compatibility and such. what he says about xml allowing data exchange to be faster and more efficient is true, but then he talks about databases, which are the opposite of xml, as if they are the same thing.
This guy had all the right ideas, but in the end delivered a pretty incorehent presentation. He started off doing a good job guiding the reader, illustrating the difference between xml and html, but then started zooming around to other un-relating topics, throwing out fallicies, leaving the audience in the dust about the logic behind his conclusions. and suddenly throwing out issues of privacy, copyright, and net neutrality without actually addressing them.
Of course I still dug because the video was presented in a very interesting way and shows potential for a new medium for computer-educational videos. He also attempts to address some issues that I care about, and for this he gets all the credit in the world. However, the video should be revised to explain more thoroughly the jumps he makes between ideas. In it's current form, people who are not familiar with the issues will not be able to follow it (and thus their notion of the internet simply being too confusing for them will be reinforced), and the only people who CAN fully understand it are those who ARE familiar with the issues, but they will notice all of the blatant fallacies.
good idea, bad execution. i'd love to see more attempts to educate the public on the buzz words of the internet, though. - davidallgroup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Love the video. Nice digg.
- rhinopig, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12As a matter of fact you can: http://digg.com/videos/educational/GREAT_IDEAS_about_the_nature_of_Web_2_0_and_the_future_of_society
I submitted that 2 days ago in the educational video category and it only got 2 diggs. Just more evidence that inorder to get something to the frontpage you have to have friends, and submitting in the wrong category to blogspam doesn't hurt either. But no, I'm not gonna bury as a dupe or wrong topic. btw, direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE
And finally, yeah I don't think it really 'explains' 'web 2.0' in any substantial sense, but it does provide some insight into the nature and future of the Web (hence my title... sorry i kinda whored it up by adding 2.0 and the caps thing). - whatyousay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1thanks for the video, now i understand whats going on, lqtm
- musklesg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"This revolution should be more accurately described as Corporate 2.0. These so-called social communities are thinly veiled platforms for massive advertising campaigns."
http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4393
Read it and laugh. - ekboost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great video.
- hello2usir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I need to thank and high-five whoever made that site.
- SimonGray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Users control and create the content like on Digg, last.fm, blogs, etc. rather than rely on editors and experts to do it for them.
- xconspirisist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That was absolutely awesome, and I actually hate the term "Web 2.0".
On a side note, the editing was totally original. - fantal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This dude sure can type fast!!
- hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1glad theres noone on Digg like this...
http://valleywag.com/tech/web-2.0/how-to-be-a-jerk-about-web-20-230127.php
ha - thrackle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not exactly what you'd call a huge fan of the term web 2.0 or many of the idioms that seem to along with it. This video was very well done though and it does communicate what is generally meant when people say "Web 2.0".
I dugg it becasue I wanted to give an educator recognition for going the extra mile and creating some really nice educational multimedia. - Adrianc333, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Quite a good video.
Outlines the points really clear.
Dugg.
Also, anyone else like the way it was all cut together? :) - SimonGray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language
"Second language (including learners): 1.2–1.6 thousand million" - tofuComputer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes. This is it - thank you.
- preved, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1From my point of view, it's a great video. Self-explanatory.
- ComputerNap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That's pretty nice. Certainly sheds light on the subject.
- evilbeatfarmer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What was the app used when the mouse highlighted a word, right clicked and was able to make a note about it or something? Being able to integrate something like this with my PDA would be very handy.
- psygnisfive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nice video, but some of the details of the "message" were wrong, and some of the segues, especially the one from XML to content creation, were a bit spurious. I mean, XML isn't what enables the easy creation and distribution of content on the web, not in any greater way than run of the mill HTML did, it's greater use of server-side scripting that makes things like blogs possible for millions of people. Plain HTML would be fine for that.
I like the idea, but the execution wasn't perfect. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think mine could too. Well done, thanks for showcasing it Frank on Somewhat Frank.
- JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2(Matrix 1 Ref)
- mraustin1337, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I liked the video a lot... maybe my Dad will stop asking what Web 2.0 is now...
- Run4ny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Anyone know the title of the music? It's addicting.
- Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2rhinopig, thats not true. I have gotten storys (ok one...) on the front page, and I have no friends that dugg it, it just got there on its own.
- AcidPhysx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3And lumping together a bunch of emerging technologies makes it a standard? You see, you still can't define Web 2.0 with this video. Obviously the people who enjoyed it never understood the working of HTML, CSS, XML or any other STANDARD that ALREADY EXISTED WAY BEFORE "Web 2.0."
I challenge anyone here to now define Web 2.0 from watching that video. Forget the video. Just show me where the Web 2.0 validation service is.
Web pages will continue to evolve forever, both structurally and aesthetically. You can't simply draw a line in the sand and say "This is Web 2.0." What about the Web 3.0? Where will that start?
This needs to be stopped now. Just stop. Applying new and exciting styles to a page does not mean Web 2.0. It means I am using CSS or another existing STANDARD, which should continue to evolve. -
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is