h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Web 2.0 - A20263899
Author: Geggs AKA Daddy Scrambles - Now available with sleepless nights as an optional extra - U201647

In answer to the challenge to write an entry on Web 2.0 (F150575?thread=3923285) I submit the attached.

I started with A10441360 as a basis, but ultimately excised all the text of that entry, as I ended up disagreeing with it entirely.

All comments are welcome. Let's harness collective intelligence!


Geggs

brilliant. Really clarified the topic for me.

Firstly - double check that first and second line in the intro paragraph. I could swear you weren't adding much with the second line.

And in the last paragraph:
>>Those companies that where identified as Web 2.0 are those web companies that survived and thrived through the 2000 stock market crash. <<

where -> were

A little heavy on the h2g2 advertising. Would it be ok to mention other Web 2.0 sites, especially the ones that got big, like YouTube or PayPal?

Thanks Leo, I've corrected both of those.

On the subject of hootoo promotion, I reckoned I was on fairly safe ground there. I'm not sure if mentioning other sites would be counted as commercial advertising, and so break the house rules.

If I can then I think there's already a few places in the entry where a subtle link could be inserted. Like the line about 'sharing home videos'. Ahem.


Geggs

Very clear explanation, Geggs. Great job.

bares --> bears

I agree that it might be good to mention other examples of famously successful Web 2.0 sites - but using h2g2 is a great way to get the point across, since many readers of the entry will likely be h2g2 Researchers.

In that sense, then, was h2g2 Web 2.0 before there was Web 2.0?

Traveller in Time reading HooToo history
"HooToo was once www.h2g2.com, the the bubble bursted, it became www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/. Not unlike many dot com adventures it failed, but unlike most it survived. "

Thanks emr, I've now installed those bears.

I thought it would be a good idea to 'embed' the entry in the Guide, using it as an example in most cases. Hence, it's not just an explanation of Web 2.0, it's the h2g2 explanation of Web 2.0!

And yes, I reckon that h2g2 was an early Web 2.0 site, and possibly would have survived in it's original form if it had a stronger advertising revenue stream. Of course no one knew that at the time - it's the sort of thing you can only tell in hindsight.


Geggs

I like the heavy h2g2 references, it might be good for generating new content when it makes its debut on the Front Page.

However... (you knew it was coming)

A concern I have is that someone not familar with h2g2 puts Web 2.0 into a search engine, turns up this page, reads it and, not being familiar with the site, may still not have a very clear picture of what it is.

I spotted a few typos as well, but I've forgotten what they were. I'll give it another read later.

Well done, Geggs!

Hi Geggs,

Good entry. I like your references and how you've approached it by splitting up the various aspects without getting bogged down in techy definitions.

However, perhaps unsurprisingly perhaps given that it's such a nebulus term, I don't agree with everything you've written.

"You are not reading this page on the Internet. You are reading it on the World Wide Web." I would challenge that assumption - you don't know how the reader is accessing this page, for example they could be reading it in an email, which is more Internet than WWW.

"There is no point re-creating on the web the programs that people have on their own computers." Has someone told Google I would say that it's not just about the 'software' but how it integrates with other services and/or the other twists/facilities, such as multiple concurrent editing and online storage providing global access from any computer without having to carry it around on a personal storage device.

"On a Web 2.0 site anyone can create a page on any subject and everyone can see it." maybe in a purest sense, but I don't think there are many that allow users to create whole pages - eg. blog commenting is only part of a page. Also some web 2.0 applications are specifically not so that everyone can see it - it may be personal to your account. Eg the features on Amazon are mainly based around the suggestions/recommendations it makes to you - only you can see that when you visit the site (although arguably some of the data will have an effect on what others see indirectly). There is also the subject of moderation - or is it your contention that any moderated site isn't really web 2.0?

As I read on I'm beginning to wonder whether you are taking a particular wiki/h2g2 slant on 2.0 there are many other types of applications that could be smaller closed systems, either not open to the public or with much tighter controls, such as user registration and only allowing certain data contribution like rating. Don't get me wrong I like the references back to h2g2, as it's something that readers will be more or less familiar with. But has it becoms self-limiting on the scope of the entry.

Are you really suggesting that Web 2.0 are only sites that survived the bubble? You seem to be in the closing para - so I would reword if that's not the case. There are lots of what are now considered classic 2.0 sites, that are more recent than that - Flikr, Stumbleupon and Delicious. I think it's more defined by the techniques, concepts and technologies used rather than age.

-scrumph

First point last, since that's the easiest to deal with. To quote from my last paragraph "The first Web 2.0 companies existed at the same time as the Web 1.0 companies that failed." Yes, many are more recent, but the first ones survived the bubble.

Actually, I'll come back to the others - something just came up.


Geggs

Right, looking at the rest of Scrumph's points:

>>they could be reading it in an email

Yeah, but that would be because someone else copied the entry into an email. Surely I can't be held responsible for that? Though if, for example, they were reading the page through a PDA, they would still be reading it on the Web. Just on the PDA version of the Web.

>>Has someone told Google?

True. I'll add a footnote answering those points.

>>blog commenting is only part of a page

Yes, but the person leaving the comments would be perfectly at liberty to create their own blog as well.

>>the features on Amazon are mainly based around the suggestions/recommendations it makes to you

I'm not convinced Amazon is Web 2.0. What do you think?

>>is it your contention that any moderated site isn't really web 2.0?

No. Everywhere has house rules. You'd be a mad fool to create a site with any house rules, and so run the risk of some offended bod sueing you silly. Moderation is not incompatable with Web 2.0.

>>But has it become self-limiting on the scope of the entry?

Possibly. But I'm only using hootoo as an example. I've tackled each point in the entry but clarifing the general description first, and then bringing in hootoo to illustrate it. The general descriptions still stand on their own merit, I think.


Geggs

Hi Geggs,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

>>blog commenting is only part of a page

++Yes, but the person leaving the comments would be perfectly at liberty to create their own blog as well.

>>the features on Amazon are mainly based around the suggestions/recommendations it makes to you

++I'm not convinced Amazon is Web 2.0. What do you think?

I think it is and links in with the previous. Users cannot necessarily create new pages on that site - many blogs, for example are stand alone and not part of a blog site. I would define Amazon as Web 2.0 as users can add reviews of products (equiv to blog comments) and rate products (affecting the overall rating of a product, therefore directly contributing to content of site). Also, personalisation feature, such as your recommendations - also derived from other user's content/actions - is Web 2.0 and the Ajax code that lets you modify those. Hence my reasoning that Web 2.0 is about the features rather than the content per se.

>>is it your contention that any moderated site isn't really web 2.0?

++No. Everywhere has house rules. You'd be a mad fool to create a site with any house rules, and so run the risk of some offended bod sueing you silly. Moderation is not incompatable with Web 2.0.

I think that needs to be worked into the entry then, as it reads now it implies that a site is only Web 2.0 if it allows users the freedom to do what they want.

-scrumph

That is a really clear and really succinct entry. Tthe only comment I'd make is that there are two kinds of site that exemplify Web 2.0 as you describe it: Wikipedia and blogs. The first is a collective enterprise, the latter an individual one. Since Web 2.0 is about user-driven content then it would be useful to comment upon whow this ideal is alrady diverisifying and exploring new means of expression.

Well done.

Scrumph,

I see your point about Amazon. There are a few Web 2.0 features to the site. And the user reviews are hard-to-recreate content. As are people's top 10s and so forth. Though the core content will always be the merchandise, obviously.

I'll have to have a think about how to work that in. Maybe an extra section citing alternative uses of Web 2.0, like FM is suggesting.

I've added a caveate about house rules, though.


Geggs

Okay, I've added a section aboot alternative uses of Web 2.0 tech.

Any thoughts?


Geggs

Hmmm. I've just gone looking for an entry on round robin letters to link to, but can't find one. So, that'll be the next one then.


Geggs

*tuts*

Alright then...

This is looking more or less done - any further comments, anyone?

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Yes! I am that author, and I claim my T-shirt!


Geggs