web 2.0 (rant)

I could just be that ive been in an annoyable mood today, but I am simply sick of people saying web 2.0 is the newest thing to hit the internet, and that this design is web 2.0. I got news, WEB 2.0 IS NOT NEW! Most people associate web 2.0 with RSS feeds and ajax (another over-used term) stuff like that, but RSS has been around since 2000, its had stuff like it since 1995 (source: wiki). AJAX isnt new either, it is just using javascript with XML, it has been possible for years, it just hasn't been used. So if you think about it, web2.0 not only isnt new, it doesnt really exist. It would be exactly the same if I somehow brought RoR to as much use as PHP and started calling RoR new, and the technology I use web 4.0. Web 2.0 is nothing a collections of old (web 1.0 for lack of a better term) web techs and hype.

I am almost ready to hurt anyone who says that their design is web 3.0 with seriousness.

I like to consider myself web 4.0... *Puts up his shield*
Heh just kidding
Web 2.0 has become so popular, I usually tend to stay away from marketplace topics that say "Great Web 2.0 Template" unless it's started by a trusted designer...

That is true and I did make my mistakes by calling my templates/logos web 2.0 so I guess I should call them web 3.0 right? (JK)

Img911 is Web 0.5b.

Don't hurt me. :$

Originally Posted by Village Idiot I could just be that ive been in an annoyable mood today, but I am simply sick of people saying web 2.0 is the newest thing to hit the internet, and that this design is web 2.0. I got news, WEB 2.0 IS NOT NEW! Most people associate web 2.0 with RSS feeds and ajax (another over-used term) stuff like that, but RSS has been around since 2000, its had stuff like it since 1995 (source: wiki). AJAX isnt new either, it is just using javascript with XML, it has been possible for years, it just hasn't been used. So if you think about it, web2.0 not only isnt new, it doesnt really exist. It would be exactly the same if I somehow brought RoR to as much use as PHP and started calling RoR new, and the technology I use web 4.0. Web 2.0 is nothing a collections of old (web 1.0 for lack of a better term) web techs and hype. I am almost ready to hurt anyone who says that their design is web 3.0 with seriousness.

<3

beat them with html books.

To be honest, it either sounds like you (VI) don't know what Web 2.0 is all about or as you said, you're just in an annoyable mood. It's fine and dandy ranting about what Web 2.0 isn't (I dislike that just as much as you do) but to say that it doesn't exist is laughable. Strange how people hold conferences and the like, earn thousands if not millions using the term, if it does not exist.

To label something as a "web 2.0" design/logo/wp-theme/blah in the marketplace here, I agree, is just latching onto buzzwords (and misusing them!) for the sake of driving visitors to the sales topic. Nothing more. If the designers truely feel that their work is really "web 2.0" then just stand back and laugh to yourself as they broadcast their ignorance across the 'net. We all need a good chuckle.

P.S. I won't disagree that many of the 'web 2.0 technologies' have been around for a while, nay a long time, that much is true. But then again, is Web 2.0 just a bunch of technologies? Answers on a post card to salathe@talkfreelance.com (Not a real email!).

P.P.S. If I recall correctly (I'm too lazy to do a Google search) the term "Web 2.0" was introduced back in 2003. That, by internet standards, is indeed old.

Care to explain what web 2.0 is then?

and web2.0 came around in '05

Wikipedia has a good page about Web 2.0, so to save me typing, go read it.

Originally Posted by wiki # Level 3 applications, the most "Web 2.0" oriented, which could only exist on the Internet, deriving their power from the human connections and network effects that Web 2.0 makes possible, and growing in effectiveness the more people use them. O'Reilly's examples were: eBay, craigslist, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, Skype, dodgeball and Adsense. # Level 2 applications, which can operate offline but which gain advantages from going online. O'Reilly cited Flickr, which benefits from its shared photo-database and from its community-generated tag database. # Level 1 applications, also available offline but which gain features online. O'Reilly pointed to Writely (now part of Google Docs & Spreadsheets) and iTunes (because of its music-store portion). # Level 0 applications, which would work as well offline. O'Reilly gave the examples of MapQuest, Yahoo! Local and Google Maps. Mapping applications using contributions from users to advantage can rank as "level 2".

This isnt new at all, sites like amazon have existed since the 90's and would qualify as a level 3 (web 2.0) applications. Blogs and message boards have also existed for a long time, by definition they are web 2.0. The wiki article really advances my point. My claim that web 2.0 doesnt exist at all, rather is just a catchphrase is perfectly valid. The way I see it, web 2.0 is just a naming fad like iProduct, it will take the same path in a few years that eProduct did.

i love web 2.0