February 16, 2007 at 03:43Well, so what is it?
Web 2.0
As we all know, Tim O'Reilly defined and described this term.
Resources began to appear that position themselves as a Web2.0 project, there are resources that write about new startups.
But this definition is not enough for the Runet ...
That's what I noticed. Before the arrival of this term, the entire Runet lived quietly, and now some kind of race has begun. They notice any site "with an application for Web 2.0" and run there. Everyone has long forgotten O'Reilly's article and they do it, they start it. 1,500 registered users will be picked up and stopped. Moreover, they gain audience only due to coverage of the development of the site and the announcement at the opening, for example, on Habré or Internet stuff ...
Some advocate for Web 2.0, some say it's a myth. But this can no longer be a myth - a lot of people around the world are discussing this. Those. whether such a term exists or not, but it has already formed a habit of sharing our opinions with other users, fertilizing and cultivating, posting and commenting (i.e. creating content). The authors of the projects only manage the created brainchild and write a lot less than, for example, 3 years ago. We have become editors, dear users. But it became so interesting: not convenient forums gave way to a pleasant interface and convenient functions. While Runet is discussing whether there is Web 2.0, it has already come and no one will give it another name.
Let us collectively recognize it under this name and answer the question of what distinguishes it from the websites existing 2-3 years ago in the Web2.0 project.
Web 2.0 is ...
1 - this is such content, services and programs whose value is determined by the contribution of the people who use them (rating of articles). This concept involves an unlimited number of broadcasters, among which everyone can become one of the leading players (rating of participants);
2 - this is the first point + mandatory design "in the style of Web 2.0" (bright / warm colors, reflexes);
3 is just a design;
4 is a business model for monetizing traffic, regardless of the content of services and design;
5 is a boring argument in which I am not interested in participating.
Ok vote
As we all know, Tim O'Reilly defined and described this term.
Resources began to appear that position themselves as a Web2.0 project, there are resources that write about new startups.
But this definition is not enough for the Runet ...
That's what I noticed. Before the arrival of this term, the entire Runet lived quietly, and now some kind of race has begun. They notice any site "with an application for Web 2.0" and run there. Everyone has long forgotten O'Reilly's article and they do it, they start it. 1,500 registered users will be picked up and stopped. Moreover, they gain audience only due to coverage of the development of the site and the announcement at the opening, for example, on Habré or Internet stuff ...
Some advocate for Web 2.0, some say it's a myth. But this can no longer be a myth - a lot of people around the world are discussing this. Those. whether such a term exists or not, but it has already formed a habit of sharing our opinions with other users, fertilizing and cultivating, posting and commenting (i.e. creating content). The authors of the projects only manage the created brainchild and write a lot less than, for example, 3 years ago. We have become editors, dear users. But it became so interesting: not convenient forums gave way to a pleasant interface and convenient functions. While Runet is discussing whether there is Web 2.0, it has already come and no one will give it another name.
Let us collectively recognize it under this name and answer the question of what distinguishes it from the websites existing 2-3 years ago in the Web2.0 project.
Web 2.0 is ...
1 - this is such content, services and programs whose value is determined by the contribution of the people who use them (rating of articles). This concept involves an unlimited number of broadcasters, among which everyone can become one of the leading players (rating of participants);
2 - this is the first point + mandatory design "in the style of Web 2.0" (bright / warm colors, reflexes);
3 is just a design;
4 is a business model for monetizing traffic, regardless of the content of services and design;
5 is a boring argument in which I am not interested in participating.
Ok vote