Ampers & Dot

First off: no, I’m not avoiding the Facebook debate, I just keep coming across other topics that I really want to address- to get the blog up and running… then I’ll go after Facebook. But, one thing I won’t do again is end a column with “and tomorrow: facebook”.

Today I’m tackling Web 2.0. I think this is a fun topic as it will help lay some groundwork for future rants, for those of you who don’t actually know me and haven’t heard me joke about “web 2.0″ already.

So the goal for today’s post is to explain what “Web 2.0″ actually is, why the overuse of the term bothers me, and cite some examples of improper (or poor) usage.

1. What is “Web 2.0″?

There are numerous definitions out there that detail specifics (O’Reilly invented the term… so his description is probably best) (disclaimer: do not follow the previous links unless you are prepared to have your brain melt a little), but to bring the term down to its simplest form: User Input.

In the old web (1.0), companies created websites for users to visit. You could access pages, read information, watch videos, and even play some games. In Web 2.0 you can create (facebook) and comment (blogs) on pages, write information (wikis), create your own videos (youtube), interact with others in games.

This diagram from Valleywag.com is the best breakdown of how it works:

And there you go. That’s all. No 40 minute videos, no complex diagrams. It’s just user input. To put it simply: Web 2.0 is a two way street of experience.

2. Why the overuse bothers me

It’s trendy and annoying, and when it’s used in improper context it sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me (similar to adding the suffix “wise” onto anything, such as “It’s looking nice out, weather-wise”, “I’d say this team is very strong, talent-wise”, or “yeah she’s ok, looks-wise”).

So first off- the trendy part. “Web 2.0″ is like the late 1990’s “dot com”. You couldn’t launch a company or website in 2007 without throwing in a “it’s a web 2.0 site!”, the way you couldn’t launch a company in ‘99 without saying “newcompany.COM“.

The only reason this really gets to me, is that it draws yet another parallel to a looming bubble burst… people are so caught up in the hype of things, that money is being thrown around because the term Web 2.0 was used.

Truth be told- I think this is probably a good thing… in the long run. Enough companies will fail, which will force the real new ideas to rise to the surface. Funding will be more difficult to find, but as the mega web companies start scooping up the little guys for below cost, real change will start to develop online and the users will truly benefit from the cool, functional, new line of internet. (But this is an entirely different argument for another day.)

The annoying aspect of it- is that it’s just the latest buzzword. It’s not that I like it any less than other buzz words, but in a few years saying “web 2.0″ is going to be like saying “radical” or “tubular”.

3. Some examples of “web 2.0″ gone wrong.

This is actually how today’s post came to be- While researching LexisNexis survey’s for a client this weekend, I came across a release from this summer: LexisNexis Releases Survey on Information Professionals Use of Web 2.0

Here’s a great quote: “With Web 2.0 it’s no surprise that information professionals are very in-tune; nearly four in ten access Weblogs at least weekly (39%), and more than a third access wikis (34%).”

If you read the entire article, you’ll see that they never actually define what “web 2.0″ means, which ultimately gives that quote zero context of the term. Also- these results came from only 107 Information Professionals (of 1500 who were emailed), and only 92% visit news websites regularly… What type of “Information Professional” doesn’t access news websites?

Moving on- how about purchasing your very own “Web 2.0 Looking- Website“! Give your site that “web 2.0″ look, without any of the web 2.0 functionality! (That is a pretty cool template though…)

True story: I once had a client (at an old job) say they were working on a “Web 2.0ey” button set for their company’s homepage. Turns out they meant “rounded edges”.

Last week, I posted about the Web 2.0 sounding names - Andrew Woolridge has a great satire (hit refresh on his page for more fun)
*UPDATE* - apparently this link has gone down… I can only assume that the hoards of traffic my site sent over (both of you) crashed his server…

And this could go on for a while.
Finally- For an actual example of a mega-load of Web 2.0 sites - check out this listing

That’s all I’ve got for today. If you have any other examples of bad web 2.0 use, or questions, or want to debate me- comment below. So please say something, because without comments, this is only a web 1.0 site… ugh…

But check back tomorrow when I address Facebook! . . . whoops. Don’t hold me to that.