Web 3.0 Dead Already?

Rest In Peace Versions Of The Web

I just finished reading a very thoughtful post written by Bill Snyder, A Preemtpive Strike: Death to Web 3.0 (and 2.0 while we’re at it). In his post, he makes quite a few valid points. One of those points is the fact that companies abroad are jumping aboard the web 2.0 bandwagon. It doesn’t matter what the company does, or what the company sells, that company needs a social network, and a Twitter user account even if they have no clear understanding as to why. As I have stated in numerous other conversations, social-networking is out of control but the good news is, the users themselves will determine which ones stay and which ones fall by the wayside.

Bill also makes another excellent point about the definition of web 2.0. Is web 2.0 one thing, or is it a series of concepts? I tend to agree with Bill in that the term describes a series of concepts. Since the web 2.0 O’Reilly definition was published, users have been coining the term Web 2.0 as a variety of different things. Whether it be the use of AJAX, website design or social-networking. Has anyone ever tried to explain what Web 2.0 is to a noob? It’s practically one of the hardest things on earth to describe because everyone has a different sense as to what it actually is.

Bill also states that Web 2.0 did not replace Web 1.0 and the web is not based on version numbers. Tim, I think your related to Bill! In any case, if you dissect a number of websites, web based applications, and quite honestly, anything that is related to web 2.0, it’s quite obvious that the web is still the web and the underlying code is still the same. So why are we still using the term web 2.0?

The whole point of defining Web 2.0 was to figure out where we are. Unfortunately for those who like buzzwords, we are everywhere. The whole point of discussing Web 3.0 is to figure out where we are going. Well, here’s the news: We’re not all going to the same place, and that is the beauty of this medium (or perhaps these mediums). The possibilities are endless and will continue to defy labels. We are just at the beginning of this “internet thing,” and what comes next is going to be many things — some will die anonymous deaths and others will change the very nature of the way we communicate.

I couldn’t agree with you more and I am definitely looking forward to what lies beyond the horizon of the web, however it will be described or defined.

Which Internet Celebrity Are You?

Technosailor has put together a self importance test that will analyze how important you think you are. After completing the test, I found out that I am most like Darren Rowse of Problogger.com Imagine that! Here is what the result actually states:

I am most like Darren Rowse

Well, I’ll agree with the fact that I like to help other bloggers when I can. Just the other day, I was participating in the end of a podcast and ended up talking to two other bloggers for an hour, giving them some tips and tricks. I honestly don’t participate in many social networking services and I don’t turn everyone in the world into my friend. So it’s nice that I apparently have some of the same qualities as Darren, but will I ever make as much income as Darren? That’s the question I want to know.

Let me know which internet celebrity you turn out to be.

Which Class Of Twitter Users Are You In?

Twitter.com LogoChris Brogan has published an interesting article where he reviews his use of Twitter and comes up with a few different classifications of Twitter users.

Out of the different classes of Twitter users that Chris presents, I have determined that I am within the Announcers vs. Conversationalists class.

Announcers vs. Conversationalists

This is a current hammer-target for Eric Rice. He’s railed out about people (including me) using Twitter as a promotion engine. I understand this, insofar as some people do nothing but twitter links to their blog posts, their flickr pictures, and whatever else turns them on. (Note: I will Twitter that I posted this article when I’m done writing it).

But conversationalists know to use a mix. They talk with other Twitter users, using the @ function to make sure people see the threaded conversation. They engage with the flow of people twittering around them, building a social sculpture, and engaging in what Jeff Pulver calls amorphic communications. Conversationalists reach into Twitter and move people back and forth.

In the beginning, Twitter was a social networking tool that I believed I could use as a promotional stepping stone for my blog. I added all sorts of people to my friends list because I knew, most people would end up following me simply because I chose to follow them. After using Twitter for a few months now, I have changed my way of thinking. I still use Twitter as a tool to share postings on my blog that I think are good conversation starters, but I also participate in conversations with those I follow. I’m also beginning to follow only those people that I actually have an interest in.

I’m currently being followed by 54 people while I’m actually following 84 people. I wonder just how many of those that are following me actually give a damn as to what I post on Twitter. I am also starting to wonder if I should delete everyone that I am following and start over from scratch. Now that I have a sense as to the correct way of using Twitter as a social tool, I think I should either start over, or I should fine tune my friends list.

Thank you Chris Brogan for the inspirational post. It’s really made me step back and realize how and why I’m using Twitter.

If you enjoy what I write on this blog and you have an account on Twitter, consider adding me http://twitter.com/jeffr0 I need more social-media, social-web, web2.0 people to converse with. Outside of the Internet, no one has a freaking clue about Web 2.0 or any of the cool stuff going on in the Cyberworld.

Web 1.0 And Web 2.0 Visual Differences

Sizlopedia.com Logo

Sizlopedia has published an article which highlights the visual differences between web 1.0 and web 2.0. These differences are illustrated using a translated graphic, which simply shows how webmasters used to manage their website, compared to how webmasters of today manage their sites.

Web 1.0 Web 2.0 Visual Difference

The following questions were asked near the end of this article, Do you like the evolving web culture? Do you think that web 2.0 has helped users get more interactive or do you think it is just a propaganda term created to wipe out the old web standards?

I think web 2.0 has created a ton of opportunities. Ideas are turning into reality for many people and because of web 2.0, the barrier to entry is practically nil. Of course, the barrier to entry or lack thereof could be considered a drawback.

At any rate, I think social-networking is out of control and we are being deluged in web 2.0 startups on a daily basis. I think it will alright though, considering the market aka userbase will determine which of these startups stick around for the long haul, or which ones will die off.

Be sure to read Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0: The Visual Difference

Describe Web 2.0 In Two Sentences Or Less

I was browsing around the interweb and came across this short and sweet, Web 2.0 definition. What do you think?

clipped from bash.org

August 18, 2007

Best Web2.0 Description Yet !

Filed under: web2.0, funny, tech — coderkris @ 3:03 am
#779320 <dsully> please describe web 2.0 to me in 2 sentences or less.
<jwb> you make all the content. they keep all the revenue.
  blog it

Yahoo And Google Social Networks Round 2

In a recent blog post, I described the way I am trying to converge my online presence, as I am beginning to go through social network fatigue. Thankfully Google and Yahoo get the gist and are working on two new social networks which hope to combine a user’s online presence onto one page. Their first attempts, Orkut and Yahoo360 have failed, with the exception of Orkut which actually has a strong following in Brazil.

Google sponsored a project last year at Carnegie Mellon University’s Human-Computer Interaction Institute that was designed to “rethink and reinvent online social networking,” the Google Operating System blog reported. The site also has screenshots. Dubbed “Socialstream,” the service would be more like a unified social network that would allow someone to have accounts on multiple services but centralized contacts in one location.

On Yahoo’s side, there is a project called Mosh. Check out this job description for a summer intern spot at Yahoo on a “cool new social network product.” According to the post, Yahoo’s looking for someone with lots of friends on MySpace and Facebook and who is “damn funny.”

I would love to see either one of these new social networking services actually see the light of day. It’s a breath of fresh aire to see that companies are beginning to realize the potential behind social convergence.

Friend Redefined

I was trolling around my blog feeds the other day and came across a post, written by, Valeria Maltoni of Conversation Agent. The article revolves around the question, Are There Too Many Social Networks? Near the middle of this post, Valeria says the following:

How many friends do you really have? How many people can you really call friends? I mentioned I have an extensive network in a previous post, these are not all friends and most do not read my blog.

This is something I have been thinking about for quite some time. Here we are, in the middle of this web 2.0 social networking craze, adding people as friends that may not be friends at all. If I were to ask a majority of social networking users if most of the people on their friends list could actually be considered friends, I have a hunch that the answer would be no, which leads me to my next question.

With the advent of social networks, has the term FRIEND lost it’s meaning? Just because a user is on your friends list, does that make them a true friend? According to Wiktionary, a friend is defined as, A person other than a family member, spouse or lover whose company one enjoys and towards whom one feels affection. Can you honestly say that you feel this way towards everyone on your friends list?

If the meaning of the word FRIEND has changed, due to social networking on the web, then what would the new definition be? Am I paranoid, or does anyone else see a problem here?