Comments on: What is Web 2.0? http://www.myhateblog.com/2007/11/21/what-is-web-20/ Performing Internet Hate-Crimes since 1982 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:08:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: darkarma http://www.myhateblog.com/2007/11/21/what-is-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-2719 darkarma Wed, 07 May 2008 01:42:28 +0000 http://www.myhateblog.com/2007/11/21/what-is-web-20/#comment-2719 blah blah blah. why do they even bother to sound smart vince? its very entertaining. and again, you are the viktor. perhaps next time, i will become lucky enough to have a conversation with you myself. i will be anticipating the moment. blah blah blah. why do they even bother to sound smart vince? its very entertaining. and again, you are the viktor. perhaps next time, i will become lucky enough to have a conversation with you myself. i will be anticipating the moment.

]]> By: Vince http://www.myhateblog.com/2007/11/21/what-is-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-1189 Vince Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:14:17 +0000 http://www.myhateblog.com/2007/11/21/what-is-web-20/#comment-1189 And this is the exact typical response I'd expect from someone too chicken-shit to question the world around them, and unobjectively trust all information handed to them on a plate by these so called "professionals". Have you ever even thought to question what defines a "specialist" or a "professional"? You'd much rather trust something on MSDN than on a blog written by someone with 20+ years experience on a matter, just because you can't verify the status of the individual? In a fairly anonymous medium such as the Internet, how can you even logically assume that information isn't provided by "specialists"? Your argument is riddled with illogical holes. The beauty of the "Information Age" is that ALL information is made available to you - be it the commercially positive information that the same "professionals" want you to hear because it sells their product, their service, or otherwise lines their pockets, or the COMPLETE information (warts and all) which actually details both sides of the story. This allows YOU as a consumer, a potential user, or otherwise somebody who may blindly believe the bullshit you are fed on a day to day basis, to form a much more educated opinion because you have been given a larger pot to drink from, as it were. Whilst I agree that in some circumstances vandalism of information may occur (it happens on Wikipedia from time to time), generally these are isolated incidents. This vandalism argument can be EASILY countered because of the ability for people to remove the offending misinformation and replace it accordingly. The process regulates and manages itself, and that's exactly what Wikipedia is about. How you can possibly see anything negative about this is beyond me. But then I am fortunate enough to be blessed with an open mind, unlike your paranoid and deluded self. But then you are an avid MSDN fan, so that's unsurprising. And this is the exact typical response I’d expect from someone too chicken-shit to question the world around them, and unobjectively trust all information handed to them on a plate by these so called “professionals”. Have you ever even thought to question what defines a “specialist” or a “professional”? You’d much rather trust something on MSDN than on a blog written by someone with 20+ years experience on a matter, just because you can’t verify the status of the individual? In a fairly anonymous medium such as the Internet, how can you even logically assume that information isn’t provided by “specialists”? Your argument is riddled with illogical holes.

The beauty of the “Information Age” is that ALL information is made available to you – be it the commercially positive information that the same “professionals” want you to hear because it sells their product, their service, or otherwise lines their pockets, or the COMPLETE information (warts and all) which actually details both sides of the story. This allows YOU as a consumer, a potential user, or otherwise somebody who may blindly believe the bullshit you are fed on a day to day basis, to form a much more educated opinion because you have been given a larger pot to drink from, as it were.

Whilst I agree that in some circumstances vandalism of information may occur (it happens on Wikipedia from time to time), generally these are isolated incidents. This vandalism argument can be EASILY countered because of the ability for people to remove the offending misinformation and replace it accordingly. The process regulates and manages itself, and that’s exactly what Wikipedia is about.

How you can possibly see anything negative about this is beyond me. But then I am fortunate enough to be blessed with an open mind, unlike your paranoid and deluded self. But then you are an avid MSDN fan, so that’s unsurprising.

]]> By: Hate http://www.myhateblog.com/2007/11/21/what-is-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-1187 Hate Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:06:31 +0000 http://www.myhateblog.com/2007/11/21/what-is-web-20/#comment-1187 Well, in fact, I get it. (While I still believe that clean interface contributes much to usability.) As for creating information by multiple parties, then that idea is at best strange. When information is issued only by trusted specialists, who have the guts and brains to run web site (server hosting, administrating, scripting, content checking) I would use it. MSDN, for example. But when info is created on a public basis, such as wiki, blog, bb, forum - please, no. Such content is very underfiltered, vague, misinterpreted and misrepresented, and outright incorrect. Mind the signal/noise ratio. Well, in fact, I get it. (While I still believe that clean interface contributes much to usability.)
As for creating information by multiple parties, then that idea is at best strange. When information is issued only by trusted specialists, who have the guts and brains to run web site (server hosting, administrating, scripting, content checking) I would use it. MSDN, for example.
But when info is created on a public basis, such as wiki, blog, bb, forum – please, no. Such content is very underfiltered, vague, misinterpreted and misrepresented, and outright incorrect. Mind the signal/noise ratio.

]]> By: Vince http://www.myhateblog.com/2007/11/21/what-is-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-1178 Vince Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:29:42 +0000 http://www.myhateblog.com/2007/11/21/what-is-web-20/#comment-1178 *Sigh* You're not doing very well are you? Again, you missed the point. "Web 2.0" as a concept has nothing to do with the display of information - or any design aspect AT ALL. You can babble on about how the layout of Google is clean and useful, it makes no difference. People don't use Google because it's cleaner than Yahoo. They use it because its search technology is better, simple. Yes, the clean layout HELPS but ultimately it's not what defines it nor has any real foundation towards the success. *Sigh*

You’re not doing very well are you? Again, you missed the point.

“Web 2.0″ as a concept has nothing to do with the display of information – or any design aspect AT ALL. You can babble on about how the layout of Google is clean and useful, it makes no difference. People don’t use Google because it’s cleaner than Yahoo. They use it because its search technology is better, simple. Yes, the clean layout HELPS but ultimately it’s not what defines it nor has any real foundation towards the success.

]]> By: Hate http://www.myhateblog.com/2007/11/21/what-is-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-1168 Hate Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:50:42 +0000 http://www.myhateblog.com/2007/11/21/what-is-web-20/#comment-1168 The idea of feedback for information is used in wikis, forums, blogs, commented articles. It has been since... Simple interfaces is what made internet useful. Google's interface is 10 times more useful than Yahoo's, Yahoo makes my eyes hurt. Clean page with some links and images is way more useful than garabage of menus, ads, jingles and whistles without any actual information. Users with a brain want INFORMATION (just like in a book), but not bells and whistles. What good is your flashy buttons if text is all wrong, vague and incomplete? Interface may be clean and simple - take javadoc format for example. The idea of feedback for information is used in wikis, forums, blogs, commented articles. It has been since…
Simple interfaces is what made internet useful. Google’s interface is 10 times more useful than Yahoo’s, Yahoo makes my eyes hurt. Clean page with some links and images is way more useful than garabage of menus, ads, jingles and whistles without any actual information. Users with a brain want INFORMATION (just like in a book), but not bells and whistles. What good is your flashy buttons if text is all wrong, vague and incomplete?
Interface may be clean and simple – take javadoc format for example.

]]>