[saint.panda]

What do you think does it take to turn a Web 2.0 website into a success? Web 2.0 in a broad sense from Head-Fi to Amazon.

Do you think Web 2.0 is overrated (in terms of revenue generation)?

 

[Laptopia]

Content. If there is nothing to go to a site for, then it's doomed. And content is the most elusive ingredient in the success recipe.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saint.panda /img/forum/go_quote.gif What do you think does it take to turn a Web 2.0 website into a success? Web 2.0 in a broad sense from Head-Fi to Amazon. Do you think Web 2.0 is overrated (in terms of revenue generation)?

Err.....what? Neither Web Forums or e-commerce sites are Web 2.0. Both concepts have existed in their fundamental form since the web first took off in the mid-90s. "Web 2.0" is used primarily to refer to social content-driven sites such as Facebook, Wikipedia, Flickr, Digg/Reddit, and such.

And Robert's right that any website, Web 1.0, 2.0, or whatever, must have content first and foremost. Once you have content, you need traffic, but traffic won't build or even stay if there isn't a supply of fresh and relevant content.

 

[saint.panda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif Err.....what? Neither Web Forums or e-commerce sites are Web 2.0. Both concepts have existed in their fundamental form since the web first took off in the mid-90s. "Web 2.0" is used primarily to refer to social content-driven sites such as Facebook, Wikipedia, Flickr, Digg/Reddit, and such.

Err.....what?

 

[scompton]

I have heard forums described as Web 2.0. Basically, any thing with user generated content. Although you usually see it used for social networking sites, blogging sites, and other such things. So, with this definition, I agree that content is what matters. Of course, IMO, it's what matters on any web site. If the content's not worth while, why would you go there.

Sort of OT, at work I'm on a project porting a client server application to a web based interface. We're mainly just porting the UI, with a few tweaks to the back end. Upper management has been sold by an sales type contractor on Web 2.0, so we're being told it must be Web 2.0, even though they don't have the slightest idea what that is. This is an internal membership tracking system. The same internal users will use the new system as use the old system and is basically a lot of forms and reports, but we have to make it Web 2.0.

 

[goldenratiophi]

You're both wrong! Web 2.0 refers to AJAX and little gradients!

(I think Arainach's definition is closer according to Wikipedia: Web 2.0 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Or at least, forums are more Web 2.0 than Amazon. Or whatever, Web 2.0 was a stupid term anyway. I'm using Web 3.0b.)

 

[Smeed]

An oddly spelled or abstract name.

 

[redshifter]

I'm waiting for Web 4.3 before I buy my internet.

 

[Akathisia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm waiting for Web 4.3 before I buy my internet.

ok, good, so it is worth waiting. I wasn't sure if Apple's new iWeb was going to be the way to go...

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smeed /img/forum/go_quote.gif An oddly spelled or abstract name.

yeah, this is a requirement. the sillier the better.