After years of trying, Tim O’Reilly has finally come up with a definition of Web 2.0 that I think we can all get behind. Web 2.0 is, he wrote yesterday, “intelligence in the back end.” Short, sweet and memorable. And after having visited many popular Web 2.0 sites, I can say with confidence that most of the intelligence does indeed seem to emanate from the back end. Best of all, we can now give Web 2.0 what it’s always deserved: a theme song.
So that’s done. Now let’s move on.
Wow. I didn’t see that one coming.
Well played Nick. Well played.
“Intelligence in the back end”?
Wait…so amazon’s recommending books based on your and other users’ past buys? Wasn’t that intelligence in the back end? Is amazon “web 2.0” then?
Seriously? Web 2.0 is just a stupid label… which can’t seem to get over itself.
That’s three times in a week. We can’t agree that often.
But seriously, the problem with “web 2.0” is that it is not one specific piece, but a combination of many pieces. However, intelligence at the back end is a common theme of today’s web, so I can live with that.
Slate. Nice way to circumvent the copyright issues associated with the recent lock-down on the culture, you piracy-encouraging punk.
Wikipedia & Amazon recommendations have always been considered Web 2.0, in spite of the apparent anachronism, and I don’t know any historical criterion; actually, some consider the pre-commercial internet more sterling — and the current attempts a movement back to the Golden Age. I don’t understand “in the back”, so I’m not happy with this definition yet. . .
I was just wondering, Nick: if the common people has so little insight, why do lexicographs rely on their contribution to make dictionaries?
Guys, if the concept of “Web 2.0” is just going to amalgamate any progress of lasting value that has been made since very early “1.0” web sites, then it really does not mean much. You could just say “digital convergence” and avoid the issues of who “invented” Web 2.0 or who is trying to take credit for it. “Amazon recommendations” was implemented simply because it was a good idea but was too much work to implement in the early months/years of their web site. Wikipedia does not make “recommendations” per se, so I am not sure what you mean by your reference to it.
If Web 2.0 means anything, it means that you get the “survey results” akin to those you used to see on “Family Feud”. Some sites also encourage people to set up personal net presence in the form of a userpage, but the interactions are mostly limited to the channels offered by the web site. My point is: the “community” set up is very lightweight and somewhat superficial: much more like a saloon than a library. Rather fluffy. Some web sites like linkedin and zoominfo focus on professional attributes. The is nice, but the impressive aspect is not the brilliance of the idea but simply the number of people those sites claim to have registered. According to Moore’s Law, scale will happen anyway. Where is the big breakthrough with it?
Web 1.0 was wow. Web 2.0 is struggling to get beyond yawn. It will succeed, not with a bang but with a whimper.
Văn phòng Q.1 HCM từ 50 USD/tháng !
* Chỉ cần từ 50 – 120 USD/tháng, Công ty của bạn đã có thể sở hữu 1 văn phòng làm việc chuyên nghiệp tại Building 19 tầng ngay trung tâm quận 1 Tp.HCM.
* Thủ tục đăng ký đơn giản, hậu mãi chu đáo; có chiết khấu cho người giới thiệu (Hấp dẫn!).
* Vui lòng xem chi tiết tại: Van phong gia re Q.1 HCM – Virtual office Vietnam
http://www.goffice.com.vn – http://www.goffice.vn
hoặc gọi: 08.2200911
Really i don’t know much about web 2.0, but it published at 2005, but i’m not interested that after read your blog i can able to know about that. firts thanks for that, your title is so attractive “Intelligence in the back end” good, we expecting more blog form you