Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

The Godfather · Aug 18, 2011, 11:30 AM

Engadget, tuaw, Cnn, etc.
I dont know if it is my mobile browser or some webmaster troubles going on there, but more and more articles are not allowing the user generated comments, which generally point out a bias, error, or faulty reporting.
Or maybe I am being secretly baninated.

Uhoh! Sorry mods. I meant to post this in the lounge.

turtle777 · Aug 18, 2011, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Or maybe I am being secretly baninated.

Yes, they send out a memo to everyone on teh intarwebs except you.

-t

Doofy · Aug 18, 2011, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Engadget, tuaw, Cnn, etc.
I dont know if it is my mobile browser or some webmaster troubles going on there, but more and more articles are not allowing the user generated comments, which generally point out a bias, error, or faulty reporting.

Maybe they've discovered that web 2.0 is crap and creates nothing but work for a load of people to try to keep the posts from the likes of YouTubeCommenters down.

Let's face it - it's a bit of a stupid idea to let all of the public have their say, isn't it?

turtle777 · Aug 18, 2011, 02:16 PM

Web 1.9 - 10% less crap than 2.0

-t

ort888 · Aug 18, 2011, 02:50 PM

Maybe because 90% of people posting in the comments sections on those sites are worthless chortling subhuman cretins who drag down all of humanity with their inane spewings.

besson3c · Aug 18, 2011, 02:53 PM

I didn't know that commenting was Web 2.0? I thought the term Web 2.0 referred mostly to database driven content and CMSes and stuff, where commenting is just an optional facet to all of this?

boy8cookie · Aug 18, 2011, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Web 1.9 - 10% less crap than 2.0

-t

math is hard.
5%

exca1ibur · Aug 18, 2011, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I didn't know that commenting was Web 2.0? I thought the term Web 2.0 referred mostly to database driven content and CMSes and stuff, where commenting is just an optional facet to all of this?

So did I. More precisely the AJAX interactive type pages.

turtle777 · Aug 18, 2011, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by boy8cookie

math is hard.

Versions are NOT not a linear scale

-t

Doofy · Aug 18, 2011, 03:35 PM

Bess getting it wrong again? What a surprise.

The term Web 2.0 is associated with web applications that facilitate participatory information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design,[1] and collaboration on the World Wide Web. A Web 2.0 site allows users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators (prosumers) of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to websites where users (consumers) are limited to the passive viewing of content that was created for them. Examples of Web 2.0 include social networking sites, blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, hosted services, web applications, mashups and folksonomies.

Start listening to rock instead of jazz and salvage what's left of your brain, man.

ort888 · Aug 18, 2011, 03:41 PM

I don't think you've proven him wrong. Web 2.0 is users creating the actual content. Not commenting on the content of professionals.

Your description even says that.

I do agree with you about jazz though. Screw jazz.

besson3c · Aug 18, 2011, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Bess getting it wrong again? What a surprise.

Start listening to rock instead of jazz and salvage what's left of your brain, man.

Doofy, cut it out. If you'd like me to ignore you, please ask me and I will. Otherwise, cut out the personal attacks, they are totally unnecessary and uncalled for.

Uncle Skeleton · Aug 18, 2011, 06:27 PM

Who wants to get out in front of Web 3.0? That's where users create the personalities of other users. Besson, why don't you start the party off by letting others post under your account (if it hasn't happened already)?

besson3c · Aug 18, 2011, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Who wants to get out in front of Web 3.0? That's where users create the personalities of other users. Besson, why don't you start the party off by letting others post under your account (if it hasn't happened already)?

If only I offered Abe the option to post under my account, maybe he'd still be alive...

Eug · Aug 19, 2011, 12:41 AM

We should be up to Web 6.0 by now, like Firefox.

P.S. This Web 2.0 terminology is just insanely stupid, because it doesn't really even mean anything, as it has no real definition.

besson3c · Aug 19, 2011, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

We should be up to Web 6.0 by now, like Firefox.

P.S. This Web 2.0 terminology is just insanely stupid, because it doesn't really even mean anything, as it has no real definition.

Well, if by "real" you mean a common understanding of the term, you're absolutely right. There is the official definition that Doofy posted, but can there be an official definition if everybody just sort of uses the term to mean what they want and the term isn't in the official dictionary (which I'm assuming is the case)?

(I'm directing this at techno-journalists and stuff, not all of you bessonites)

Eug · Aug 19, 2011, 07:32 AM

There is no official definition. There never has been. It's really just handwaving marketing speak, which some techies for some bizarre reason have also picked up on.

It's just an annoying buzzword.

andi*pandi · Aug 20, 2011, 08:47 PM

Frankly I just thought it meant all the buttons had to be shiny and rounded. Web 1.0 was all about the embossed square buttons, wasn't it?

Eug · Aug 22, 2011, 03:20 PM

Nah. That was web 0.9. Geocities!?!

-Q- · Aug 22, 2011, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

Frankly I just thought it meant all the buttons had to be shiny and rounded. Web 1.0 was all about the embossed square buttons, wasn't it?

Don't forget over use of reflections! It's not Web 2.0 if there are no reflections!

besson3c · Aug 23, 2011, 10:09 PM

Here is what I envision a Web 3.0 site to look like. This is just awesome:

index