Comments on: Web 2.0 Rant http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/ The Investment Wiki Blog Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:50:52 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: 10 Great Blogger Temper Tantrums « Canada new designer http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-4088 10 Great Blogger Temper Tantrums « Canada new designer Thu, 26 Apr 2007 04:02:49 +0000 http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-4088 [...] @ 3:58 am Wednesday, after too many consecutive hours in front of the computer, I succumbed to a blogger rant about Web 2.0. My post is tepid and probably the least interesting thing I’ve written on this blog. I am [...] [...] @ 3:58 am Wednesday, after too many consecutive hours in front of the computer, I succumbed to a blogger rant about Web 2.0. My post is tepid and probably the least interesting thing I’ve written on this blog. I am [...]

]]> By: 10 Great Blogger Temper Tantrums « ValueWiki Blog http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-315 10 Great Blogger Temper Tantrums « ValueWiki Blog Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:10:03 +0000 http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-315 [...] Wednesday, after too many consecutive hours in front of the computer, I succumbed to a blogger rant about Web 2.0. My post is tepid and probably the least interesting thing I’ve written on this blog. I am [...] [...] Wednesday, after too many consecutive hours in front of the computer, I succumbed to a blogger rant about Web 2.0. My post is tepid and probably the least interesting thing I’ve written on this blog. I am [...]

]]> By: Charles Knight http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-314 Charles Knight Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:33:58 +0000 http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-314 I am the author of the "Top 100 Alternative Search Engines" List, and I am NOT hyped up on sugar, thank you very much! I am hyped up on coffee!! Next time get your facts right. Charles Knight Charles Knight SEO Charles@CharlesKnightSEO.com Excellent post, BTW. I am the author of the “Top 100 Alternative Search Engines” List, and I am NOT hyped up on sugar, thank you very much! I am hyped up on coffee!! Next time
get your facts right.

Charles Knight
Charles Knight SEO
Charles@CharlesKnightSEO.com

Excellent post, BTW.

]]> By: Jon http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-310 Jon Fri, 02 Mar 2007 04:59:33 +0000 http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-310 Dane, What are you talking about?? Jon Dane,

What are you talking about??

Jon

]]> By: Dane http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-307 Dane Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:19:08 +0000 http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-307 Jon you crack me up - don't you realize it's people from those "Top 100" blog sites you bashed (ironically probably from a Google Alert) that are coming to your site since you referenced their company. Way to make 100 enemies in about 6 seconds. Jon you crack me up – don’t you realize it’s people from those “Top 100″ blog sites you bashed (ironically probably from a Google Alert) that are coming to your site since you referenced their company.

Way to make 100 enemies in about 6 seconds.

]]> By: Jon http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-306 Jon Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:37:59 +0000 http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-306 Nilo and Mike, your comments are perfectly fair. In all honesty, I immediately regretted publishing that post. But I've decided to leave it up rather than rewrite history. And I've been completely embarrassed at the traffic the post has received, seeing as it's not exactly my proudest work! All that being said, I wonder if you're disagreeing with what I wrote, or how I wrote it. I fully acknowledge the many websites listed may be terrific technologies written by really smart people. I just took aesthetic issue with the trendiness of web 2.0 names. But I admit my point is probably frivolous and could be interpreted as heedlessly insulting to a lot of talented people. Isn't it odd how a single negative blog rant can draw more web traffic than 50 positive blog posts? Nilo and Mike, your comments are perfectly fair. In all honesty, I immediately regretted publishing that post. But I’ve decided to leave it up rather than rewrite history. And I’ve been completely embarrassed at the traffic the post has received, seeing as it’s not exactly my proudest work!

All that being said, I wonder if you’re disagreeing with what I wrote, or how I wrote it. I fully acknowledge the many websites listed may be terrific technologies written by really smart people. I just took aesthetic issue with the trendiness of web 2.0 names.

But I admit my point is probably frivolous and could be interpreted as heedlessly insulting to a lot of talented people.

Isn’t it odd how a single negative blog rant can draw more web traffic than 50 positive blog posts?

]]> By: Mike http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-305 Mike Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:22:10 +0000 http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-305 I'm sorry but this guy is totaly right. You are pretty dumb !! I’m sorry but this guy is totaly right. You are pretty dumb !!

]]> By: Nilo http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-304 Nilo Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:47:11 +0000 http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-304 Regardless of what “web 2.0” means, because in practice it has multiple meanings, you probably know how much effort (people’s work, money) has been put into all those sites of the “lame side of the web” so they can them make your life easier (most of the sites listed are already making smart people’s life easier). So you should have more respect for the work of this “sugar-high” people. Why disdain so much of others effort? Scirus, Zabaseach, Icerocket, Hakia, Ditto, Clusty, Blikx, Girafa, Grokker… These are fantastic tools; many appeared even before the bubble (2000), like Scirus, which indexes around 10 million documents (from scientific journals) which you can not even find through Google; Girafa was one of the first companies to offer this little previews of the hyperlinks (which you use, from snap.com). Most of the sites listed don’t proclaim themselves “web 2.0” and not even relate to the term, even if we consider the multiple meanings. So, please, shut up and show some respect. The big majority of those companies will fail, fulfilling your desire to “clean out the dead wood” – one in ten will succeed. Unfortunately, that’s how things work. It’s very easy to be seated doing nothing and criticizing all of them. Not easy is to understand which will succeed and how. If you were a smart guy you’d have invested in YouTube in 2005 or in Google in 2000 or in many other companies some years ago, but at this time you could only see them as “the lame side of the web”. Regardless of what “web 2.0” means, because in practice it has multiple meanings, you probably know how much effort (people’s work, money) has been put into all those sites of the “lame side of the web” so they can them make your life easier (most of the sites listed are already making smart people’s life easier). So you should have more respect for the work of this “sugar-high” people. Why disdain so much of others effort?

Scirus, Zabaseach, Icerocket, Hakia, Ditto, Clusty, Blikx, Girafa, Grokker… These are fantastic tools; many appeared even before the bubble (2000), like Scirus, which indexes around 10 million documents (from scientific journals) which you can not even find through Google; Girafa was one of the first companies to offer this little previews of the hyperlinks (which you use, from snap.com). Most of the sites listed don’t proclaim themselves “web 2.0” and not even relate to the term, even if we consider the multiple meanings. So, please, shut up and show some respect.

The big majority of those companies will fail, fulfilling your desire to “clean out the dead wood” – one in ten will succeed. Unfortunately, that’s how things work. It’s very easy to be seated doing nothing and criticizing all of them. Not easy is to understand which will succeed and how. If you were a smart guy you’d have invested in YouTube in 2005 or in Google in 2000 or in many other companies some years ago, but at this time you could only see them as “the lame side of the web”.

]]> By: Glenn http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-303 Glenn Thu, 01 Mar 2007 05:42:46 +0000 http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/02/28/web-20-rant/#comment-303 What irks me is the stupid f'n pop ups every time you hover over a link. What irks me is the stupid f’n pop ups every time you hover over a link.

]]>