Web 2.0 is real

Ingezonden door LVB op 2006-04-06 03:34

Web 1.0 was all about static content, one-to-many communication, and unidirectional e-commerce. The Web 1.0 bubble, better known as the dotcom bubble, bursted in 2000. Now, a new wave of internet applications is gaining strength. In Web 2.0 it's all about user participation, user generated content, and 'mashups', the mixing of content from other sources to present them in new and innovative forms, like on a map.

Some may laugh at Web 2.0 and say it's a hype, or laugh at the funny Web 2.0 names (all ending in R but without the e, like Flickr). They may laugh at the over-emphasis on the social aspects, like in this isolatr.com parody site. They may laugh at the crappy aspects of the 'loser-generated content', like in this funny craprr.com .

But in all seriousness, these data (see table on the right) from comScore MediaMetrix, published by the Washington Post, prove that Web 2.0 is real. Websites with user generated content, like Blogger.com, Wikipedia.org or MySpace.com are showing three-digit growth figures (in number of visitors) in the last year. And localized content, like Citysearch.com or Whitepages.com, is also growing fast. (hat tip)

Reacties

#19291

Bruno Lowagie

vrijdag, 21 april, 2006 - 16:17

 

FYI:
http://traffic.alexa.com/gr...

#18886

Michel Vuijlsteke

vrijdag, 7 april, 2006 - 19:23

 

Or another little known statistic: Flickr has about 9 million monthly unique visitors, Yahoo! Photos may be less sexy, but it does have around 30 million unique monthly visitors.

#18869

dries

donderdag, 6 april, 2006 - 17:16

 

... not to mention the facebook, the 7th most visited site on the internet. myspace is crap compared to that.

#18864

Michel Vuijlsteke

donderdag, 6 april, 2006 - 12:23

 

I’m not really sure why any of the mentioned sites all of a sudden get qualified as "web 2.0".

When the term was coined back in 2004 Google was touted as the quintessential Web 2.0 company. Now it looks as if the WaPo article has relegated it to he 1.0 crowd. Why not just admit that this whole 2.0 web thing is just a buzzword for "whatever the new hotness is"--podcasting in 2005, social networks in 2003, etc.?

And of course, as one of the commenters at Threadwatch rightly says: *of course* newer sites will tend to show more growth than established brands like Yahoo or Google, simply because there isn't that much room for those guys to grow any more.