The Web 2.0 Conundrum - How Much Control is Too Much?

CrashRoX asks: "One of the big hypes with Web 2.0 is that users should be able to control their content. We then end up with all assortments of mash-ups, widgets, feeds and customized pages/profiles. Given this, where do site admins draw the line on what users can do? MySpace is the best example for this question. Their popularity is based on promoting the fact that you can have a page that displays your personality, customize it and pretty much do whatever you want to it. Over time, they've had security problems with users using JavaScript. That privilege was revoked not too long after. Most recently, they've limited the use of flash controls and have started banning certain widgets (like YouTube and others). Sites like Google let you create your own widgets using an API. How much control from a programming, security and usability point of view should we give users? What guidelines should developers follow for building web 2.0 sites?"

Major misconception

[Anonymous Coward]

With Web 2.0 the user have no control over their content whatsoever. They give their content to the webmaster. It sits on the webmaster's server and that is effectively beyond the control of the users. Web 2.0 trades the illusion of control for valuable content. I can't edit this comment after clicking submit. Is it my comment or Slashdot's?

What do you mean by End User?

[ralatalo]

When I think of End user I think of the person viewing the page, not someone who is making the page? Ie.. if the End user doesn't want Java Script or Java Applets or funky back grounds... adjust the settings on their browser! What do you mean by End User?

MySpace is not Web 2.0

[onion2k]

Nothing in MySpace is "Web 2.0". All the control you have on that site is within the very limited bounds of a form that accepts HTML and CSS. Geocities had a pagebuilder that gave users as much back in 1996. Web 2.0 is about rich interfaces and client side applications. As yet I would argue that there are only two popular Web 2.0 sites. Those are GMail and DeviantArt (and DevArt is flakey at best). The rest are just sites that claim to be Web 2.0 but aren't (Digg, Flickr, MySpace, etc).

As for how much control to give users, give them whatever your resources will allow. If you've got the team strength to be able to firefight a javascript worm (MySpace) then give them a lot. If you've got the bandwidth to give them video upload (YouTube) give them space. If you're a one man team working on a toy website give them a couple of checkboxes and a button.

Re:MySpace is not Web 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to be successful, you need these other people. You can have a good idea and implement it, but to make money (because that's what being successful means, right?), you have to reach your market. And that means you need PR, accounting, etc.

The money to pay these people in the beginning can come from venture capitalists or from the tooth fairy, it doesn't matter. You need these people to be successful. One man can create the next Flickr, Google, whatever, but he can not run it alone. A site which is "in productive mode" and run by one person is almost by definition a "toy" site.

Re:MySpace is not Web 2.0

[freedumb2000]

Now whoever came up with the term Web 2.0 in the first place? It is really a phrase with no specific meaning in the first place. I never even noticed there was a switch-over or a release of HTTP protocol v. 2. So it is really anyones own make up of a defintion for Web 2.0 (when is 2.1 getting released? can't wait) . One is as good as the other.

Useless until you define web2.0

[subreality]

The question is ambiguous and too broad, just like "Web 2.0".

Until you frame the question by defining what the heck you mean by that, this discussion will be useless.

Re:Major misconception

[Shaper_pmp]

You were legally responsible for posting the comment, sure. And you did so in the full knowledge that it wasn't editable afterwards.

If you punch someone you can't then get sniffy because they carry around the bruise and won't allow you to unpunch them again. Why should you get pissed if you choose to post something and then can't edit it afterwards? You control and select your actions - any opportunity to take back said action is a privilege, not a right.

You have the right to act as you wish: the right to unilaterally retract a previous action at any time was never offered, guaranteed and shoulnd't be assumed.