Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

The Best of Web 2.0 228

Fennie writes "Designtechnica has published their 2006 Best of Web 2.0 list. Some of the sites include, and From the piece: 'The next generation of the web is here! With new kinds of desktop-like applications being released left and right, how will you know where to go and what to use? That's why we're here: To show you the best of Web 2.0 sites that you can get the most out of. No matter the task, video, audio, or photos, we have a site that works great for what you want to do and uses all the great features of Web 2.0 technology.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Best of Web 2.0

Comments Filter:
  • by ARRRLovin ( 807926 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @07:49PM (#14797559)
    1) Web 2.0
    • Yes please let that term die, along with the dumbass that coined it. Not only is it completely irrelevant to anything real, it also belittles all the real progress that has gradually been happening over the years. Anyways real versions aren't nice and round like 2.0, they are big long non-decimal strings like 2.6.16-rc4-mm2 or 0.9.10.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Pfft. That's nothing compared to my kernel:

        # uname -r

        If you're wondering, I misused Debian's make-kpkg, and I haven't bothered to find out what I *should* have done, but it works for me.

    • So what "version" was the web when Java applets became popular? What about frames? What about annoying midi background music? What about inline images?

      It's fairly obvious that "Web 2.0" and "blogosphere" and the like are marketing terms. The real questions are: What marketers are coming up with these things, and who's paying them to do it? I'm thinking it's The Carlyle Group, or the Bilderbergers, or the Knights Templar.
      • So what "version" was the web when Java applets became popular? What about frames? What about annoying midi background music? What about inline images?

        It would actually be pretty easy (and objective) to determine when these features were first implemented in browsers. The Web really isn't an abstract thing, it's just a set of software applications and data. I think the idea of versioning is somewhat correct, in that the vast majority of the Web today is not what Tim Barners-Lee invented in 1992. HTTP (

      • The Knights Templar are on 3.1 now.
    • by rs79 ( 71822 ) <> on Friday February 24, 2006 @08:55PM (#14797926) Homepage
      Fixed in Web 2.1

    • Wasn't the next web revolution supposed to be the semantic web? Didn't we already have pretty good webapps? Doesn't this count as evolution, rather then revolution? Are these people not aware of the semantic web future, or are giving up on it, or what?
  • by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @07:54PM (#14797583)
    > Designtechnica has published their 2006 Best of Web 2.0 list. Some of the sites include,

    Attention! Article submitter is guilty of W2C (Web 2.0 Consortium) standards violation. "Flickr", not "Flicker". If a domain doesn't end in ".us" and spell an English word, you must drop a vowel.

    We realize you correctly linked to, and we're not trying to be offici.ous; we're just asking that you use a Web-2.0-compliant spelling-checkr.

    • we're not trying to be offici.ous

      Clippy sez: "Did you mean []?"

      • Please tell me you didn't _just_ go and register that...

        domain propagation is pretty fast these days.
      • > > we're not trying to be offici.ous
        > Clippy sez: "Did you mean []?"

        Yeah, but now that you mention it, Clippy, I'd like to:

        • Register for domainsquatting purposes
        • Live just long enough to be there when they cut off the heads of the marketing department and stick them on pikes, as a reminder to the next ten generations that some 30-second spots come at too high a price.
        • And whisper into their lifeless ears... "don't show me that commercial
    • I approve of the funkilicious names.

      Screw the "good domainname" squatters - we'll create our own brand.

    • Verdict from the W3C (Score:5, Interesting)

      by iamlucky13 ( 795185 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @10:37PM (#14798300)

      Ok, validation isn't everything, and passing the validator is not 100% confirmation that your page is valid, but just for kicks (and to see if the best of web 2.0 passes the basics of web 1.0), let's pass their list through the W3C's HTML Validator and see what we get (links go to the validator results

      Photos [] - HTML 4.01 Transitional - 15 errors.
      No need to use end tags if you don't use a start tag. Meta Keywords...does anyone still pay attention to those?

      Video [] - HTML 4.01 Transitional - 41 errors.
      Use your alt attributes and remember that td's should be nested inside tr's.

      Social Bookmarking [] - XHTML 1.0 Strict - 21 errors.
      Actually a decent attempt. They went with a strict declaration and didn't use tables for layout.

      Digg [] - XHTML 1.0 Transitional - 3 errors
      Really close. Fix those links and and get rid of that "disabled" attribute. Where'd they find that one?

      Newreaders/RSS [] - XHTML 1.0 Transitional - 137 errors.
      Yikes. Yes I think the colspan attribute is cool, too, but not that cool. Give it a rest.

      Start Pages [] - XHTML 1.0 Strict - 13 errors
      They were doing so well with the strict declaration...but then that rotten cellpadding attribute snuck in...and width...and border.

      Collaboration/Word Processors [] - XHTML 1.0 Transitional - 12 errors
      Not bad. Time to advance to Strict, I think.

      Google Maps [] - XHTML 1.0 Strict - 101 errors
      Google! How could you?!? Of all the sites to use deprecated elements under a Strict declaration! I feel betrayed.

      Local Directories
      Google Local [] - Not Found The requested URL /local/ was not found on this server

      Meebo [] - DOCTYPE DECLARATION was not recognized or missing - 2 errors
      Come on. That's sooo 1990's. Actually, it gave me a declaration, so perhaps its malformed or they don't give one to robots.

      Buzzword Sites - What? Like I could let a name like Design Technica off that easy.
      Design Technica [] - This Page is not valid (no Doctype found)! - 38 errors
      Ouch! Same story. I see one in the source, but the validator doesn't accept it. Tables

      Hmmm...everybody tried xhtml except designtechnica and meebo. Targeting mobile browsers, I guess? Nobody passed. There were a few non-table-based layouts, but that was offset by a lot of use of deprecated elements. It looks like web 2.0 is about as ready as IE 7.
      • Wrong validator. Try this one [].
      • Alot of Web 2.0 websites allow for user contributed content. And most if not all Web 2.0 websites run from a coded server side back-end.

        Both of these things make it difficult to ensure that every single (X)HTML element on your website will validate after it's been running for a while...and when you do discover bugs that break the standard it's a pain to change everything.

        Take for example Slashdot, your comment, inclusive of HTML, is going to be stored in a TEXT or BLOB field and Perl filters are applied to
  • by masklinn ( 823351 ) <[ten.nnilksam] [ta] [gro.todhsals]> on Friday February 24, 2006 @07:56PM (#14797596)

    they forgot the True Incarnation of web 2.0 [], the embodyment of what "Web 2.0" means, the body and soul of the movement.

  • by Mowie_X ( 600765 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @07:57PM (#14797598) Homepage a best of developer technology list..
    Stuff like AJAX, .NET Fx, Rails that is really making developing for the web much more fun.
  • People use these? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @07:58PM (#14797603)
    Total number of these webpages I've ever used.... 1, Google Maps.
    Total number of these webpages that even remotely serve a need.... 2, Google Maps and maybe Google Local.

    And for directions, google is easily beaten by Rand-Mcnally. Only the satelite maps feature gives it a good use.

    So whats all the hype for? If I take a photo, I don't want it indexed to the world- I send it to the 2-3 people who might give a shit. Same with video. Back when I used IM (before all my friends stopped using it) I used Trillian to the same effect as they use Meebo, with awesome side features (chat logs). I sure as hell don't want my bookmarks searchable to the world.

    Looks more like a set of pop favorites for the under 20 crowd than it does actually useful sites.
    • Am I just paranoid? Why would I enter my IM account info to a beta web site I know nothing about, like
    • If I take a photo, I don't want it indexed to the world- I send it to the 2-3 people who might give a shit.

      And just because YOU aren't interested in things like Flickr, nobody else can or should be either?

    • Note that outside of the USA, the UK and Japan Google Maps and especially Google Local serve pretty much no use whatsoever. The European mainland? No maps, no high-res sat shots. Mainland Asia? You won't even find the capitals. 85% of the world? Nada. Niente. Zilch.

      So, if you are actually living outside of the USA, the UK or Japan all you get are toy sites with usually clunky interfaces. Go Web 2.0. Rah rah rah.
      • So, if you are actually living outside of the USA, the UK or Japan all you get are toy sites with usually clunky interfaces. Go Web 2.0. Rah rah rah.

        There are people outside of the US, UK and Japan? I thought that was the mutant zone.

        (I'm JOKING, PEOPLE! I've been to the mutant zone, the people seem normal enough. And Absinthe is legal. They use it to keep the mutations in check.)

      • []

        This isn't about proving you wrong, but it could come in handy. From what I can tell it has fairly detailed city maps at least to Austria ... Vienna looked detailed, but Budapest didn't, and Moscow even less so. But for France and the surrounding countries, it seems useful. At the city-street level, I actually find these maps slightly easier to read than Google's, though it's mostly a question of color choice, darker borders around areas, etc.
    • If I take a photo, I don't want it indexed to the world- I send it to the 2-3 people who might give a shit.

      See, there's people out there who would *never* deprive us of 21 blurry polaroids of their pickup truck from wobbly angles. There are whole blogs dedicated to stuff like this; I've seen them.

  • AJAXify (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MyNymWasTaken ( 879908 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @07:59PM (#14797606)
    Does a boring, old "Web 1.0" site become an Exciting, Hip, New & Improved Web 2.0 site just by using a little CSS & the XMLHttpRequest, er... sorry..., AJAX?
  • Digg... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eightyford ( 893696 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @08:06PM (#14797637) Homepage
    Just don't say Digg! It's like reading Slashdot with the filter set at -1. Only worse.
    • Dolemite sez.. Digg! Web 2.0!
    • Re:Digg... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by shish ( 588640 )
      But digg is the perfect example of web 2.0 -- it's just like web 1.0, but the useful content has been replaced with pretty CSS, AJAX tricks, and gradient filled rounded rectangles!

      Even the community around it is very web 2.0 -- it encourages participation from all, no matter how unskilled or ignorant of the subject at hand~

      Come to think of it, I think Web 2.0 is a metaphor for the modern world :(

  • Web 2.0? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <> on Friday February 24, 2006 @08:06PM (#14797638) Homepage Journal
    I never use something that has a version number ending in .0! That's always the buggy release. Besides, I've yet to hear of a single "feature" of this purported 2.0 that wasn't being done with HyperCard and couldn't have been done on Ted Nielson's Xanadu (if anyone had developed it). I see no reason to dignify bugfixes with a change in the major version number.

    "But what about blogs?" What about them? People were writing diaries on USENET long before the CERN webserver ever came out. (Was CERN Web 0.0? And would NCSA or Apache be considered 1.0?) Cross-referencing and searches existed in Gopher and WAIS.

    "Dynamic HTML?" There were perl scripts for emedding msql queries (not MySQL - msql) into web pages long before anyone had imagined you'd be doing anything other than CGI and many years before HTML 3 came out. Indeed, if you want merely programmable web pages (not database-generated pages) then the mere existance of CGI is enough.

    "User-defined web pages" Oracle's "Powerbrowser" included a built-in web server which could serve a limited number of pages to external users. That was back in 1996, if I recall correctly.

    Let me know when something worthy of a "Web 2.0" comes out, and THEN I'll pay attention.

    • Re:Web 2.0? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Radres ( 776901 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @08:13PM (#14797680)
      "Every idea's stolen these days. Why the fax machine is nothing but a waffle iron with a phone attached!"

      - Grandpa Simpson
    • Re:Web 2.0? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Angostura ( 703910 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @08:14PM (#14797686)
      I've just upgraded to Web 2.0.1 So far it seems a bit snappier.

      Next week: Web 3.0, it's when you can actually download all of the active content onto local storage and run it while disconnected as something they call "An Application". Wild.
      • You fail it. The successor of Web 2.0 will be Web 3D. There's nothing after that, but everyone will be talking about how cool it will be wenn Web Forever comes out.
    • you fail to relize the The Internet does not equal the World Wide Web.

      Not that there is anythng happening now that wasn't happening 10 years ago...
    • You can take your Web 2.0 and stick it up your information superhighway!
    • Yeah, I really see no difference between the good ol' pico and this newfangled gmail.

      Check the Web 2.0 DNA [] stuff. There's a lot of hype, but some real advances in there as well. two-point-oh is cringe-worthy, but we need some way to label all this newish stuff.
    • "Web 2.0" to the web what "auteur" is to filmmaking. Sure, it's a loose term, but to those with a taste for it, the term definitely describes something.
    • In that case, you'll have to give up using Java, all versions of which are now "dot oh".
  • This is the best? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SJasperson ( 811166 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @08:14PM (#14797685)
    I've been forced to use Writeboard as part of our corporate Basecamp installation. It's got to be the least-functional wiki implementation out there, with very few formatting choices, almost no documentation, and slow response time. Oh, but wait, it comes from a sexy Web 2.0 company, so it must be good. There are better wikis (almost all of them), better AJAXified word processors (Writely), better collaborative tools that let you choose between wiki markup and WYSIWYG (JotSpot), so how did this dog get on the list? Perhaps the writers hang out at the same trendy coffeehouses chortling over their Web 2.0 antics...
    • Perhaps the writers hang out at the same trendy coffeehouses chortling over their Web 2.0 antics...

      That's pretty much it - a cliquey circlejerk of cross promoting posers, whose blogs read like something out of the Titanic, "while they retreat to the smoking room and congratulate each other on being masters of the universe".

  • by __aadkms7016 ( 29860 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @08:42PM (#14797854)

    I was surprised to see YouTube didn't make the list -- it's the sort of unfiltered snapshot of the world you rarely see on the Internet anymore. It reminds me of 80's-era Usenet but for movies.

    Then I realized that sinces its movie delivery is Flash based, and its UI is AJAX-free, it probably doesn't qualify as "Web 2.0" in their book ...

    Which made me realize that it's really a technology centric label and not a user-centric one.

  • I'm fine with HTML 2.0, thank you.
  • Web 2.0 is history (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wrmrxxx ( 696969 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @09:03PM (#14797959)
    Web 3.0 is what the cool kids are doing now: []
  • by Arandir ( 19206 )
    Only a few months ago we were told that "Web 2.0" was being created. Is it here already? Even without new HTML/CSS/Ajax(tm) standards in place? Even without new browsers to implement them?

    What is there in this "technology" that is in any way significant? Or is it just a bunch of stale hype?
  • Vimeo (Score:2, Funny)

    by stateofmind ( 756903 )
    I'm still not sure what Web 2.0 is (other then some js,xml,ajax,etc..), but at least it lets me listen to a aussie chick complain about petrol and an id.

    Upset about petrol []
  • I got no time wife 2.0 is complaining 11.0 that we never watch tv 3.0 together, its snowing 12.0 here and i have to get up early tomorrow 14,321.0 to shovel car 9.0 out of the snow to goto job 7.0
  • by Baldrson ( 78598 ) * on Friday February 24, 2006 @09:14PM (#14798014) Homepage Journal
    Harry Fuecks has an insightful article on the two kinds of AJAX [] "HTML++" and "Client/SOA":

    AJAX is used to enhance existing HTML forms / user interaction but the fundamental paradigm is still the same as "normal" web applications. Some key smells of this style;

    1. Page reloads still happen frequently
    2. It's possible (if you make the effort) to degrade gracefully to non-supporting browsers / browsers with JS turned off.
    3. Session state still resides on the server.

    In practice this is what everyone's doing right now, with varying degrees of success.


    Client / SOA...

    Some of the key smells with Client / SOA;

    1. Page reloads are rare, if at all. The application tends to run in a single browser window.
    2. It's practically impossible to degrade gracefully, without maintaining seperate code bases.
    3. Session state is largely handled by the client.
    4. Javascript and the browser are acting as a runtime in the same sense as the Java or .NET runtime.
    5. It's going to require specialist developers
    I don't think Web 2.0 is going to get really interesting until Client/SOA hits.
    • I'm interested in #2 because I want to do apps. And no matter how much you dress up a pig, it's still a pig. But it's all about the deployment these days. If we only had Ruby and proper widgets in the browser....hell I'd take Microsoft throwing us an SVG bone. Oh well, one can dream. Until then, web app development still languishes in the dark ages.
      • If you really want to do app development for the web right now, my money's on flash. It is extremely undervalued as a web development platform. Orders of magnitude easier to develop desktop-like apps in than HTML/CSS/JS.
    • The thing I hate about Client/SOA is that it's impossible to use typical browser navigation (forward/back buttons, bookmarks, mouse gesture navigation, etc.) with the Client/SOA method of doing things. Are there any current efforts to get rid of this problem?
      • Not true. Just finished a "Client/SOA"-style app with no page reloads that fully supports back/forward navigation and bookmarking. I'll spare you the technical details, but while it's certainly not an ideal situation, it's not "impossible" by a long shot.

        Of course, now the question becomes: if you're building a desktop-like application for the web, why do you even WANT back and forward buttons to function? Does anybody ever complain that Outlook or Evolution don't have back and forward buttons to go back
  • 30 Boxes (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Ape With No Name ( 213531 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @09:16PM (#14798017) Homepage
    • Re:30 Boxes (Score:3, Interesting)

      by aywwts4 ( 610966 )
      I wanted to give you mod points, but I will respond to you instead. (since its an either or proposition, and this stuff interests me.) 30 Boxes really is great, My girlfriend can keep me organized by updating her calender and having it reflect on my own, then using the RSS reader to put it on my google/ig page and its perfect. It needs a lot of work, but its fairly robust already, and advancing quickly. Its nothing revolutionary, just good execution.

      There were some of these "2.0" applications I hadn't t
  • by Ingolfke ( 515826 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @09:24PM (#14798046) Journal
    can be found here []
  • Seriously, [] is a pretty decent online word processor (WYSIWYG), with publishing and blogging built in. It's still in beta, but it's very usable - much more so than writeboard.

    Supports importing word and openoffice documents and can output to the web, word and others. Has tags like gmail instead of folders and will supposedly output pdf in the final version.

    They do need better management of documents - once you get more than 20 documents going it gets a little unruly, but again, ver

  • They left one off. []
  • by smagruder ( 207953 ) <> on Saturday February 25, 2006 @03:34AM (#14799196) Homepage
    I mean, if you haven't tried StumbleUpon [] yet, with its fantastic Firefox extension, you haven't seen nothing yet. is a very poor design in comparison.
  • 1. Build Steenking Web v2.0 site 2. Let users generate tagged content 3. Display as much Google- and Ebay tag-related-ads as you can. 4. ??? 5. PROFIT ! At least, that is what I am working on.
  • Isn't it a little early to talk about who's already won the race for 2006, seeing as how we're not even two months into it? Must be a slow news day I guess...
  • by Bazman ( 4849 ) on Saturday February 25, 2006 @04:46AM (#14799328) Journal
    Can someone do a Web2.0 app with really bright saturated colours? Please!!
  • First of all, "Web 2.0" is a sucky label. It's a sucky label that has caught on with some marketing drones, but it's sucky nonetheless. "AJAX" is less sucky, but it's actually useful in that it's easier to type out than XMLHttpRequest.

    Now, then. I don't think that the most interesting thing about this 'new wave', whatever you call it, is that font sizes are up 140% since last year or that form submits are being sent asynchronously. No, the interesting thing is both in the details and in the big picture.


"Hey Ivan, check your six." -- Sidewinder missile jacket patch, showing a Sidewinder driving up the tail of a Russian Su-27