I will start off by saying that I’m entirely confused by this new term of “Web 2.0″

Stay with me as I try to decipher what these authors are saying, please.

“Google requires a competency that Netscape never needed: database management. Google isn’t just a collection of software tools, it’s a specialized database. Without the data, the tools are useless; without the software, the data is unmanageabl.”

“The Web 2.0 lesson: leverage customer-self service and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.”

“Amazon has made a science of user engagement. They have an order of magnitude more user reviews, invitations to participate in varied ways on virtually every page–and even more importantly, they use user activity to produce better search results.”

– Tim O’Reilly’s “What is Web 2.0″

<–Is this how people who run the web 1.0 feel about the web 2.0?  Because even if it’s just Amazon being compared to Barnes & Noble, I still like it better. What does this mean? I’m sold on the idea of it.  So is google better because it’s more complex than Netscape ever was and we can therefore gain more from its use? This is probably what that quote is saying, and then the second quote about “publishing vs. participating” only fuels the statement that more can be reached now.  From what I took of it, even the smaller websites unknown to most, like mine for example, can have the similar features to big and common websites.  Even though I’m not quoting it, their ideas on iTunes and TiVO really make me appreciate having internet access.   I’m not going to lie, I don’t understand a lot of the things the article talks about even if I am majoring in computer science because well, I’m just not a stereotype.  Quick rant: I hate stereotypes… moving on. The idea of AJAX actually blows my mind some.  Knowing that the engine is in the interface between the user and the server, making my online experience and process better and faster really goes way over my head.  I had never put that much thought into what was in between me, the object (computer) and its behaviors.

So… creative commons?  I see what the article did when they mentioned sharing things for non-commercial purpose but encouraged free exchange of knowledge.  In other words, to link that article with the previous one that I was rambling about, if I post something on Flickr and opt to not pay for a premium account, I’m enabling any user who finds my photos and wishes to use them for say a project, a blog post, etc… to use it under the belief that he or she will not receive money out of it.  While on the tangent of photos, here’s another example that I can associate with better. Webshots allows you to create a profile and upload as many photos as you want, as well as friend other users on the web and gain access to their files.  However, unless you have an account you can’t friend that person; even after you send a friend request like you would on facebook, you have to wait for that user’s acceptance before you can have access to their images.  Is this a simple matter of trust? Probably.  If the person you’re trying to friend doesn’t deem you worthy of accessing their files, they can simply keep them protected and/or not allow you to use them.

Example: Here I am posting a picture taken from Dominic Kamp’s Flickr account and crediting him.

“Microblogging offers a similar experiental advance. The size limitations of microblogging tools, such as Twitter or Friend Feed, force the reader’s attention into discrete chunks distributed in time. For example, epigrams are wel l  suited to being republ ished or published by microblogging tools, which focus the reader’s attention on these compressed phases.”

-Bryan Alexander and Alan Levine’s “2.0 Digital Storytelling”

I wonder how those two authors feel about the people that feed twitter into facebook.  I know a girl who once set up her tumblr blog account to feed into twitter which was already feeding into facebook.  I’m glad no one told her about formspring.met or it would’ve been way worse and too repetitive. –>