This was written by me, and posted originally at my website (http://oramus.org) at http://www.oramus.org/webrant.html
Web 2.0 is one of the reasons the internet looks as ty as it does today. “Web 2.0” is another stupid buzz-word, and most people don’t really know what the **** it means, and that’s one of the reasons I hate it. Web 2.0 is, at its core, “Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them.” What that bull drivel means is that web sites should have ****ty, worthless features like RSS, blogs, wikis, and tons and tons of clutter on each web site so you don’t know what the **** to read or do (an example of this is yahoo). Of course, wikis are great for certain sites, like wikipedia, or site wikis of information for a certain (especially community-based) websites. They have no place on John Edward’s website.
** Why does Web 2.0 suck? **
According to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#Technology_overview), there are several aspects of this. Let's go over them, one-by-one:
[LIST]
[*]Rich Internet application techniques, optionally Ajax-based–“Rich Internet” means “Web Applications”, like text editors and music players on the web. In theory, this is okay. A site which is set up to be an online office suite would be awesome. This has no place on something like a politician’s or a business’ website. Ajax means “Asynchronous JavaScript and XML”, which basically means “integration”, which basically means "masturbation with JavaScript and XML so that you have 10KB of code per 1KB of content, and a cluttered, awful screen. XML is a thing that supports a **load of languages (like RSS and XHTML), but is horribly overused.
[]CSS–CSS is great, and nearly all websites should have it to keep a clean, even, design. No one really doesn’t support CSS, however. This isn’t a Web 2.0-only thing. Saying CSS is a Web 2.0 attribute is like saying that an anti-rape attitude is a Republican attribute. Sure, it is, but that doesn’t mean the other camp has different beliefs…
[]Semantically valid XHTML markup and the use of Microformats–I disagree with the purpose of XHTML. Although HTML 1.0 is outdated by the vast, HTML 4.1 is fine (if not taking it a bit too far). As much as W3C crusades against the “b” tag in favor of the “strong” tag (which incidentally I use, and I don’t know why), I don’t give a *. I think code should not be sloppy, and I am very opposed to DreamWeaver and other HTML editors (for that reason). If you click the HTML images on some pages, you see a lot of errors, the vast majority of which are HTML 4.1 valid, and none of which make an impact on how this pages looks in Internet Explorer, Safari, Camino, Firefox, Opera, Mozilla, K-Meleon, or pretty much any other browser with a market share over 0.01. And it probably will for the foreseeable future. As for microformats, **** that. My code is legible and not meant to be aesthetically pleasing. If you want source code to please your eyes, you seriously need to get ed. The site looks nice and that’s all the counts, heads.
[]Syndication and aggregation of data in RSS/Atom– RSS. **** RSS. **** RSS. RSS is a ty thing for lazy people (nerdy people). It’s for the common people, but only internet junkies use it, and it will always be like that. **** RSS Feeds, Atom Feeds, web feeds, and anything related. If you don’t know what this is, I envy you. Just know to avoid and never use RSS. It is pointless. If you want to know when there’s an update, check! No reason to make a big production over something that takes three seconds, douches.
[]Clean and meaningful URLs–Yes, yes, I agree with this, everyone does, see “CSS”.
[]Extensive use of folksonomies–Stupid search webs that have been rendered obsolete by a previous creation, google. Pitiful.
[]Use of wiki software either completely or partially–I can see partial use for an informational base of a website, but no other reason. All-wiki sites that are not WikiProjects or WikiProject spinoffs of information and entertainment are retarded. Re-ing-tarded. I don’t know what douche thought of this idea. Probably thought of the Electoral College as well.
[]Weblog publishing–“Blog” is an idiotic buzzword for "random bull". I can rant and rave about how terrible blogs are, but it’s easier to link you to Maddox’s Page on blogs, which says “The word “blog” is literally shorthand for “boring;” a vulgar, overused word that strikes your ear with the dull thud of a cudgel to the soft spot of a child. It’s an abbreviation used by journalism drop outs to give legitimacy to their shallow opinions and amateur photography that seems to be permanently stuck in first draft hell.”
[]Mashups–A Mashup is something that “combines content”, which “forms an integrated experience”. That bull roughly translates to “a web program that does two or more things”. While not a bad idea, it’s used in all the wrong places, just to look cool, while serving no purpose.
[]REST or XML Webservice APIs–I don’t even know what the hell REST is, but I’m sure it’s retarded. I can decipher what XML Webservice APIs are, but it seems worthless and hollow, like “HTML Blogospheric CPUs”. You’ll be seeing those in the future, I’m sure.[/LIST] ** What does a Web 2.0 Website Look Like? **
Like [Myspace, or [URL="http://yahoo.com/"]Yahoo, but especially myspace, and any blog or social networking site (what purpose do they serve again? Nothing? Oh). Yahoo actually has a good excuse for looking like that (it has a purpose, and it wants to showcase its billions of services), but it still looks annoying. Hell, even [URL="http://johnedwards.com/"]John Edward's Web Site](http://myspace.com/) (touted by Newsweek as the most "sophisticated" one for any 2008 candidate, like they know what the **** they're talking about) is Web 2.0. Why? I have no idea...
Incidentally, by linking to myspace and other retarded sites, I increase their standing on search engines. That’s okay, though, because it keeps the idiots off of this site.
** What Other Things About Web 2.0 Suck? **
I can’t emphasize how much I hate style over content. Also, tacky bull**** like flash introductions (or entire sites in flash) really piss me off. HTML is there for a reason, and what if some of us don’t have plug-ins? Again, avoid HTML Hell. Also, things like entire sites in tables, entire sites in images where text will do just as fine, common courtesy like putting in alts for your images, and putting in crap like background MIDI, background Shockwave, Flash, and other such things piss everyone off. No one likes pop-ups, marquees, blinking text, instructions on how to view a web page, or things that destroy the retinas. Again, this is less about Web 2.0 and more about bad web design (they go hand in hand). ** What Should a Website Look Like? **
Good question. Like [The Best Page in the Universe. Or [URL="http://oramus.org/"]Oramus](http://google.com%3c/a%3EGoogle%3C/a%3E.%20Or%20%3Ca%20href=). Actually, I don't care what it look likes. Really any technology has its place, and some websites need to be complicated, some sites need Java, and some sites need XSL, and some sites need RSS. For good reasons. But the vast majority do not. There's three things that make a website decent, and any other website worthwhile, and any website that doesn't meet them fails the Good Site test. First, content (whether information, commerce, entertainment, or functionality) over coding and useless features. It needs to have a purpose. Secondly, it needs to not look like ****, without appalling HTML and color schemes, without tons of clutter, without bull**** banners and without worthless features all over the place. Thirdly, it needs to not have RSS, Ajax, or any other bull**** except for sites that need it. Myspace, John Edwards, I say this to you: Get off my internets.