Living on the Edge

"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."

-Tim O'Reilly, What is Web 2.0

In short, Web 2.0 is the web I've unknowingly watched come to fruition throughout my 21 year childhood (I just turned into an adult, so I can write about those days fondly and with much wisdom from hindsight.-- One drawback to written communication via the internet? Communication tools such as the sarcasm I just called upon are less easily detected. So I'll just blatantly call the sarcasm. I digress). I've always known the internet to be a progressive entity-- always changing. Up until reading, "Web 2.0," however, I always attributed changes in web technology to the collective ideas it embraces and allow. I never before thought that somewhere in the history of the internet there was a monumental shift in software framework to allow the existence of that collective fluidity.

I suppose my point is that there was a change that occurred, allowing for the inclusion of many people as cooperative programmers and administrators, before the web as I know and engage it became possible. Technology's own survival of the fittest, if you will. I never knew to distinguish between 1.0 and its superior sequel-- the age of flickr and wordpress and google and geeks being cool.

I'm glad to know of the literally life-changing change of focus for web features, because as a person very much on the edge of self-service and data management (as in not one of the majorly contributing, centralized and crucial computer geeks) I am one of those lives changed by the 2.0. I am no stranger to advocating its benefits-- even before I could put my finger on the details of the technological innovations geared towards a broadening user base, I was preaching its gospel. That is, I became the first amongst my group of friends to engage the web through blogging, flickr, twitter, and youtube (I feel like that sounded like I'm trying to make myself sound cool, when I am well aware that the phenomenon of the modern internet is made possible by the fact that many thousands were joining in these programs at the same time as me. Thus, I am not that cool. But then, these advancements make each person feel that cool. That's the magic of playing the web towards participation). Even then, I believed strongly in the power of the potential audience out there through the world wide web. What makes Web 2.0 run, though, is not the volume of the audience, but rather the volume of users.

Web 2.0 is marked by a list of competencies expected of each new company. The first item on the list is a company characterized by free services (ie, the database that is google) as opposed to the obligation to purchase a server and individual software tools. As seen in the decline of Doubleclick and the subsequent rise of Overture, as in the rise and fall of Netscape, Web 2.0 is not so much about publishing or the power exerted by advertisers as it is so much about consumer participation and the collective power of many small sites.

A second requirement for a 2.0 company is the control of data sources-- exemplified by hyperlinking (driven by repetition and intensity), yahoo! for cataloguing information, ebay for collective market exchange, and Amazon (utilizing user engagement to distinguish itself from other data sources). Insights from these basic principles lend themselves to the creation of even stronger links that do not just control information sharing between 2 sites, but rather allow for a continuous stream of information from any given site.

The third competency deals with owning an application's core data, given that the majority of information on the internet is not actually published with rights. It is not only important to own the core data, though-- 2.0 is largely based on trusting people with dispersing that data and letting go of the hard boundaries of copyright. Fourthly, Web 2.0 exists to provide a service, not to sell a product. It wasn't until reading this that I thought to be truly appreciative of the free service of google and flickr.

The fifth principle stems from the idea of free information sharing-- making data available to different audiences through syndication instead of controlling information at strictly two ends. Number six involves making use of the web and the design of 2.0 to give quality to single devices not traditionally tied to the software of any one computer. Number seven leaves the door open for more successful models for business and development, driven by the competitive nature of growing user experience.

This is the nature of the modern internet. There are still questions in my mind regarding the collective function of (what are to me) broad terms such as server and interface and domain and software and coding. But I recognized in this article's description of 2.0 the face of the internet I have come to know well--as a person merely populating the edge of the web with a little blog space and some flickr photos.