Post #4 Ch.5 and web 2.0

In reading Weinberger, and the web squared, and Web 2.0 articles it is obvious that the wonderful world wide web is more complex than some may imagine. It seems as though the smarter the web gets, the easier of a time we have going along with it. In chapter 5 of Weinberger he explains a lot about tagging, and how it is becoming more common for people to tag websites or certain pages on websites so whoever may be doing a similar search can find what they’re looking for easier. It is interesting how people do this because when someone might think they are helping, they could also be throwing off a search completely. Weinberger uses wikipedia as an example. If you type in a search such as say, Redmond. Which is actually a town on the westside but there are also other Redmonds in the world that are tagged, maybe even Microsoft or other well known companies may be tagged there. This makes the web even more miscellaneous than ever. The crazy thing is even with all the tagging going on it is still fairly simple to find what you’re looking for. All three articles have mentioned how influential us users are to the web, which is very true. We are the drivers of the web, and with all the searching and tagging we do we actually just make the web smarter and smarter. Referring back to the “How Google Works” video, the more miscellaneous the web gets, the harder those google spiders work, and give us what we need to find, EVEN with some ads to go along with  it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Post #4 Ch.5 and web 2.0

  1. Tagging really changes the way that we can approach information on the web. Before this sort of user interaction, whenever you wanted to find something online you had to guess what the creator of the website or the search engine thought something should be called. Which often was not exactly what you might expect, and then you had to play “guess the word” until you chanced on the right one. Now with so many people adding tags to so many things, you have a much easier time finding what you’re looking for. Even if users add strange or unexpected tags, it still adds to the pool of metadata and may be useful for someone out there.

    User content really is what the web seems to be about anymore. Sure it’s great being able to buy things on Amazon or look up company information online but that’s not really the heart of things. Wikipedia, YouTube, blogs, webcomics, Facebook; all user driven “platforms”, and without them the web would be a much less interesting place.

  2. Alicia Carlson says:

    ya i agree, even with the complex nature of trying to narrow your search we know how to input keywords into phrases that will garner specifically what we want. Then most of the time we can scroll down the page, see if we found what we need, and modify it through guess and check to get what we want! just like rifling through the silverware in Weinberger, we will shuffle until we find what we need.

  3. tom benda says:

    It’s worth noting how much the web has changed since the beginning as well. Before Google, all you had were extremely limited search systems like Lycos and Excite – dumb systems to a very large extent. If you wanted a piece of information, you’d get back a bunch of pages that contained the words you were looking for – specifically the first bunch that bothered putting them in their HTML META tags. Often you’d get back nothing – or what you’d get back was useless. Yahoo! was better if you were looking for something general – because their index was mostly hand-built, you could home in on the type of information you wanted and scroll through it.

    DEC gave us Altavista around 1995 and gave us a slightly better search – notably it had a really good Boolean search – “sea spiders” AND (diet OR hunting) – but though its search engine spiders were great, the retrieval engine was not quite there yet – it had no way of knowing what the page was about.

    People who “grew up” on the web with Google really have a different view of how to find information – Google almost understands what you’re asking it these days – it knows that not only does a page talk about sea spiders, it knows that the page is about sea spiders because of its backlinks and the degree of occurrence of the terms in your link and in the backlinks. In a way, this “new” (about 10 years in computerland is not particularly new) tag-fest is actually going to make Google dumber unless it learns some way of telling tags from actual content.

  4. Blake Chaplin says:

    I totally agree with you that the use of ‘tagging’ can extremely narrow down a search on the internet. As complex as the World Wide Web is, and as it exponentially expands and gets more complex, tagging will be a vital tool to successfully and efficiently surf the Web. The tagging concept makes navigating the Web even easier when you have a mass of tags from other users as well. Cross reference those and you will most likely find what you’re looking for instantly.

  5. aly schoonover says:

    I really liked your insight on tagging and how a person can intend to help and throw off a search completely. Tagging does as to the miscellaneousness of the web.. so fascinating. We both came out with a common theme here, that we as users have a huge influence on the web. You said it well: “We are the divers”

  6. Kristin Arola says:

    Tom reminds me of good ol’ Alta Vista. I remember when it came it out and how amazing the boolean search seemed to most people I knew. Tagging I think has a lot of benefits, but also suffers from the unreliability of human beings own subjectivity.

    Anyhow, your references here to W are pretty solid, but I do wish you made the connects to the Web 2.0 & Squared articles a bit clearer (a few quotes, direct shout outs, etc). Thanks.

  7. Simon Christensen says:

    i agree with the points you made about the relevance tagging has in heavily expediting a really is incredible how much information is available to use and how specific tagging allows us to find exactly what we are look for with relative ease—-for the most part. this was a good analysis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s