<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Web 2.0: Buzzwords Reloaded</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lifespy.com/2006/web-20-buzzwords-reloaded/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lifespy.com/2006/web-20-buzzwords-reloaded/</link>
	<description>analyzing lifestyles</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:13:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.lifespy.com/2006/web-20-buzzwords-reloaded/#comment-14</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:30:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifespy.com/2006/web-20-buzzwords-reloaded/#comment-14</guid>
		<description>Well, first off there is Slashdot's look, as well as the lack of social control. People love the mob rule mentality, and actually it has become more and more part of the "web 2.0" experience. 

I know Slashdot is a great resource, and as Digg becomes more popular, it becomes more polluted, but there is still something about it that people love. 

While I keep hoping for a Web 2.1 version of Digg where there is more of a Contributor - Moderator - Admin aspect more like Slashdot's editors, I think Digg in its current form will continue to be a popular "Web 2.0" resource.

Also, please don't think that a Web 1.0 site is not as good as a Web 2.0 site. Just because we deem one site Web 2.0, does not mean its a better version than anything else out there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, first off there is Slashdot&#8217;s look, as well as the lack of social control. People love the mob rule mentality, and actually it has become more and more part of the &#8220;web 2.0&#8243; experience. </p>
<p>I know Slashdot is a great resource, and as Digg becomes more popular, it becomes more polluted, but there is still something about it that people love. </p>
<p>While I keep hoping for a Web 2.1 version of Digg where there is more of a Contributor - Moderator - Admin aspect more like Slashdot&#8217;s editors, I think Digg in its current form will continue to be a popular &#8220;Web 2.0&#8243; resource.</p>
<p>Also, please don&#8217;t think that a Web 1.0 site is not as good as a Web 2.0 site. Just because we deem one site Web 2.0, does not mean its a better version than anything else out there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adrian Lee</title>
		<link>http://www.lifespy.com/2006/web-20-buzzwords-reloaded/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:24:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifespy.com/2006/web-20-buzzwords-reloaded/#comment-13</guid>
		<description>How come Slashdot is web 1.0, but Digg is web 2.0?
About the only difference is editorial content.

In Slashdot someone decides if a story should be on the page, in Digg, it's down to mob tactics and whether enough 12 year olds think it's 'cool'.  On slashdot the 12 year olds are at least restricted to comments only.

web 2.0 needs editorial as well.  It's good that more people can get content online more easily, but there needs to be some quality editorial control around as well.  And Digg is not editorial control....  There's a huge amount of crap voted for by the 'general public'.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How come Slashdot is web 1.0, but Digg is web 2.0?<br />
About the only difference is editorial content.</p>
<p>In Slashdot someone decides if a story should be on the page, in Digg, it&#8217;s down to mob tactics and whether enough 12 year olds think it&#8217;s &#8216;cool&#8217;.  On slashdot the 12 year olds are at least restricted to comments only.</p>
<p>web 2.0 needs editorial as well.  It&#8217;s good that more people can get content online more easily, but there needs to be some quality editorial control around as well.  And Digg is not editorial control&#8230;.  There&#8217;s a huge amount of crap voted for by the &#8216;general public&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Andersen &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Web 2.0: Buzzwords Reloaded</title>
		<link>http://www.lifespy.com/2006/web-20-buzzwords-reloaded/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Andersen &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Web 2.0: Buzzwords Reloaded</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:35:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifespy.com/2006/web-20-buzzwords-reloaded/#comment-11</guid>
		<description>[...] If youâ€™re anywhere within the buying, designing or developing sectors of websites then you have probably heard this new buzzword in the air, Web 2.0. Iâ€™m certain some of you who might not have heard of this before suddenly had a thought pop into to your mind along the lines of: â€œthe web has a version? Will this affect me? How do I conform?â€ Well, letâ€™s not have an anxiety attack; I will introduce you to it. Web 2.0 is the new direction that websites are taking in order to keep up with the evolving world we are in. Read the rest of this entry Â» [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] If youâ€™re anywhere within the buying, designing or developing sectors of websites then you have probably heard this new buzzword in the air, Web 2.0. Iâ€™m certain some of you who might not have heard of this before suddenly had a thought pop into to your mind along the lines of: â€œthe web has a version? Will this affect me? How do I conform?â€ Well, letâ€™s not have an anxiety attack; I will introduce you to it. Web 2.0 is the new direction that websites are taking in order to keep up with the evolving world we are in. Read the rest of this entry Â» [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
