homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.106.111
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 70 message thread spans 3 pages: 70 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
Is Your Site "Web 2.0" or 1.0?
Or, do you plan to go "2.0" any time soon?
FourDegreez




msg:3417961
 3:06 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

This topic came up in another thread, but I think it's an interesting question. Yes I know, "Web 2.0" is a buzz word that annoys some people. But it is also a useful term, refering to web sites that are more interactive, often having AJAX components, dynamic/user-generated content, social networking, content sharing, etc.

The 1.0 site, in contrast, would be mostly static HTML pages and/or a basic CMS, and maybe a forum or blog.

So do you have a Web 2.0 site? If not, do you plan to go in that direction? If you don't, is it because you consider Web 2.0 a passing fad, or because you just aren't interested in that type of site? If you have both types, which performs better with AdSense and why?

 

ken_b




msg:3417970
 3:20 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'm thinking my site is web 0.08 at best.

And that's mostly by intent.

europeforvisitors




msg:3417989
 3:39 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

There are some huge "Web 2.0" sites in my sector, mostly "user review" sites that depend on readers for content. I don't know how they perform with AdSense, but from the overall revenue numbers I've seen published, I get the impression that they're high-volume, low-margin operations whose traffic and revenues are driven by long-tail search referrals.

The fact that the biggest of the "user review" sites in my general category sold out to a huge e-commerce site implies that I'm not alone in being skeptical about the long-term viability of that business model.

HuskyPup




msg:3418006
 3:52 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

So do you have a Web 2.0 site?

No

If not, do you plan to go in that direction?

No plans

If you don't, is it because you consider Web 2.0 a passing fad,

Primarily

or because you just aren't interested in that type of site?

Realistically not interested since it's still a hard slog to get business users to use the Net now let alone give them even more options they either don't want to use or know how to use.

Considering the size of my widget trade industry worldwide (3+ Trillion Dollars) only a very small percentage of trade people use any of the facilities already available with, realistically, only one successful, regularly used forum board (not mine!).

My widget trade tend to prefer to still participate in physical exhibitions/fairs where they can actually see the products they are purchasing. These are specialised products and not off-the-shelf, standardised catalogue items.

I have several thousand keywords ranking #1 for many years, way before Googletime, and believe this or not I can go to exhibitions and international companies still have NOT heard of my companies or web sites!

There are many multi million Dollar corporations in my trade that do not even bother with web sites to this day, some still insist upon using faxes rather than e-mail.

If Web 2.0 ever happens in my industry I reckon I'll be well-retired or long gone.

netmeg




msg:3418012
 3:55 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

On the face of it, I like the idea of users generating my content for me, but I'm too much of an old school control freak. (Think Mandy from the Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy) 1.0 works for me and I'm sticking with it.

wyweb




msg:3418045
 4:33 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'm not even really sure what web 2.0 means.

I keep waiting for someone to explain it to me but all I see is...

-Increased interactivity between visitor and site-

How is that 2.0? To me, that's 1.0 enhanced...

wyweb




msg:3418047
 4:35 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

To address your questions;

So do you have a Web 2.0 site?

No.

If not, do you plan to go in that direction?

Maybe, I don't know...

If you don't, is it because you consider Web 2.0 a passing fad, or because you just aren't interested in that type of site?

It's because I don't even know what web 2.0 is.

If you have both types, which performs better with AdSense and why?

See above...

carpediem




msg:3418060
 4:58 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Basically, web 2.0 site is a site like myspace.

You get the idea.... it is a site where all content is user-generated mostly... which leads us to some issues like: quality of (user-generated) content, somebody has to do the "maintanance" of that content.

But it is a good thing in terms of traffic, you get repeating visitors, and if your site is cool, they will invite others to join your site, which means more and more traffic, and more and more content.

If you're making a web 2.0 site, I suggest you make a very niche oriented user community, where content that users generate will also be specific to your niche.

HuskyPup




msg:3418071
 5:06 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

I suggest you make a very niche oriented user community, where content that users generate will also be specific to your niche.

Precisely but how do you get users to interact when the majority of them either:

1. Don't want to

2. Don't have the time since they are too busy

The major problem we have had with Web 2.0 type sites is clamping down on the younger staff "messing about" rather than working.

It's a huge problem and these kids don't appreciate just how much it's costing their employers for them to have "fun". They think because it's there they have the right to access it during their work time!

wyweb




msg:3418084
 5:17 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

web 2.0 equates to forums or where users can contribute content? That's what you're saying... or did I miss something?

Again, how is this 2.0? Why not 1.0+?

wyweb




msg:3418085
 5:21 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

My opinion of web 2.0 is that it's a marketing scheme... I'm sure I'm wrong. I usually am....

I am STILL waiting for someone to adequately define just exactly what this 2.0 thing is all about. Is it new or is it just old stuff with a different name? Personally, I'm going with the latter...

netmeg




msg:3418108
 5:38 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

just old stuff with a different name

Pretty much.

It's called ** branding **...

(ork ork)

carpediem




msg:3418124
 5:46 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Look, web 2.0 is oriented towards "user-interaction" and putting users of your website in front of everything else.

It means your web site is not just for "consuming" or for passive reading... it means that your users are actively involved in your overall website content creation, be it photos, articles, stories, club reviews, travel destination reviews etc... In other words, users help you build your website.

You know, people like the idea that they are part of something big, that they are somehow contributing to the website.

That is Web 2.0.... and I agree, for some niches web 2.0 might not be the way to go.

An example of web 2.0 site is a dating site.

FourDegreez




msg:3418129
 5:48 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't want to get hung up on the debate over whether "Web 2.0" is a valid term. I would say that any site which has a high degree of user interactivity is Web 2.0. Sometimes such sites approach the level of an online app with a rich interface (think Google Maps), but usually we're talking about social bookmarking sites, social networking, content sharing sites, anything user-driven--which isn't to say all content is user-created necessarily, though that is common.

It is true, many of the concepts are not new. But people are finding new ways of applying them and creating what seem like "next gen" web sites, hence the name Web 2.0.

It's arguable, I know. But that is for another thread. Here, I'm interested in whether AdSense publishers are making any sort of transition to this type of site, how this type performs with AdSense, whether it is regarded as a fad, etc.

[edit]carpediem beat me to it![/edit]

[edited by: FourDegreez at 5:50 pm (utc) on Aug. 9, 2007]

wyweb




msg:3418154
 6:07 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

It means your web site is not just for "consuming" or for passive reading... it means that your users are actively involved in your overall website content creation, be it photos, articles, stories, club reviews, travel destination reviews etc... In other words, users help you build your website.

You've just described a forum. Way to go.

Again, how is this 2.0?

wyweb




msg:3418161
 6:17 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Forums were like what, 2005, 2006? Getting users to contribute... Or did they just start that?

That overwhelming mass of text is bound to create some interesting keyword phrases and combinations.

Oh.. that's what web 2.0 is.. flooding the net with contributed text...

Marshall




msg:3418221
 7:17 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

I think there are basically two Internets: 1.0 (business) and 2.0 (social). My business revolves around 1.0: business sites and such, no "social networks" except for a few sites that have blogs, but even then, I don't think that counts as the "business sites" do not revolve around the blogs.

Who comes up with these things any way? (Web 2.0 I mean)

Does that mean WebmasterWorld is 2.O and Brett was ahead of the times?

Marshall

[edited by: Marshall at 7:18 pm (utc) on Aug. 9, 2007]

europeforvisitors




msg:3418234
 7:28 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

I think there are basically two Internets: 1.0 (business) and 2.0 (social).

Information preceded business, and it's still very much around.

Does that mean WebmasterWorld is 2.O and Brett was ahead of the times?

Web forums aren't really anything new--they're just another implementation of online discussion groups that have been around since at least the 1980s. (FWIW, I've never found a "Web 2.0" site or forum that worked as efficiently as CompuServe did with AutoSIG nearly 20 years ago.)

As for the question of whether AdSense works will with "Web 2.0" sites, I think that depends on the topic and the audience. It might work okay on a user hotel-review site, for example, because users are using such sites to research purchases. It probably doesn't work very well on a social-networking site like MySpace where users are more interested in interacting (or in writing about themselves) than in spending money.

sailorjwd




msg:3418363
 10:09 pm on Aug 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

I think I'll skip 2.0 and wait for 2.5 - after they work the bugs out.

moTi




msg:3418537
 3:24 am on Aug 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

i think "what is web 2.0" is not the issue here. the term has been around for a while now. i'm actually surprised but i appreciate that the term comes up only now in this forum (good sign imo) :) at least, people could know what it is supposed to stand for. so back on topic!

my web sites = pretty much web 1.0

why? i've experimented a bit, but my conclusion is, web 2.0 must be only bad for adsense income:

too much hassle with creating and maintaining web 2.0 components. drives down my quality standards and takes insanely lot of time to weed out the user generated crap from the competent contributions. i better spend that time to create useful content myself (in my case: not necessarily writing myself, but out of competent sources, agency releases, good writers who actually deal with the themes they are writing about).
imo in this connection the so-called "wisdom of the crowds" is actually most of the time worse than wisdom of few experts (or one expert for that matter = the publisher).

secondly: every added user interaction feature is one more thing to distract the user from the essential: reading your content and clicking on adsense :) remember: attention span is limited. people don't click if they are busy with community features like chatting, flirting, writing messages.

look at the click rates of highly interactive websites like facebook, look at forums, interactive gaming sites.. i'm not saying these sites are pointless. actually the're a lot of fun. but in terms of adsense, they are extremely difficult.. good old one-way communication fed with ads does the trick here.

thing is, for web 2.0 sites a new form of functional advertising has yet to be found..

drall




msg:3418565
 3:58 am on Aug 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

1.0 across the board here. 2.0 is for sucker vc's and dumb investors, oh wait is it 1997 again?

FrostyMug




msg:3418567
 4:01 am on Aug 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

web 2.0 - NO

will ever be? - NO

why? I'm, as someone already said, too much of a control freak to allow users to run wild with content. It will cost me too much time to moderate. Plus, I think I'm a much better content producer than most.

I've read posts here where others stated these 2.0 sites are profitable b/c of user comments and search strings they create. I experimented and asked users to write reviews to be submitted for posting through a form on my site -- 99% were fluff type with 'I love this product. I use it all the time it never broke down'. I mean, how's that valuable SEO content? I'd rather see "I love this blue widget because it helps me pay down my mortgage'. one a very basic level, that's good SEO text.

BillyS




msg:3418786
 11:42 am on Aug 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

I was under the impression Web 2.0 was the social web where the masses created the content.

I've never been clear if forums qualify...

jecasc




msg:3418791
 11:49 am on Aug 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

I prefer not to think in those categories of Web 1.0 or 2.0 or whatever. For me technologies like Ajax are tools that I use when they are needed to achive a certain purpose. If there is not such a purpose on a website do not use the tools.

Many people see certain things on other website and think that this is so cool they need that also. And so they implement it. But that's often like buying a Ferrari because it's cool when in reality you need a truck.

Same with user generated content, blogs or podcasts. If it benefits your project and creates revenue go ahead. If not than leave it.

guru5571




msg:3418795
 11:54 am on Aug 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

I remember hearing Tim O'Reilly when he first coined the term and spoke about it publicly a few years ago. It was nebulous then as now, but at the time he was stressing new web technologies and frameworks that were maturing, like Ruby, Python, AJAX, RSS, CSS, APIs as well as the whole user generated content theme where the people produce their own media. This was all whipped up into the Web 2.0 idea with all the new VC capital being dumped on the API mashup fire like virtual gasoline. So here we are a couple years later and what do most people seem to consider Web 2.0 to be (Especially on a few other competing Webmaster forums)? I think the kids mostly consider it to be a stylistic look (you know the one) with a few javascript widgets thrown in for good measure and maybe the functionality to add comments.

guru5571




msg:3418796
 11:55 am on Aug 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

Oh I forgot tags. Tag everything with tags. As if we have nothing better to do. And spend your days in a massive multiplayer game like Second life.

piatkow




msg:3418797
 11:57 am on Aug 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

For any niche there seem to be a limited number of locations that build up a critical mass for user interaction.

The really sad converse of this was a couple I saw at a music festival wearing badges with the logo of a well known music bulletin board and badges with their on-line nicknames.

Miamacs




msg:3418799
 12:03 pm on Aug 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

I have affiliations with a web 2.0 site, but...

There are some internal debates on whether they should use AdSense or any other such ad networks. Currently they don't.

...

Having the bot determine a proper theme for the pages seems to be a very difficult task. Not to mention it's international audience, and an audience of all ages, interests, sexuality, religion and social class...

It might be getting more traffic than all the other sites I work on combined but, user contributed content / web 2.0 applications are unlikely to be SEO'd just for the AdSense bot.

So it's currently *ideal* for public awareness and branding, but not contextual ads. It's a step further down the road to play it big... with the usual ROI related problem: to work it out on all levels, they'd need a whole new department, focusing on AdSense.

There's no point, the site would lose its focus in general.
You have to forget about some revenue streams if you aim for the next step.

...

I would only wish I had a web 2.0 site on which I can experiment on. But most of such social/community sites have a VAST network of servers just to host them, which means a lot of money for keeping them online, which means you really can't steer away from the original idea / tech specs / code without substantial expenses. And not without any risks involved.

guru5571




msg:3418805
 12:12 pm on Aug 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

An example of web 2.0 site is a dating site.

Everyone in my office was on a free dating site back in 1997. Match-maker if I recall correctly, you could upload photos and everything. The guy who owned it, ran it out of his house in Houston in big server rack. I'm not sure who bought it though.

chikung




msg:3418818
 12:29 pm on Aug 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

So do you have a Web 2.0 site?

Thank god NO!

If not, do you plan to go in that direction?

I guess I will not.

If you don't, is it because you consider Web 2.0 a passing fad, or because you just aren't interested in that type of site?

I love to work on my site with my own pace. I am basically a designer and have no plans to switch to programming and handover my site to programmer. I am not interested in that type of site also.

This 70 message thread spans 3 pages: 70 ( [1] 2 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved