Webwork - 5:16 pm on Apr 1, 2009 (gmt 0)

I thought it might be interesting, too, but we don't allow specific site reviews (we discuss issues and ideas, not sites) and we don't allow site links to avoid promotional posting.

I looked at the site before removing the link and I regret to advise that the part about it being "Web 2.0" - well, it wasn't all the compelling.

My friends in the industry suggest that "flat directories" - listings only, such as the static listings that once appeared in print directories - have only so much user appeal. Some argue for the integration of ratings and reviews. Some argue for the addition of greater UGC or other information.

What's Web 2.0 when it comes to a directory? It's an interesting question, which is why - despite the "look at my site" opening post - this thread was allowed to run, to see if there has been any progress.

Web 2.0 is what? Social engagement? Voting? Reviews and ratings? All this, everywhere and all the time, or "there's no value"? Just how valid and valuable are the ratings anyway? What happens when the countermeasures start taking hold and every business starts inserting their own ratings? It will come to this.

Maps are a Web 2.0 "must have" with listings? Probably a good idea. Is a directory that's not "designed for the last step" a loser in the making?

Is slathered on social engagement now the one size fits all standard? If you ain't got it you ain't got it? Directory "as community"? Is this a call to return to the original Yahoo model - directory as portal?

[edited by: Webwork at 9:45 pm (utc) on April 1, 2009]