moTi - 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..