Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Grand Unified Theory of YouTube and MySpace

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the weighty-internet-concerns dept.

Ant writes "Paul Boutin's Slate article explains the factors contributing to the success YouTube and MySpace: they are easy to use (usability), and they don't 'tell you what to do.'" From the article: "Both YouTube and MySpace fit the textbook definition of Web 2.0, that hypothetical next-generation Internet where people contribute as easily as they consume. Even self-described late adopters like New York editor Kurt Andersen recognize that that by letting everyone contribute, these sites have reached a critical mass where 'a real network effect has kicked in.'"

15 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe a little too much? by eepman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Once myspace lets those kids design their own sites with their own colors (namely black on black) it sort of defeats the purpose of the site. I guess there isnt a way it could be fixed though.

    --
    ^Tetris is so unrealistic.^
    I
  2. Tell people how to do it right... by puregen1us · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "They are easy to use (usability), and they don't 'tell you what to do.'"

    Which is one of the main reasons I hate MySpace. Aside from it being slow, I loathe that it is so easy to customise. It means that every person can mess up the CSS and HTML and destroy the look and feel of the site. By not telling people what to do they all run off and do things I that damage the site.

    Of course, they all think their own page with a flashing bright backgroud, three different audio tracks playing, and text that blends into the every other item to make it unreadable is just beautiful.

    1. Re:Tell people how to do it right... by Skadet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think this is a symptom of the web as a whole anymore. In general, easier something is to do, the more the distribution of quality approaches a bell curve. That's what the web is today: myriad mediocre sites, with a spattering of terrible and excellent ones.

      Myspace is no different.

      The web should be hard!! When I was a kid, we hand-coded in vi, dammit!

      --
      Sony ha
    2. Re:Tell people how to do it right... by aqfire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This seems pretty shortsighted to me. If you were around in 1997 you probably remember how horrid most personal websites were at the time. I even have a copy of my first website somewhere and it looks very amateur. But I remember that as my learning point. As I got more familiar with HTML i got better at design and doing what I really wanted to do with it. Truth be told, myspace has a very bad editor, and as editing becomes more intuitive I imagine people will start to do what they really want to do with their pages. You will see less horrible sites as it becomes less of a novelty--people will stop "playing" with sites like myspace and start contributing useful information and art.

    3. Re:Tell people how to do it right... by adrianmonk · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Which is one of the main reasons I hate MySpace. Aside from it being slow, I loathe that it is so easy to customise. It means that every person can mess up the CSS and HTML and destroy the look and feel of the site. By not telling people what to do they all run off and do things I that damage the site.

      I agree completely. That's why I never go to bars or clubs where they let the patrons dress themselves. Some people just end up wearing the ugliest shit, and it messes up the atmosphere when people have bad taste like that.

      Seriously, one thing I like about myspace is that it's a way to meet people, and it allows people to express themselves through their page. Some pages I really like, and some I think are just dumb and completely gaudy. And you know what? That information helps me, to some extent, figure out whether I am going to click with that person. If their page is all embedded rap videos in every corner and bright yellow text against pink with a scrolling hearts as the background, I probably don't have much in common with them. Contrariwise, somebody out there probably sees that same page and goes, "wow, nice page! that looks really awesome!", and those two people will become friends or something.

  3. Web 3.0 by reldruH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Web 2.0: A website's value increases with the number of users creating content on it
    Web 3.0: A website's value increases with the quality of the content being created

    I like the whole concept of websites providing a framework where people create their own content and network, but the quality for most of these is terrible. I can only look at so many pictures of half naked drunk teenagers before I get sick of it. Hopefully the next iteration of the web will find some way to weed out the quality content (isn't that the reason we read Slashdot?) and provide more of that.

    --
    I've always pictured the color of OS zealotry as a sort of bright flamingo pinkish hue
    1. Re:Web 3.0 by capnez · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Web 3.0: A website's value increases with the quality of the content being created
      So Wikipedia (or at least the concept) is one major version number ahead of the rest of the web...
      --
      Axe me while I slumber
  4. myspace websites? by joeldg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    all the websites on myspace look like crap..
    it is just the new geocities combined with one of those social network sites.

    I am sure they make good money on ads..

    if I see a company with a mission statement that talks about giving stuff away, lots of venture capital and no product then I will really belive that bubble2.0 has arrived..

    --
    anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
  5. It's Funny by rsmith-mac · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You know, it's funny when you think about it. For years we've had tools for people to build any webpage they want, from pure HTML up to respectable WYSIWYG editors like Dreamweaver, and the "general public" never really accepted them. It's only when you take away all their powers to create something unique and individual, and instead give them all the same boring template systems of MySpace and blogs in general, that they actually use it.

    Was this the problem the whole time? We gave users the tools to create their own individual sites, when really they just all wanted to conform to the same one?

    1. Re:It's Funny by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not really that hard to understand. Say "you can publish whatever you want for the whole world to see", and they'll think "umm... like what?" and go blank. Say "put X, Y and Z particular things online so your friends can see them", and they've got a concrete example of what they can do, and probably quite a few examples of what their friends have already done.

      As a general principle, people are more likely to go for small, tangible goals than open-ended endeavours, even if the requirements and initial results are very similar.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  6. The grand unified theory of grand unified theories by gentlemen_loser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am soooo sick of hearing about "Web 2.0". Allow me to assist the Slashdotting public in understanding the definition of "Web 2.0":

    rant
    Web 2.0 (noun, currently, wait until next week when marketing people start using it as a verb) - definition 1 - the underlying goal of the Internet as it is now finally understood by marketing majors (12 years after it first began getting popular) who never studied in college and now need a term to throw around. Thank you, masters of the obvious.

    - definition 2 - Marketing term invented by group without any real technical knowledge (who did not study in school) to reflect the type of technology that frameworks such as AJAX are now offering. Note, there was never a "Web 1.5" when flash first came out because the marketing majors were still "playing catch up".

    /rant

  7. It's down to an uninformed user base by Odiumjunkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "they don't 'tell you what to do.

    More like, you p0st t0 t3h int3rw3b without being labled a noob.

    /. doesn't "tell you what to do", but you get modded down if you post in bold ALL CAPS and you LOL too much. LOL! On myspace, you get +3 cool points for choosing a retarded colour scheme with broken CSS, and on YouTube you get thousands of video views for posting "OMG guy gets hit IN THE BALLS! LOL!" or badly cut south park excerpts.

    Like all lowest common denominators, these mainstream websites require no real thought, effort, consideration or engagement. It's nothing to do with the internet, it's everything to do with people.

  8. Re:Youtube by /dev/trash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ever see the videos posted from E! and the like? Yeah I'm positive they don't make it to the front page for free.

  9. i'm sorry, but you just can't say that by Rooked_One · · Score: 3, Insightful

    myspace is 'contributing' much. I mean, its all good if I want to know what 14 year old thinks brad pitt is hot or whatever, but as far as contributing to the intellectual community of the internet... well, I think calling myspace a glorified AOL would be pretty sufficient.

  10. You missed the point. by TCQuad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It means that every person can mess up the CSS and HTML and destroy the look and feel of the site.

    Aesthetics aside, the point of MySpace isn't to have a site with millions of users, it's to have a millions of sites linked to each other by users and friends. Your criticism is analogous to criticizing the personal sites on university servers for not having a consistent look and feel.