Slashdot Mirror
A Grand Unified Theory of YouTube and MySpace
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.'"
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
isn't described by what the interface looks like or how easy it is to use.
Everybody knows myspace is just a place to get laid
-gjr
"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.
...teenage girls
OMG!!1! ponies!!!1!!
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
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.
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
The prosecution rests.
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?
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
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".
hey are easy to use (usability)
I feel this is the single most important factor in any software design be it applications, games, websites, etc... However, I have a myspace site and I find it cumbersome. Editing different things on the page are in different places. It really feels like something a programmer threw together and not something that was designed with usability in mind.
I come from a HTML background. Customizing MySpace has not been easy for me.
I am not sure, but I believe that is why there are programs out there that will do it for you. If it was so easy to customize, I doubt there would be a market for middleware design apps.
As for youtube, it is easy and straight forward. I would not call that usability, but it's just as good in my book.
RTFG - Read The F#$%ing Google!
Q: What's something kids love that's ugly, bloated, slow, and constantly goes down on them?
A: Michael Jackson!
Uh, I mean, MySpace!!
Sony ha
Can someone explain the YouTube business model? It neither directly charges its users nor sells ad space, and streaming video takes a ton of storage and bandwidth. How are they keeping it up?
I'm not using myspace, nor I ever will. But that reminds me of google pages.
:)
Just today my wife complained that she had no easy way of publishing photos of our two small dughters (2 year old, and 1 month old) since I turned down my websever and never found time to bring it back up. Quick thought about google pages, and I logged her with her gmail account. She created a webpage with drag'n'drop in just three minutes and she was in hurry, because she was just leaving for a bus. Before she left I could give URL to some of my friends. I was amazed at how google pages were easy to use.
She is not a techie
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
"they don't 'tell you what to do.
/. 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.
More like, you p0st t0 t3h int3rw3b without being labled a noob.
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.
According to my extensive research, MySpace can be described by a non-abelian gauge theory with special unitary group SU(CK). Most of its pages are homeomorphic to terrible Geocities pages from 1997. Chromodynamic theories suggest that unlike the red, green, and blue of quarks, the colors of a MySpace page are limited to fluorescent pink, black, and a text color whose hue is optimized to minizime contrast with the background. An currently unresolved question is whether every page on my space is invariant under an embedded Mike Jones song.
Are the reason that Myspace and Youtube are successful. All they care about is meeting people, chatting away and sharing photos (and the blokes just want to hit on the girls.) And much like in real life, people congregate towards a central place that is free, available and simple to use.
:)
Myspace is the carpark of the internet, and YouTube is the cinema
£5.99 domain registration/transfer: the cheapest in Europe
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.
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.
I loathe the 'Web 2.0' buzzword, but there is NOTHING 'Web 2.0' about MySpace. Even its journal lacks RSS support.
MyTubeSpace4You?
youhavespaceinmytube.com... or maybe spacemytube.com or even my_space_your_tube.com?
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.