Tony says he’s had a hard time persuading Portals to ‘get’ the advantages of Web2.0. I guess the portals would get Web2.0 from a usability perspective. It makes sense for them not to divert a little effort to it - most of Web2.0 can be built for very little cost on top of existing functionality (it’s not rocket science after all!) But then - some of them have been around long enough to want to try to fall into the ‘bank’ category - i.e. safe, well established, not fly-by-night, hands rather than vapour-ware selling, hysterical, flipperty-gibbets that sound cool but are actually teflon to users. Perhaps by being conservative the portals are hoping avoid the share-price re-adjustment (collapse) that will inevitably come after web2.0 gets exposed as a minor technical fusion rather than the major technological quantum leap that all of it’s evangelists would have us believe!
I can’t personally stand expending my web-time on a site with only one concept - the signal-to-noise ratio is too low. I prefer web2.0 sites like wikipedia where there is content worth reading rather than the banal opinions of strangers.
I enjoyed venting these opinions so much I decided to blog them ;-) Perhaps that’s the appeal of blogging - it’s cathartic. Maybe it’s like undressing in a remote place - there’s always the thrill that you might get caught by someone.