Lets Hear It For Web 0 1

Lets Hear It For Web 0 1



It's November 2018. So far the​ Web 2.0 bubble hasn't burst. Here's my attempt to​ put a​ pin-prick in​ it.

Don't know what Web 2.0 is? It's the​ notion that the​ next phase of​ web development is​ based on user-generated content. _You_ don't have to​ write it, your visitors will.

- You get a​ CMS (a Content Management System, like PHPNuke).
- Users write reviews, blogs, forum posts (Webmasterworld.com).
- Search engines index this stuff (Google.com).
- Users tell their pals about it​ (MySpace.Com).
- You spend a​ few thousand bucks, or​ a​ few million, depending on how good your chief coder is.
- the​ thing sells itself (Digg.Com).
- You add contextual ads (Google Adsense).
- Fire off a​ couple of​ emails a​ day, and​ bank your cheques.

For the​ small-to-medium webmaster, this can be the​ route to​ disaster. Here's my experience.

See, I was in​ favour of​ user contribution. Gives people something to​ _do_ on a​ site. if​ it's any good, they'll tell their pals. More traffic.

So I have chat rooms, a​ forum, a​ MySpace clone, a​ dating service, contact forms, ebooks, free software, the​ whole shebang. All humming away, all bringing in​ links, all keeping my visitors amused and​ informed.

Only problem is, the​ set-up time. the​ maintenance. the​ customisation. the​ search engine optimisation. the​ hacking attempts. the​ anti-hacking. the​ bug fixes. the​ security updates. the​ swearing filters. the​ troll kicking. the​ screeching. the​ spamming.

More bandwidth, more databases, more time, more money, more worry.

YouTube.com is​ a​ good example. Their business model is​ using pirated content. They have to​ police users. Bandwidth costs must be huge. Where's the​ money going to​ come from: ads in​ pirated videos? Gimme a​ break.

For any web business, the​ basic questions are:

- What makes the​ money?
- What helps make the​ money?
- Where is​ the​ net profit coming from?

Could your site be better served by static HTML pages which you update once every six months? if​ your site is​ purely informational, it's worth considering.

My epiphany came when first some Bahraini hackers clobbered a​ site of​ mine. I fixed it. Then some Turkish ones had a​ go. So I changed to​ a​ different CMS. So far, so good, until I realised I would have to​ constantly update this thing.

It then dawned on me that using a​ text-to-HTML converter (Text2html) and​ an​ index generator (dirhtml) meant simple text files could be turned into a​ basic site quickly.

You write it, format it, tart it​ up in​ Dreamweaver, index it, FTP it​ and​ voila!; a​ mini site without the​ upgrade headaches.

A CMS has some handy features, but pure HTML lets you sleep easier. Easier to​ move when the​ poop hits the​ air-conditioning, too.

Put it​ this way: which would you rather own when the​ Nazis are closing in? Damien Hirst's 'Shark in​ a​ Tank' or​ the​ Mona Lisa?

I'm starting to​ think before I put stuff up now. Would simple HTML do just as​ well? Suppose I have to​ move web hosts? Will I be able to​ find one that'll give me ten MySQL databases at​ the​ same price as​ my current host? and​ all the​ other features I need? (Answer: No, I've looked).

The first rule of​ computing is​ KISS; Keep it​ Simple, Stupid. With all the​ brouhaha about Web 2.0, I say, let’s hear it​ for​ Web 0.1!




You Might Also Like:




No comments:

Powered by Blogger.