Comments on: Jakob Nielsen on Everyone’s Favorite Buzzword: “Web 2.0″

By: Jakob Nielsen Thinks Web 2.0 Sucks. Is He Right? - Get Elastic Ecommerce Blog

Jakob Nielsen Thinks Web 2.0 Sucks. Is He Right? - Get Elastic Ecommerce Blog — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:01:35 +0000

[...] to Howard Kaplan over at GrokDotCom for pointing out the fallacy of Nielsen’s arguments. “Aren’t websites “more usable” today than they were then? Absolutely. So, [...]

By: Hitesh Mehta

Hitesh Mehta — Thu, 17 May 2007 00:38:20 +0000

READ FULL: http://www.hiteshmehta.in/?p=8

By: Hitesh Mehta

Hitesh Mehta — Thu, 17 May 2007 00:37:31 +0000

Today, the dynamic web pages are not made in any rush hour, plenty of man hours goes in to research and a lot of effort is being put in by the group of experts to make the NEXT web2.0 product / web site totally user-friendly and easy going with the millions of users on the web.

Experts from various streams like research analyst, hardcore technical guys, business development managers, investors, Artificial Intelligence experts, SEO specialists and many others are today extremely involved in making a successful web2.0 product.

By: Jeffrey Eisenberg

Jeffrey Eisenberg — Wed, 16 May 2007 09:30:49 +0000

Dave, We couldn't disagree more. As online media grows more mainstream it will become more expensive to drive traffic and that will put pressure on sites that don't convert well. Are you aware of the average conversions rates as reported by Shop.org or e-tailing group, and the difference between them and the top performing sites? You compare Internet to other media; which other media performs the sales function or asks for a conscious level of interaction like a click?

By: Dave Carberry

Dave Carberry — Wed, 16 May 2007 08:26:21 +0000

I would agree that some sites are built incorrectly for conversions. I would tend to think though now that the industry is so main-stream that conversion won’t improve as the online population grows.

When radio or TV was just starting out I imagine that the inventory units were limited and you had special feature programming fulling sponsored. Even though it wasn’t measured – Take for example the Amos and Andy show launching in the 1930’s with Pepsodent as the sponsor. Approximately only 40% of households had one radio and the lineups were limited as well as teh advertisers. I imagine the conversion was incredible if you could track it. Fast forward to 30 second spots – 10 second spots – 95% household ownership, in car etc. Conversion has to go down. TV has seen the same effect.

As the Internet grows and the audience gets inundated there is sure to be some correlation to expansion. Agreed that sites could improve and do the basics before expanding to Web 2.0 but it seems like it could just be the nature of the beast?

By: Bryan Eisenberg

Bryan Eisenberg — Tue, 15 May 2007 01:34:07 +0000

I hope no one thinks that Howie is bashing usability. Of course you want your site to be as usable as possible. All he is saying is that we have all bought from sites that were less than usable. Haven’t you bought something you really wanted from a site that sucked (that is the Brooklyn technical term by the way)? The ‘want’ always matter more than the tool to get it.

By: Steve S

Steve S — Mon, 14 May 2007 19:10:30 +0000

The thing about the online landscape, however, is not how different it is but how similar it is to everything else that came before it. All these iterations of the web are just taking our online lives closer to our offline lives. Social networks like Digg mimic (albeit on a much larger scale) how people interact with each other to determine what is newsworthy. Generally, I balk at the idea that the internet is some new medium that is entirely different than everything else before it. The internet just provides a broader scope to real world social dynamics. Steve HowToSplitAnAtom