In Search Of Stuff

isos Declare Web 2.0 2.0 Be A Total Load of Steaming Number 2.0s

Here @ isos, we have never seen a bandwagon we didn’t want to jump on. From VoIP to Google and Mozilla, isos leads the way in following the crowd, and isos have been early adopters of so many terms, products and theories it is hard to keep track.

Sometimes, this bandwagon jumping is caused by a deep-seated sense of an idea / term / product’s potential. But more often than not, let’s be frank, it is usually just because we are a bunch of tossers that like to sound smarter, hipper, funkier, sexier and younger than we are and are morbidly frightened of being left behind by younger, smarter, hipper, funkier and sexier people. But, like, whatever dude!

Of course, every silver lining has a cloud, and the downside of our early adopting ways is that we have been burnt. And burnt badly. For every Google that we hype and end up looking smart over, we have been hit by a Boo.com that really stung us. And that one continues to rankle to this very day.

Which brings us full circle to Web 2.0. As part of our deluded psychosis, we recently discussed renaming ourselves isos web 2.0: In Search of the Long Blogosphere Tail With Podcasting, VoIP Underpinnings. We thought “Web 2.0; I like it. Lets get on board FAST and put it in our name so we look super cool and hip and everyone thinks we are trendsetters and sooo happening”.

But then we started having doubts.

Grave doubts.

Was Web 2.0 really worth the hype? Should we really adopt it as part of our name? Was Web 2.0 really that good? Heck, what IS web 2.0?

Well, isos have decided that Web 2.0, as a buzzword, is no good. There are many reasons why we came to the conclusion that Web 2.0 sucks, chief amongst them:

• It is a point 0 release

If I learnt nothing from my IT degree (and it was a close run thing), I learnt that point 0 releases are notoriously problematic. “Wait for at least the next release” I was told again and again. “Point 0 releases suck, are unstable and buggy.”

Web 2.0, as a poorly conceived point 0 release, is bound to have major issues. As such, isos are advising everyone to be wary of Web 2.0 until the first stable release. We are not sure whether that will be Web 2.0.X or whether, following the Linux lead, we will need to wait a whole generation for the next even numbered minor version release. Our guess is that a lot of the issues with the moniker Web 2.0 will be worked out in due course, and that people should really hold out for Web 2.2 or even Web 2.4 before getting all hot and worked up and using it in like meetings and stuff. Which brings us to:

• Web 2.0 Has Zero Consulting Cool

Try saying “Web 2.0″ in a meeting and see how far it gets you. I can almost guarantee that no one will mumble “Web 2.0… yeh, Web 2.0. We need to think about Web 2.0. It is vital we are ahead of the Web 2.0 curve. Web 2.0 is everything.”

Quite frankly, until Web 2.0 makes it into Meeting Bingo, isos can’t promote the term to fellow buzzword toting, no original idea thinking tossers anywhere. For the time being, isos advise sticking with old faithfuls like “synergy”, “ROI”, “Core Demographics” and “value-added” in big meetings.

We at isos have some confidence in Web 2.2’s potential in meetings but, realistically, a full generational change, and the emergence of Web 3.0 is probably required before consultants everywhere have a new BS term to add to their already well stocked BS Vocabulary.

• Web 2.0 just seems to be about stupid names

“Shoposphere“. I repeat: shoposphere. What next, loveosphere, the dating site? Or maybe loanosphere the mortgage broker and petfoodosphere the organic pet food people. Enough already with the bad names and the “osheres”. If that is the best web 2.0 has to offer, well, innovation truly is dead, and Web 3.0 is our only hope.

• All Those Supporting Web 2.0 Are Geeks Who Seemed To Miss the Web 1.0 Gold Rush And Want A Second Chance At The Fools And Their Easily Parted Money

So the closest you got to the dotcom bubble was saying to a friend “I am going to go to the Valley and join a start up”. So you don’t drive a fast car, have a girlfriend that is stunning or, well, a girlfriend at all. All because you missed out on your God given right to sell snake oil to the unsuspecting populace. What are you to do?

Why I know, some geek thought, lets peddle out the same Number 2.0s from first time around, call it Web 2.0, and see if we can convince people the good times are back. After all, who thinks the new generation can’t squander millions on Ping-Pong tables and “massages” just as effectively as those of yore?

And hey, if it doesn’t work, why not just release Web 3.0 and see how that goes? There are an infinite number of numbers, and surely by Web 9999.0 fame, fortune a nice car and a breathing, non-virtual girlfriend will again be the Geek’s divine destiny.

Dream on!

So, in isos opinion, if it sounds like a number 2.0, it looks like a number 2.0, and tastes.. no scratch that last one, if it smells like a number 2.0, it probably is a load of number 2.0s, and Web 2.0, well, it really is a load of crap!

3 comments November 20th, 2005

ISoS Change Tact: Exploit Non-Search Stereotypes for Laughs

Tired of exploiting the stereotypes about searchers and Search Engines, and in a hopeless attempt to broaden our appeal beyond SEM geeks, ISoS have instead turned our razor sharp wit and biting satire to another stereotype, George W Bush’s famed stupidity.

Utilising competitor analysis data pulled from ISP logs situated outside the Whitehouse and Camp David, fictional competitive research company B.I.N. (Big Important Nam) inc, utilising their Market Analysis Charting Guru Companion 2005 Lite Suite, have been able to plot and graph what exactly Doubleya was searching for on given dates. The following graph shows common, big ticket searches, or the “head terms” Bush Googled:

The most interesting snippets include:

• Doubleya’s discovery of Google in January 2003 has resulted in a flurry of Googling ever since. It seems Doubleya’s obsession began with [Miserable Failure]. Ever since, it appears that first thing he does when he gets to work, when he works, right at the crack of noon, is Google [miserable failure]. Confidential ISoS Whitehouse correspondents have told us that, so concerned was Doubleya at this SERP, that they secretly had the results switched in May, with Mike Moore first, followed by Hillary Clinton and George third. Doubleya was apparently so overjoyed at being “fourth” (sic), that he took a holiday to celebrate. That said, they did notice that the rate of clicks for the number one ranked site dropped from 42% to 38% after his change was made, proving that Bush was a far better choice as the most relevant result, and further reinforcing independent research.
• Before the invasion of Iraq, Doubleya made several searches such as [should I invade I rack] (sic), [where is Iraq] and [is Iraq sunny this time of year]. No one is sure if these Googlings returned the “right” answers, although subsequent searches ([has Iraq war started yet]) seem to indicate they did.
• During the Hurricane Katrina crisis and in the early aftermath, the search phrase [where is new aweleans] showed up. This was quickly followed, in classic search usage progression, by more targeted searches like [is new orleans in america], [how from my ranch is new orleans] and [if I went to new orleans, would I still be in America]. As the crisis escalated, searches such as [what do fema do], [how do they name hurricanes] and [good spot for fly fishing] became increasingly common.
• Underage drinking featured heavily, no surprise given Barb jnr’s run ins with the law. His Chillen seem to be a problem a lot, as [ask dr phil how to be better parent] was a frequent search, as was [does the naughty spot work on teenagers] after the launch of Supernanny, rumoured to be the President’s favourite show.
• Despite being all grown up and president of the most powerful country in the world, Doubleya still suffers anxiety. [does daddy love me] and [am as good a presidant as daddy] (sic) were frequent searches for the President.
• Despite strong fundamental Christian views and support, it appears Doubleya has frequent lapses of faith. Doubleya Googled [is god real], [what is evolootion] (sic), [did we really descend from monkeys] and [is evolution why arnie looks like a gorilla] soon after the “Intelligent design” debate began.

The UK division of BIN supplied results for Blair, but all he ever seemed to Google was [cheap makeup delivered].

1 comment October 20th, 2005