top bar
QuickTopic free message boards logo
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

The Web is *not* boring

7
Ray Davis
03-29-2002
06:45 PM ET (US)
To provide new content, because that's what comments were invented for:

In January 1994, I was thrilled with the Web because I was able to read (OK, look at) the opening of the Divine Comedy in Italian for my 35th birthday. And I still am, for the same reason.
6
Ray Davis
03-29-2002
06:43 PM ET (US)
To quote myself, because that's one of the things that writing was invented for:

Next week's headlines: "My Armpit Noises Didn't Land Me That Promotion After All," "Frat Boys Complain: The Spark Is Gone From Drunken Vomiting," and "'Which X Are You?' Quizzes Somehow Seem Less Accurate Now That I'm Divorced with No Health Insurance and Two Children to Support"!
5
Carl Beeth
03-29-2002
02:39 PM ET (US)
From the article:

...People averaged 90 minutes per online session. A year later, when the same people were polled, that number had dropped to 83 minutes...


Google alone can account for that time dip! Remember using Altavista or hotbot one had to always dig around in the returned links, these days I rarely go past the first page of results.
Edited 03-29-2002 02:40 PM
4
Zed Lopez
03-29-2002
01:09 PM ET (US)
They have half a point, but I think they missed what it is: the web isn't a novelty anymore, and so all the new stuff on the web doesn't automatically have the cachet of novelty, and so warrants consideration on its own terms. Things were fun and exciting back when everything that was happening on the web was happening for the first time. I mean, Sho's lunch server was cool, back in the day when it was some of the most dynamic content on the web. It'd be the stupidest thing around, today. (But, of course ,the article isn't even thinking back that far.)

And considered on its own terms, I think there's obviously tons more good fun and good serious out there than ever -- and finding it is more than ever like drinking from a firehose. If you're going to find it, you need to put in at least some effort to look -- for instance by checking out a couple of good blogs, like Dave says. I get no impression that the article's author bothered to do so.
3
Albert
03-29-2002
12:32 PM ET (US)
Ohmigod ... the internet is so 2000 ... I can't believe you're still serious about this little web thing ... when are you going to get a real job, you know, like your father ...

geez.
2
Dave
03-29-2002
11:18 AM ET (US)
As someone over on mefi wrote about this topic, "Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, New York Times..."

If anything, the web has become so diverse that it's almost overwhelming. I find myself going to the same 20 or so weblogs and rely on them to ferret out the wheat from the chaff for me. To do otherwise would mean I would spend all my time searching for new stuff, rather than loading and reloading and rereloading metafilter and boingboing all day.

Serve it up to me on a platter, boys!
1
Brian Carnell
03-29-2002
09:36 AM ET (US)
Notice, though, that it's a lose-lose proposition.

When the web was filled with these goofy pages the line was, "We have all this technology and all people are using it for is to watch the Hamster Dance."

Now that people are creating weblogs and using the web to have some rather intense discussions about everything under the sun, now the NYT pulls out the "Where did all the fun go?" nonsense.

If you're posting pictures of your cat, you're being frivolous. If you're posting your analysis of Middle Eastern politics, you've taken all of the fun out of the Internet.

Sounds like the NYT really was "trolling" in that story.

Print | RSS Views: 1095 (Unique: 653 ) / Subscribers: 1 | What's this?