Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the blog broke the web (2017)

stackingthebricks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 120 posts

Re: How the blog broke the web (2017)

#51

Post by thewakalix »

mansoon wrote: post #32
orthoxerox wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What the author is bemoaning is the loss of the eclectic, bespoke, personal-style of homepage that existed in the early web. These sites still exist of course, they're just a much smaller percentage of the content. When I stumble upon a Web 1.0 living fossil, it's a delight every time. Someone felt an overpowering need to say something, they made a website about their favorite topic (be that shoelace knots, unsolve…

All relationships are parasocial.

No, some are simply social.

Re: How the blog broke the web (2017)

#52

Post by giancarlostoro »

nickelpro wrote: post #9

Reference sites still exist, Wikipedia isn't organized by reverse-chronological and MediaWiki is a far more formidable CMS than MT ever was. Same goes for ReadTheDocs, Sphinx, Jekyll, Hugo, or any number of static site generators that power the infinite libraries of documentation, reference material, and personal sites on the web. What the author is bemoaning is the loss of the eclectic, bespoke, personal-style of ho…

Yeah, I agree, I think the "next" major 'Eternal September' if you will was around the 2010's give or take after Smartphones became far more common and everyone had insanely easy access to the web. A lot of web traffic is insanely on mobile, whereas before it was not, and it was a mess (remember those awful .mobi domains that you would be redirected to, BUT only the home page, so whatever content you wanted was gone, good luck finding it now since you just hopped off Google!).

Re: How the blog broke the web (2017)

#53

Post by chiefalchemist »

> "Here’s the crux of the problem: When something is easy, people will do more of it."

This has an upside (i.e., anyone and everyone can do it), as well as a downside (i.e., anyone and everyone can do it).

When you can find your way through excessive noise (and ads) it's worth it. Quality signals can be paradise. Unfortunately, at this point, the noise is outpacing the ability to mitigate it. Gold is getting more and more difficult to find.

Re: How the blog broke the web (2017)

#54

Post by giancarlostoro »

orthoxerox wrote: post #29
nickelpro wrote: post #9

Reference sites still exist, Wikipedia isn't organized by reverse-chronological and MediaWiki is a far more formidable CMS than MT ever was. Same goes for ReadTheDocs, Sphinx, Jekyll, Hugo, or any number of static site generators that power the infinite libraries of documentation, reference material, and personal sites on the web. What the author is bemoaning is the loss of the eclectic, bespoke, personal-style of ho…

> What the author is bemoaning is the loss of the eclectic, bespoke, personal-style of homepage that existed in the early web. These sites still exist of course, they're just a much smaller percentage of the content. When I stumble upon a Web 1.0 living fossil, it's a delight every time. Someone felt an overpowering need to say something, they made a website about their favorite topic (be that shoelace knots, unsolve…

Call me crazy, but bear in mind I love a lot of modern web development marvels (no more tables everywhere) but I kind of miss when a lot of websites copied each other, and they had... tables everywhere, but the reason I miss it was because navigation was insanely consistent! It was also insanely easy to figure out.

One old as heck website that comes to mind for me is 1337.net which I think is more early to mid 2000s I'm not sure if it went back further or not. It's a joke site with l33t speak and what have you, but the fact it's still around is pure entertainment. They have not touched anything about it. I don't even think it has ads? Kudos for keeping it like the Spacejam website.

Re: How the blog broke the web (2017)

#56

Post by janvdberg »

The author seems to be arguing that the technology (i.e. MT in this case or CMS-es in general) that enabled many more people to blog (and therefore they all look alike) is what broke the web.

I understand the sentiment. But I rather have more people blogging than not.

Because blogs are the web. Many more people should be blogging.

Re: How the blog broke the web (2017)

#57

Post by pjc50 »

mansoon wrote: post #32
orthoxerox wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What the author is bemoaning is the loss of the eclectic, bespoke, personal-style of homepage that existed in the early web. These sites still exist of course, they're just a much smaller percentage of the content. When I stumble upon a Web 1.0 living fossil, it's a delight every time. Someone felt an overpowering need to say something, they made a website about their favorite topic (be that shoelace knots, unsolve…

All relationships are parasocial.

I don't think your wife would appreciate that.

(joking, but the point is that non-para-social relationships, "real" ones, exist and can usefully be distinguished)

Re: How the blog broke the web (2017)

#58

Post by bombcar »

nickelpro wrote: post #45
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I say in a sister thread, I transitioned from handmade websites to blogs as the author describes, and then from blogs to social media. The reason was also what the author describes: convenience. I am the same person. I don't think I was more of a nerd when I wrote personal websites in 1998 than when I wrote blogs in 2002 or social media posts later. So I do think the tools have a lot to do with the changes describ…

> personal websites still exist, there are just fewer of them And my point is that this isn't true. There are more weird, wonderful, random single-purpose and eclectic websites today than ever before in the history of the Internet. It's just that they are suspended in an ocean of so much more Internet than existed before that they feel absent compared to the halcyon days. I'm not trying to invalidate anyone's persona…

Yeah people forget that we went from an internet where ANYTHING you wanted, if it was there, would be on a university site or some personal site by someone slightly obsessed with the topic (otherwise why would they have build a website about it by hand or in Dreamweaver and bothers to host it?) - Wikipedia didn’t exist so even relatively simple searches would bring up these little almost “fan” sites.

This was the era of massive FAQ posts that were just becoming webpages in some cars - an example being the Doom FAQ: that would never be written as a single document today. (Even the modern linked copies are “new”: https://www.gamers.org/docs/FAQ/doomfaq/index.html ).

A game like Factorio or Dwarf Fortress certainly has similar or greater depth; but a single massive ascii text file will never be written for them, as there are more modern ways to transmit the information

Re: How the blog broke the web (2017)

#59

Post by oersted »

I suppose that, in a way, the chronological model is a reaction to the immense volume that the Internet grew into. Only focusing on new content can be a good way to drastically reduce the time spent deciding what to actually read or watch. It is also a good way to help everyone focus on a few things at a time so we can have meaningful conversations about them together.

Forums, Blogs, RSS, Newsletters, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, Hacker News... Sure you often first filter for (or subscribe, or get recommended) content from topics and people that you know you like. But there's still too much stuff to choose from. If you just look at the content from the last day, it is much more manageable to decide what is worth your time. If you come back most days, you know you won't miss much quality content and it will all be mostly fresh and relevant.

Re: How the blog broke the web (2017)

#60

Post by mansoon »

pjc50 wrote: post #57
mansoon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All relationships are parasocial.

I don't think your wife would appreciate that. (joking, but the point is that non-para-social relationships, "real" ones, exist and can usefully be distinguished)

Not sure I agree with this.

Once you look closely enough, the distinction collapses.

I used to think otherwise, but that was largely based on a refusal to look, knowing that if I did, the perceived reality would fall apart, and the naked nothing would be revealed.

Post reply on HN