Let's Hear It For Web 0.1!

It's November 2006. 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!

About The Author: T. O' Donnell (
http://www.tigertom.com/mortgages-uk.shtml ) is a credit broker and cynic
living in London, UK.