Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Rise of the Junkweb and Why It's So Awesome

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the lowest-common-denominator dept.

The Internet 181

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Have you noticed your Facebook stream or looked at reddit lately? A huge chunk of what goes by lately are photos with text over them, usually quotes about this or that. 'It's the Junkweb,' writes Chris Brogan. 'Why "junk?" Because the original intent of the Internet was that links were gold, that searchability was key, that this ability to find anything and use resources from wherever was magic. And this new web? The web of pictures with text over them? They're junk. They're a dead end. The picture is the payload.' Facebook and Pinterest are doing what so much of our 'awesome' tech hasn't been able to do well: let the everyperson into this universe. For whatever reason, the 'photos with text' experience gives us that feeling we get when we read magazines. 'It makes the texty text of blogging a lot less stark. It draws our eyes in. It's fast to consume, and it brings an emotional response faster.' Now with the release of Google's Panda search technology, it has been acknowledged that links and pages aren't everything and with Google+ goes the realization that it's no longer a links-only world. who shares is as important as how it's shared. 'I'm spending far more time on the Junkweb than I am on the Smartweb,' concludes Brogan. 'Deny it, if you want. The numbers show otherwise. We are in love with this new method of interacting.'"

cancel ×

181 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ATTENTION K-MART SHOPPERS !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775379)

Blue light special !!

KITTEH WITH THE LIME ON HEAD!!!!! (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777083)

++++AWESUMZ!

It's ugly (2, Insightful)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775391)

I hate the text of photos. People should post the actual text and have a photo with it if necessary. But the text over photo is awful for a whole lot of reasons.

Re:It's ugly (2)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775407)

Now get off my lawn!

Re:It's ugly (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775441)

Never seen Lolcats, I guess?

Yeah, it's funny when geeks were doing it. Now that everybody is doing it, it's awful. It's junk. Got it.

Re:It's ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775491)

Never seen Lolcats, I guess?

Yeah, it's funny when geeks were doing it. Now that everybody is doing it, it's awful. It's junk. Got it.

No, actually, it was stupid the entire time. And it didn't start with geeks, it started after the unwashed masses figured out that they could take a picture of their cat with their camera phone and then add text to it and get attention.

I don't really notice this "junkweb" the author claims exists. But then again, I don't spend all my time browsing memebase and hanging around places frequented by teenage girls and sexually frustrated housewives.

Re:It's ugly (5, Insightful)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775659)

Horse shit. I was around at the time. It was geeks.

They first started it all with overlaid ASCII characters making The Mona Lisa, Statue of Liberty, etc. Oh yes, and porn.

Then, when they got their hands on graphic software, they did it with pics and text.

Every example of the presence of bad/crappy/funny/intelligent/etc..... can be traced back to a geek doing it. That group has the same humorous and degenerate proclivities and impulses as everyone else and they had the first access.

By the way, don't use "unwashed masses" in the future. It's a red flag.

Re:It's ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775789)

Yep. When we were doing it, it was great. Now that our moms, kids, loud neighbours, and jocks are doing it, it's junk. Obviously.

Re:It's ugly (3, Insightful)

xerxesVII (707232) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776315)

I get the spirit of what you're saying, but there is a deeper truth here.

They don't have the same sensibility as us, so we're disinclined to like the things that they generate and/or circulate.

Subjectively speaking, anything that we like cannot help but suck once they get their hands on it.

Re:It's ugly (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776157)

By the way, don't use "unwashed masses" in the future. It's a red flag.

Funny, for me the red flag is when people command other people they don't know not to do something that annoys them. And then say "it's a red flag" as if that was an objective thing rather than a subjective thing.

You mean it's a red flag for you. But of course if you wrote it that way you might realize that nobody gives a shit what your red flags are, and elide the passive-aggressive ending from your comment entirely.

Re:It's ugly (4, Informative)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776357)

Horseshit.
Almost all of that ASCII art was done decades before by the RTTY radio geeks, and most of the best stuff was porn [roysac.com] .
.
So yes, it can be traced back to geeks, but a lot further back than you seem to know about, you young whipper-snapper.

Re:It's ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40777077)

Lolcats? Huh, newbie. Anyone else remember "Mr. T. Ate My Balls"?

Re:It's ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775451)

I immediately block anyone who posts pics with text on Facebook.

Re:It's ugly (3, Funny)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775781)

So, in other words, you don't use Facebook?

Re:It's ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776591)

I don't use Facebook.

Re:It's ugly (1)

Catiline (186878) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777245)

We all knew that! Of Course "Anonymous Coward" doesn't use Facebook -- you have to log in first. </snark>

Re:It's ugly (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775887)

Isn't this what the Alt attribute to the IMG tag is for?

Re:It's ugly (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776441)

Isn't this what the Alt attribute to the IMG tag is for?

Nope, that's not it at all. ALT represents the text a user agent should substitute to the image on a device that has no image displaying capabilities. Think Lynx, Google, Browsers for disabled people, etc.

Re:It's ugly (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776897)

No, alt is for captioning for the blind, title is what you're looking for. As in
<a title="e.coli"><img="ecoli.jpg" alt="photograph of a microscope slide depicting an e.coli"></a>

Re:It's ugly (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776317)

Or, hide the text in the photo using steganography (see sig link)

Re:It's ugly (2)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776459)

I hate the text of photos. People should post the actual text and have a photo with it if necessary. But the text over photo is awful for a whole lot of reasons.

I believe this [memegenerator.net] is what you were looking for.

Re:It's ugly (2)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776701)

Well, I'm not on facebook and have never visited reddit, so I'm afraid I don't feel your pain. At least, in this respect. From TFS: Because the original intent of the Internet was that links were gold, that searchability was key, that this ability to find anything and use resources from wherever was magic.

And now search has been trashed. My car's AC went out, a mechanic buddy told me it was the temperature control module and one from an auto parts store was $500, $75 from a junkyard. So I figured, nerd that I am, I'd find schematics for it and could probably build one for ten bucks.

Google failed me. I googled for "2002 concorde temperatre control schematics" and not a single result ha dthe word "schematics" in it. I was horrified that advanced search is GONE now, and "+schematics" still didn't return anything with that word.

So I tried Bing (I googled "Bing" just so Google would know they failed me) and the results were even shittier, every other result wanting to sell me something and half having nothing to do with climate control, goving me results for cruise controls.

I think there's an opening for someone to best Google in teh search area, they have REALLY gone downhill in the past couple of years.

BTW, anybody know where I can find a copy of that schematic? There is surley no more than $20 worth of off the shelf parts in that $500 ripoff!

I'll be glad when this facetwit fad blows over (like MySpace before them and Geocities before THEM).

Re:It's ugly (3, Informative)

ukemike (956477) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777075)

Google failed me. I googled for "2002 concorde temperatre control schematics" and not a single result ha dthe word "schematics" in it. I was horrified that advanced search is GONE now, and "+schematics" still didn't return anything with that word.

Perhaps if you tried "2002 concorde temperature control wiring diagram" you might get better results. Sorry but google is an american company, chrysler is an american car company you'll get better results if you use american words and spelling. Using search engines well is a skill.

Re:It's ugly (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777325)

.. it will not survive resharing if the text isn't attached to the image.

it's old as bbs's, really.

"We are in love with this..."? (3, Informative)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775395)

Speak for yourself. Reminds me of how TV dumbed us down. Thanks for making it sound so important.

Re:"We are in love with this..."? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775557)

Speak for yourself. Reminds me of how TV dumbed us down. Thanks for making it sound so important.

Yeah. I spend most of my leisure time reading /., some Fark links, and occasionaly Hacker News. Just about everything else aside from the business portals - like my credit union and broker - there really isn't much keeping my attention anymore.

The upside? I'm spending less and less on the internet - which is a good thing. I'm reading more books again and wearing out my library card.

This happened with TV, too. When I travel every once in while, I turn on the TV to see what's there and so far, I've been always disappointed. When the cable people come by to sell me their packages, I ignore them because it's all crap. I'm not trying to sound all sanctimonious and better than everyone who watches TV - it's just that it just not worth it. And with the very very few things I do like to watch, I can stream it - documentaries, long canceled sci-fi shows and one currently Eureka on Hulu I'm actually enjoying - especially with this dark turn they're taking in their last season.

Re:"We are in love with this..."? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775595)

Brogan's probably the kind of guy who likes watching the ads on TV, too. "Infomercials 24/7, the numbers show we're in love with them!"

Re:"We are in love with this..."? (5, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775651)

The article isn't important or even insightful. It's another lament about people using the internet in "non-approved" ways. Today's villain is the lolcat, apparently. It used to be people tweeting about what the dog is doing, or posting family pictures online, or blogging about what one had for dinner, or mailing each other jokes, or top-posting on Usenet, or whatever. It's all "junk" and yes, a lot of people are doing it. And in the mean time the rest of the Internet is moving along just fine. Nothing to see here, move along.

What a surprise: technology that enables us to create and enjoy wondrous works of art can and will also be used to produce lowest common denominator crap. Hell, even Gutenberg's printing press wasn't used at first to print new works, or even to make existing works (like the bible) available to the masses. It was used to mass-produce indulgences for the church to sell to sinners; the clergy couldn't hand-write the things fast enough to meet demand.

Re:"We are in love with this..."? (1, Insightful)

NReitzel (77941) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775885)

I'm entirely content with letting Joe Sixpack have an outlet (or inlet) from this cyber universe. His (or her) treatment of the medium as "funny looking TV" will provide the capital support for those of us who actually use the net as an information source.

The net is evolving. Much like our genome, which if you haven't looked, is 95% nothing. Those of you who believe in intelligent design should ask yourself, "What intelligence would design something so poorly." The net is stuffed with junk, and unlike television, nobody is succeeding in inventing ways to force us to take it in. Look at how advertising revenues are dropping, as advertisers figure out that most of the adverts on the internet are studiously ignored or even blocked, by more of that marvelous technology that isn't captive to a corporate bottom line.

The sea of unwashed humanity who inhabit the infobahn for the pretty pictures and pirate music and hi-def videos will keep the infrastructure expanding. We owe a debt of gratitude to these people. Without them, _we_ could scarcely afford all this connectivity. And the very same connectivity that lets Trudy post what she's having for breakfast and keep track of Aunt Millie's kittens, allows me find an obscure article in a journal or find out what side effects the expensive drug my doctor wants me to take might have. To each their own.

Most of the sand on the beach does nothing but sit there and look pretty, but where else would we go to play vollyball?

Re:"We are in love with this..."? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776945)

The numbers show otherwise? No actual numbers are quoted. Furthermore, almost all of the web is text, so I think no numbers were quoted because it isn't actually true.

Nah... (0, Flamebait)

Quakeulf (2650167) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775397)

This is just the result of the technically retarded untermensch getting access to something they don't understand in the hopes that money will be made off their involvement with things they will continue to not understand.

Re:Nah... (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775443)

I have to admit that these memes are fun, and sometimes really funny, but to blow this up to profound importance almost makes me want to vomit. It can be viewed as a form of art and expression that is somewhat valuable. I have been enjoying the new Romney memes--seriously funny stuff.

Re:Nah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775559)

It's just another hipster-esque sort of thing. Yeah, text with pics, I was totally into that ten years ago, but now it's soooo overdone. I'm so past pics with text that I dug my eyes out. . . . .

Re:Nah... (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775637)

retarded untermensch

Yeah, I know Goodwin's law etc etc, but really?

Re:Nah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775655)

Awww, is the "1337 h4x0r" mad because everyone can use the Internets now? Maybe if you call your mom she'll come down into the basement and let you cry in her lap?

Re:Nah... (2, Insightful)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775691)

You understand that using "technically retarded untermensch" is simply a red flag to be interpreted as "I am emotionally twelve and have a comnputer", right?

Re:Nah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775775)

You understand that simplifying commenters with "red flag" so much is a red flag, right?

Re:Nah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776263)

untermensch? Seriously? Waaa ha ha ha ha! Did you look that one up in mommy's dictionary? Ooooo! You the big bad master race member, eh? Absolutely 100% LOL right in your sad little loser face!

Durrr..? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775403)

What? I didn't understand you!

I would imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775411)

We all know what effect a diet of solely junk food does to one's body. I imagine the effects of a diet solely of junk web aren't too dissimilar for one's mind.

In general, I HATE it, but LOVE it (4, Interesting)

acidfast7 (551610) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775417)

when it's actually funny. I don't have a problem with the medium per se, but content is usually horrendous. Maybe 5% of the time is either stunning or hilarious, but the other 95% is just trash :(

Re:In general, I HATE it, but LOVE it (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775459)

So, pretty similar to the rest of the web...

Re:In general, I HATE it, but LOVE it (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775695)

...or newspapers?

Or...everything [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:In general, I HATE it, but LOVE it (4, Insightful)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775475)

When I see a particularly insightful quote on one of these photos, the first thing I do, I usually type it (not copy-paste...) into google to learn more about the quote, who said it, the backstory, etc.

But what's more annoying than these Facebook photos are all those "tutorial" or "news" videos. Not only are they almost always flash, but often the "news" videos don't show any actual footage of the event they're about, but just a guy reading off a script...
Result: I cannot use this in my open-office without bothering the neighbours. I cannot quickly skim or skip over those parts that I already know. I cannot search through it, to go straight to the juicy bits. I cannot copy-paste command line examples from those tutorials directly into my shell. When I try to save them for later reference, they are huge... Give me back text any day!

Re:In general, I HATE it, but LOVE it (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775593)

5% stunning/hilarious is a dream for almost all forums of media, especially TV and newspapers.

Waste of Time (2, Funny)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775421)

If all you're doing on the Internet is looking at pictures with text on it, maybe you should re-evaluate your goals in life. Like posting on slashdot.

a prime example of photos with big text over it (2)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775425)

Go to Google Images and search for lolcats.

POTOAP? (1)

Stoopiduk (1593855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775457)

Post on text on a picture?

Re:POTOAP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775707)

I think Apple is trying to patent that...

junkweb has always been there (5, Insightful)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775461)

1990's people used to email this crap to each other. stupid pictures and the dumb dancing baby animation
with the rise of facebook and other social networking people share this crap and its more viral. and the sites that carry it found a way to monetize on the junk

Re:junkweb has always been there (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775653)

1990's people used to email this crap to each other.

That's true. And I haven't had a "Re: re re Re re Fwd re fwd fwd Re re: fwd: re Re re Fwd fwd:" email for years now.

Re:junkweb has always been there (2)

Loughla (2531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775723)

That's true. And I haven't had a "Re: re re Re re Fwd re fwd fwd Re re: fwd: re Re re Fwd fwd:" make it through my email filters for years now.

FTFY

Or, your other option is that your mom has passed away; moms always send that stuff. (but only because they just want you to call, they just need someone to talk to, because since your dad died, they just haven't been the same; too much time on their hands, maybe a bit depressed, and the kids are all gone. Like what, they're supposed to get a hobby? What can they do, they're on a fixed income and have arthritis. Oh, go on a date? Who wants to date a post-menopausal white-haired old lady? All they want is for their son/daughter to call to see how its' going. Is that too much to ask?)

Re:junkweb has always been there (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775729)

Well, you are not in my mom's address list!

Re:junkweb has always been there (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776509)

I haven't had a "Re: re re Re re Fwd re fwd fwd Re re: fwd: re Re re Fwd fwd:" email for years now.

That's because most mail agents won't ass a Re in front of a subject line starting with "Re" anymore. Programs evolve too.

Re:junkweb has always been there (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776527)

I haven't had a "Re: re re Re re Fwd re fwd fwd Re re: fwd: re Re re Fwd fwd:" email for years now.

That's because most mail agents won't ass a Re in front of a subject line starting with "Re" anymore. Programs evolve too.

Hummmm. s/ass/add/g. How did I let that through? And more important, how did /;'s lame filter let me do it?

Re:junkweb has always been there (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775745)

Ah, the good 'ol days of Hampsterdance [youtube.com] , grandfather of the Rickroll. ;)

Re:junkweb has always been there (3, Interesting)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776981)

1990's people used to email this crap to each other. stupid pictures and the dumb dancing baby animation
with the rise of facebook and other social networking people share this crap and its more viral. and the sites that carry it found a way to monetize on the junk

And before the internet it was all done with photocopiers, fax machines, (to a much lesser extent) VCRs and (even more rarely) BBSs. People used to keep binders full of these things at their desks. Before photocopiers showed up it was done via mimeograph, and one assumes that before that people were tracing boobs through eight layers of carbon paper.

Just as porn is at the forefront of all consumer technology, any office technology gets immediately co-opted for cartoons, kittens and breasts.

Obvious solution is obvious... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775477)

Why would anybody be surprised by the ubiquity of these 'photos with text on them'? Lo, such things are truly the chosen of ceilingcat and his blessing is upon them and their remixes unto the 7th generation.

people spend a lot of time on the SmartWeb, too (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775487)

Wikipedia is the #6 most visited website on the internet, and is a textbook example of hypertext: it's mainly text, with some illustrations, intended to be informative, with an emphasis on making the documents hyperlinked and searchable.

I will admit that the idea's been losing some traction outside of Wikipedia, but partly because many people have started pooling their efforts there. Ten years ago I ran websites with information on subjects of interest to me. But today I just edit Wikipedia articles. There's little reason for me to create Trepidity's Ancient Greek Temples Homepage when there's no way it could ever compete with the information Wikipedia already has on them.

Re:people spend a lot of time on the SmartWeb, too (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776841)

There's little reason for me to create Trepidity's Ancient Greek Temples Homepage when there's no way it could ever compete with the information Wikipedia already has on them.

What if editors on Wikipedia decide that the articles are "too detailed" ( a complaint I received ) and remove sections?

What if Wikipedia decides that the Temple articles are to be protected and you don't make the grade as an approved editor?

What if Wikipedia shuts-down?

In other words: please, please, please keep creating your own pages on your own site. The Web needs to remain decentralized.

U MAD? (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775493)

U MAD BRO? [google.com]

Eww (1)

yahwotqa (817672) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775497)

I especially "love" the hundreds of pixels tall images which tell some very old joke in many poorly drawn comic panels. Reading the same joke few years ago meant reading few lines of text, now it means scrolling through several screens and trying to understand the ugly graphics. Quite sad.

Meaningless Dreck (4, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775499)

I am far more concerned about the proliferation of endless pages that are designed only to echo content to gain page rank for some pointless website I have little interest in, or to garner the display of as many ads as possible. Often I will be reading something that I find interesting but when I follow a link in the text - or in the sidebar - I get a page that is an aggregate of pointless links (but has ads) and if I try to click on the link to the original thing that interested me, I get yet another page and so on and so on. There is a massive amount of this dreck out there on the web, and I think its sole purpose is to gain pagerank mostly.
When the internet was academic primarily, there was not much data but it was perhaps a bit more informative, now that we have the commercial internet the bulk of the it seems to be almost devoid of purpose and content.
The LOLCat meme and others like it - endless motivational posters etc - is at least created by someone who thought it was funny and hoped to create a meme that lasts. Its tiring and its jumped the shark IMHO but its far preferable to webpages without meaning or purpose.

Re:Meaningless Dreck (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775529)

I am far more concerned about the proliferation of endless pages that are designed only to echo content to gain page rank for some pointless website I have little interest in, or to garner the display of as many ads as possible

This is what I thought "junkweb" meant when I read the title, before I read TFS.

Re:Meaningless Dreck (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775657)

I read TFS.

You must be new here.

junkweb? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775517)

slashdot sues. Slashdot was the junkweb back in the 1990s without the pictures.

I gotta confess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775519)

I visit Cute Overload several times per day. Pictures of cute critters often doing cute things. Clever text and ... hover text. So pictures and text and more text.

bytefags drool (1)

noshellswill (598066) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775551)

What's next .. a Negro flashmob validates Macys? Kulture longs for a herd-cull.

Photos With Text = Loss of Value (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775565)

Consider all the visually impaired people who find this junk web even more Junk like than before.

Plus, most of the photos with text on is usually guff. I don't feel rewarded seeing someone write 'ihazcheezburgerz' type quotes over photos of a cat wearing a tuxedo.

Bla Bla Bla.... (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775569)

The author can wax poetic all over it. I think it's worthless garbage. So much so that I now filter my facebook stream and have it hide anything posted by friends that has the word "Shared" in it or "Liked" in it.

I personally look at this new trend as proof that Facebook has jumped the shark like MySpace did. so the next big Exodus is about to happen to the next social website service....

Re:Bla Bla Bla.... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775675)

The author doesn't just wax poetic, he links to some SEO slime who has an entire series of articles bemoaning how retro and 'undemocratic' it is for search engines to use links, rather than 'social', to assign pageranks...

I'm not sure when the grand act of mental inversion that convinced SEO scumbags that search engines are supposed to be working for them, rather than working took place; but it's the bloody twilight zone over there now...

Re:Bla Bla Bla.... (2)

gunnk (463227) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775737)

Agreed! I'm spending less and less time on Facebook because of the rise of the "junkweb". I still go there to catch up on the activities of a few friends, but I'm filtering my stream more and more every day. Fewer and fewer people seem to be contributing original content.

Google+ also tends to be a big "repost-fest", but the reposted material is sometimes a bit more interesting. Even so, I'm not really interested in re-posts - they are a mediocre substitute for sharing *your own* thoughts, beliefs and ideas.

Re:Bla Bla Bla.... (1)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776563)

Sadly a lot of users out there on the intertoobs don't seem to have any original thoughts, beliefs or ideas. Reposting something that someone else found is a way to seem active, and doesn't require much thought.

Re:Bla Bla Bla.... (1)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775815)

The author can wax poetic all over it. I think it's worthless garbage. So much so that I now filter my facebook stream and have it hide anything posted by friends that has the word "Shared" in it or "Liked" in it.

I personally look at this new trend as proof that Facebook has jumped the shark like MySpace did. so the next big Exodus is about to happen to the next social website service....

Seconded...

and please alert your single lady friends (who am I kidding) that when they start to put
those sappy ass, trust or relationship or the meaning of love crap, we get it... someone
shat on you and now you're depressed... thanks for sharing it with your 60 friends.

BTW. Didja know only a tiny percentage of your "friends" see your posts?

-AI

I thought it was text with pictures underneath (1)

billrp (1530055) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775577)

I didn't know the pictures came first...

block them all (2)

cuby (832037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775585)

I usualy block users who post a lot of lame images with text. I noticed a reduction in my Facebook usage since this fenomenon started...

Re:block them all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40777295)

Well I noticed that nobody phoned me anymore to say happy birthday, and they would rather post their compliments on my wall. I felt disgusted. I too noticed a reduction in my Facebook usage. If they wouldn't spam me with their shitty 9gag photos or games, perhaps I would actually care.

Feeling from magazines (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775625)

the 'photos with text' experience gives us that feeling we get when we read magazines

Obviously the poster is referring to magazines like People [people.com] : the feeling that it is so vapid, I want to throw it across the room. I am looking for an experience more like that of Scientific American [scientificamerican.com] and National Geographic. I'll stick to text, thanks. (Note the relative scarcity of pictures on Slashdot.)

For Facebook "spammers" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775647)

Just hit "important only" on your mother's feed (and other spammers), so that all their beautiful photos with text do not show in your feed!

Indicative of how we use the web (3, Interesting)

water-and-sewer (612923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775671)

I'm not sure invention of the new catchphrase "Junkweb" was necessary. It's subjective after all - one man's junk is another man's treasure. I'm also not sure the new phenomenon of text-on-picture is all that big a deal - when people get sick of it, the trend will die out. I'm old school by most measures - born in the early 70s, grew up on a Commodore Pet and later C64, remember Gopher and Telnet, etc. But I think the stuff getting floated on Reddit is pretty funny, and it makes me laugh.

If there's anything worth talking about at all, it's not the rise of something someone calls a "Junk Net," it's how the utopian promise of the Internet - liberated conversation, connection, and access to information - has been somewhat diluted by lots of other stuff, and as more and more people have gotten connected their tastes have swayed the general trend of what's on the web.

I've got a forum that runs on Usenet era technology (http://dictatorshandbook.net/ [dictatorshandbook.net] and it's not exactly been a blistering success. People find usenet and even the web-based front end to it to be too "texty" and dry. They want pictures and LOLcats and stupid memes. OK, fair enough - that's not the audience I'm trying to attract, and the folks that are interested in educated conversation about dictators will probably enjoy my site and its text forum while everyone else will go bugger off.

So if there's an issue here, it's just that increasingly people go to the internet not for information but for entertainment, and the companies have teed up to make that happen - look at the ipod ferfucksake, now I can watch TV in bed! YAY! I think this is a failure of society over all, not of technology.

Fact is, there are good, knowledge-intensive sites out there. Go hang out on them if that's what you want. And if you want a good laugh, enjoy the latest meme. It's all good.

Re:Indicative of how we use the web (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777345)

So if there's an issue here, it's just that increasingly people go to the internet not for information but for entertainment

More than that, that people are increasingly going to the internet for *everything* related to communications and information and entertainment. We've seen the isolated stories: physical album sales are down, newspaper sales are down, phone companies have lost a lot of ground to VoIP, people are "cutting the cable" and using Netflix/Hulu instead, the post office is seeing less distribution, etc. These sometimes get treated as individual stories, but the reality is they're all part of the same process.

What's almost funny is how unsurprising we find it all. Our way of life has been changing in significant ways over the last 2 decades, and each change is greeted with an initial, "Oh, that's cool," followed by us taking this new technology for granted. I guess that's the march of progress.

In other words - an interwebz for the (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775683)

instant gratification generation, and the people that have never heard an analog modem. I'm not even 35 and if I feel this cynical, I cannot imagine how some of my seniors reading this must feel (even in re: to the way my generation views tech)

It's just a Facebook bug (3, Informative)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775699)

Get over it. It's just a Facebook use-case bug. When you click "share" to share an image, the poster's comments don't get shared with it, so the only way to caption an image is to photoshop the text directly onto the image.

Re:It's just a Facebook bug (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777305)

its not like it started with FB anyways.
it's fuckin old thing. because the only way the text is going to be attached to the photo is .. burning the text on the photo. sulplize and ninjas from cupboards.

Why you no indexable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775821)

Well, sure. But that's not a new problem. Images with text stamped into them, or text that simply *is* an image for the sake of some artsy "web design"/Flash horror have been around for ages. If it's worth it, then someone takes the time to associate a text tag with the image on a web page. If it's really worth it, then someone re-creates the equivalent of lolcats/ICanHasCheezburger with a sophisticated database. If it's not worth someone doing that, then let it languish in dark, unsearchable corners of the intertubes. It's no loss.

What? (1)

forgent (2692021) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775917)

Maybe I missed the whole "why it is awesome part" but this trend, IMO is one of the worst things to happen to the internet. We have turned much of the net into the cover of a fucking trapper keeper. Fuck that. It started off decently enough, much like rage comics... but quickly devolved into being more like visual "dear diary" entries, much like rage comics. Once again: Fuck that.

I can has? (2)

AttyBobDobalina (2525082) | more than 2 years ago | (#40775945)

And to think that cat hungry for cheezburger started us down this road....

Lolest-catty-demoninator (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40775971)

This story is from the "lowest-common-denominator" dept.

Maybe it should have been "Lolest-catty-demoninator"?

My blather appears more important this way (3, Funny)

superflippy (442879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776019)

It's not just a bunch of text, it's a square with some words in it! [superflippy.net]

If this subject interests you, here's a post that got a lot of attention earlier this year: Facebook, Twitter and Google Plus shun HTML, causing the infographic plague. [blogspot.com]

What the 'author' really wrote (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776109)

Blah, blah, blah. I made up this new word - JunkWeb. Bleh, bleh, bleh. And here's what it means. Blah, blah, blah. I sure do hope the word catches on so everyone will think I saw this 'new trend' first.

Web accessibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776243)

Just curious about the consequences for web accessibility. Thanks.

Ivory Tower Inhabitant Dispairs of Human Nature (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776269)

Film at 11.

Since time began, the educated scholarly class have looked askance at the behavior of the mass of humanity with disdain.
The heathen, clogging up our wonderful invention with meaningless amusements when they could be educating and improving themselves.

Re:Ivory Tower Inhabitant Dispairs of Human Nature (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776449)

This.

*sniff* (2)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776351)

This article needed more haughty sniffing.

The phrase is 'TOAP' (1)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776383)

"Text On A Picture", and b3ta [b3ta.com] has been bitching about it and LARTing n00bs over it for years.

OCR, anyone (1)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776557)

If MS's OneNote can do it without twitching, it won't be long before every browser will be able to do it. To me, the only limitation is the present.

I've created many text-over-photos images. Most get used in slide shows, but I have shared a couple via social media. In my opinion, they convey a stronger message than text alone, or even alongside an image.

I am blissfully unaware (1)

VFA (1064176) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776621)

It may be just me, but I had no idea this existed. I am not on FB, G+ or any other social network. My phone is not "smart" and I still think I want a dumber one (B&W display that I can see in sunlight would be nice. I have no need for video or photo on my phone, but I would love it if I could have a clear conversation on it in somewhat noisy environment). I still treat internet as mostly a search and entertainment vehicle. Is that why? I am just not aware of existence of this text with pictures thing. In my everyday internet use I just do not see the crap that most people see. Then again, I don't watch TV and am really lost when people discuss commercials or TV show characters. I don't put much effort into avoiding the shit, just make a conscious decision to do it and it just gets done. Try it, your life will get a whole lot simpler and you may actually see human being next to you (in your life or on the subway). I recommend it. It's like a toilet flush of your mind.

Shitty article (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777159)

What a stupid fucking article. "Junkweb". Are you kidding me? Most people are really fucking stupid. They do stupid things. End of story.

Of course, the guy who wrote it is "President of Human Business Works, helping (mostly larger) companies with customer acquisition and community nurturing by amplifying the human digital channel". Even his job title/business(?) is bullshit.

Original intent of what now? (2, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777253)

Because the original intent of the Internet was that links were gold, that searchability was key, that this ability to find anything and use resources from wherever was magic.

Um, no. The original intent of the Internet was to allow computers to communicate. The above quote doesn't even describe the World Wide Web. What it does describe is GOPHER. Why should anyone take seriously the comments of someone who obviously has no clue about the subject of which he speaks?

Missing the point (1)

spikesahead (111032) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777337)

The point of images with text over them is to provide an expressive context for the words. Words by themselves are dry, with the only indication for tone available the punctuation at the end of the line.

Punctuation is ridiculously limited! There are whole ranges of emotions and nuance that can't be captured with a period or a bang, sarcasm for example! Many times I've watched someone be sarcastic in text and have it totally miss the mark, because they fail to express the tone required to indicate sarcasm!

When we talk face to face, we use nonverbal queues to provide context for the words we are saying, image macros (not junkweb, they're called image macros and have been for years) are the face saying the words, the expression and the nuance, and this makes it so much more engaging than simply typing the words and ending with a period.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>