<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"A Cre8asite Forums thread poses the dilemma about web 2.0 sites getting web 1.0 wrong.  Bill Slawski quotes the following from Jakob Nielsen's article:Before throwing spending money at \"2.0\" features, make sure that you have all the \"1.0\" requirements working to perfection. Of the 149,784,002 sites on the Web, maybe a handful can make this claim. Most sites don't even use the customers' terminology in headlines and page titles \u2014 if you want one quick action item to improve site profitability through better SEO ranking, more clickthroughs, and better understanding of your services, rewriting the first two words of your microcontent will beat any technology any day.As an avid user of web 2.0 sites, I find this so very true.  Some users just think that web 2.0 is a whole lot of bunk:Web 2.0 is a rather stupid little term, and a prime example of hte complete \"marketing and sales\" spin on most things today. It's not new, it's not phenominal, and it won't make your busienss a success by simply using it ...It's all merely smoke to me... slapping a fresh coat of paint and selling the vehicle on does not make it worth a whole lot more.EGOL brings the discussion back to the web 1.0 roots:You might be much farther ahead to write an EXCELLENT user's guide, detailed FAQ, a few articles and put them out for consumption.The extremely detailed and interesting discussion continues at Cre8asite Forums."^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<https://www.seroundtable.com/archives/015777.html>