Here at Internet Evolution, words matter. While we try to use as many as we can each day, it's not just about volume -- they have to be the right words. Not clichéd, or bombastic –- just that right shade of gray. We know we're not alone here. In that vein, we are also fans of originality and panache (a fancy for word for, uhh, fancy).
Words matter so much to us that we can get a little alarmed when they're abused. Or mangled. Transmogrified, even (look it up). And if we were finger-pointing types, we'd call out PR people, marketers, CEO, venture capitalists, and maybe even ourselves from time to time as the clock clicks closer to deadline and the language center in our brains starts to cave in.
To arrest this language abuse we see and hear in the realm of the Internet, we bring you our 10 Worst Buzzwords of Web 2.0. Yes, unfortunately we had to limit it to 10. A small sampling of the awfulness that couldn't even rise to the level of noteworthy garbage: avatar, folksonomies, the long tail, and lifecasting, to name a sorry few.
Actually, you brought us this Top 10 feature; that is, if you voted in our last online poll. Here's how the votes tallied, from least to most obnoxious:
9) Podcast
Bet Apples wishes it could earn royalties off this dog-eared term.
8) Crowdsourcing
The wisdom -- and the tyranny -- of the masses.
7) Mashup
An application that's still just an application.
5)(TIE) Monetize
Plain old "making money" is so 2007.
5)(TIE) Tweet
Not just something birds do anymore, unfortunately.
4) Poke
There was a reason your mom told you not to do this.
3) Vlog
As if 'blog' didn't already offend the ear enough.
2) Cloud-computing
The nimbus vs. cumulus debate can't be far off.
1) Friending
Another odious gerund from the social networking realm.
— Written by Nicole Ferraro, Site Editor; Terry Sweeney, Editor in Chief; and Mary Jander, ThinkerNet Editor, Internet Evolution.
Next page: No. 10: Microblog
No. 10: Microblog
Microblog: It's like a blog... except it's small! Get it? Like a regular blog -- but microscopic in comparison! You see? Like a real blog, but under a microscope! Genius! Like a microwaved blog!
No?
OK, try this... Microblog: The word is almost as idiotic as the practice itself.
Fine. So you voted microblog as No. 10. You don't think it's as bad as what follows. And that's perfectly understandable. In comparison to the words on the remaining nine pages, this buzzword almost sounds legit. But we won't be fooled.
Like most other buzzwords on our list, "microblog" is a fancy term conjured up to propagate some new Web 2.0 tool: in this case, Twitter -- another horrid word, which we'll speak more about later.
The microblog is not just different from the macroblog (see what we did there?) in size –- it's completely different in context.
(@internetevolution Just found out my cousin's a hermaphrodite. Awkward dinner convo.)
Minimizing the size of what we're allowed to write seems to effectively minimize the size of our thoughts. Were we real-blogging or macroblogging, we'd perhaps expand on the state of polar bears, the state of the union, the state of New York. Instead, in our microblogs, we cover the state of our breakfast, the state of our indigestion, the state of our newfound ability to turn our previously well-rounded brains into Shrinky Dinks.
(@internetevolution It's chilly today... so much for "global warming" HA!)
The alleged beauty of the microblog is that it can be written from virtually anywhere. Thanks to its being very short in nature, a microblog can come from a desktop, the mobile Web, or an SMS -- making it much easier for people to spew the mundane happenings of their days to the public in 140 characters or less.
(@internetevolution Just saw someone with a straw hat!)
It serves its purpose, yes. But it also does its part in jamming a new term into our vocabulary. One that raises the antennae of any PR person or journalist in its path. And one that, as a result, we've come to resent, along with the rest of the pack.
Next page: No. 9: Podcast
What is a podcast? Is it something our ancestors did once cave living gave way to farming? Does it have to do with visitors from outer space?
No, podcasts are digital programs designed for Internet distribution. They run on Apple iPods or other portable media players -- hence the “pod” reference. There are all kinds of podcasts -- whole Internet channels are devoted to them.
How did we live without DogCast Radio, Chef Oliver Ridgeway’s Food Feed, or the Lingerie FootBall League’s flash video? Certainly, the term podcast doesn’t do justice to this embarrassment of digital riches.
On the other hand, without podcasts, we wouldn’t have the delightfully dark term podslurping, which refers to the malicious hijacking of data via small USB drives or iPods.
Some companies have come to depend on podcasting as a business staple. But podcasting’s proven the bane of others, who’ve discovered that riches don’t automatically grow where every pod is cast.
Bottom line? Feed that pod. But cast a wide net before you do.
Next page: No. 8: Crowdsourcing
We admit we were a little dubious when this stink bomb of a term landed on the list. Maybe this was the Esperanto of Web buzzwords –- familiar, but never used (at least with a straight face). A Google search on the term corrected that misperception: more than 1.1 million hits returned.
And of course, there's even a blog devoted to the Crowdy crowd, penned by the term's originator, Jeff Howe, who provides these helpful definitions:
The Soundbyte Version: The application of Open Source principles to fields outside of software.
Honestly, there's no just pleasing this fickle tech crowd.
Another big strike against it: Crowdsourcing has that "wiki" feel to it, with everyone throwing ideas into a pot, combining intellectual Darwinism and a depth of quality usually associated with venues like this. It might work fine for building an online encyclopedia. But if it's a jetliner, let's use real engineers, not just folks who play them on the Web. We imagine most companies and individuals would want the same thing for anything they'd want to build or create.
Will it last? Who knows. The best litmus test of durability we know would be a large professional association with astronomical dues, coupled with a gratuitously loud tradeshow in Las Vegas. Check back in five years.
Next page: No. 7: Mashup
This overused term has a Frankenstein ring to it -– and like the monster, is assembled piecemeal from multiple parts.
Mashups, to review, take advantage of the open APIs of two or more applications from which developers then cherry-pick the pieces they want. Think of it as an open source salad bar, or Legos that let you snap on more things than came with the starter kit.
"So easy, even a caveman can write them," this blogger says of the mashup craze that's allegedly sweeping enterprises from coast to coast.
Building applications is one thing, managing them is another. Bud in the legal department may write one helluva brief, but do we really want him creating a payroll app that uses multiple state tax codes to calculate proper withholding? And are we sufficiently convinced this app is stable enough to run every two weeks when accounting cuts the checks? Cindy who handles payroll can't test it out -- she's glomming an app that "duplicates" (Inkjets) her supervisor's signature together with a slush fund that's off the books and still allows electronic payments to six different furniture stores. What's not to like about mashups again?
Yes, so easy even a caveman can crash the network and turn every app server into a PTSD survivor. And it's all automated!
All this is not to cast doubt on the viability of the mashup concept. But we're just not sure when an application stops being an application and turns into a mashup. In the end, isn't any collection of functions and software just another app? Subtle and discrete may not sell more toolkits, but it might prevent our ears from slamming shut any time someone approaches us shouting about the merits of mashups.
Next page: No. 5 (tie): Monetize
If we had a quarter for every time someone at a conference or briefing uttered this synonym for getting money... well, we could certainly monetize our retirement fund nicely.
Here's the part about this word's appearance on this list that pains us a bit: We're one of the worst offenders. As Internet Evolution comes up on its first birthday at the end of this month, we should acknowledge that some form of "monetize" has appeared in 60 stories or message board postings on the site in the last year, frequently recurring within the same piece of content. Why so many of them involve Google and YouTube we can't say.
OK, so we got a little caught up in breathless VC-speak, trying too hard to impress John Doerr, the Secretary of the Treasury, and those MBA jerkfaces we sometimes meet for drinks. We hereby pledge to keep it simple and stupid in the future and swear off monetizing. Eschew, even. If we try to impress anyone, it will be William Safire, the ghost of E.B. White, and other guardians of clear expression and concise language.
Monetize gets tossed around pretty freely. In the louche lexicon of Web 2.0, it gets used variously to mean turn a profit, get funded, or open the revenue stream. Webster's defines it as turning coin into money, or to legalize as money. Google (and others) would like to do more of the former; try as it might, not even the Non-Evil Empire can create new forms of legal tender.
But if they ever sold that capability as a new Google App, we'd snap it up in a heartbeat; that is, we'd buy it. With legal money that didn't need monetizing.
Next page: No. 5 (tie): Tweet
Not to be erroneously associated with birds, or at least non-virtual birds, a "Tweet" is a 140-character microblog entry on Twitter: a tool for those with a lot to say in short spurts.
It's important, of course, to understand these buzzwords and their proper usage. So here goes: "Tweet" can be both a noun (as in, I just posted a Tweet about my recently enjoying an Egg McMuffin) as well as a verb (I will Tweet the vapid details of my lunch meat at 12:30 p.m. PDT). To say something like, I just posted a Twitter, is nothing short of embarrassing. "I just posted a Tweet on Twitter," is correct, although incredibly irritating.
Tweet isn't the only variation of the already horrid word Twitter we're now forced to hear on a regular basis. No. To complement Twitter and to give it a certain ubiquity, several subsequent tools have sprung up, all paying homage to Twitter in name: Twitteriffic, Twitterfeed, TweetDeck, TwitterBerry -- to name just a few.
It was bad enough when Twitter was a tool for the young crowd, the 18 and over technophiles, who have already done their part to sabotage language. But as Rob Salkowitz aptly pointed out, Twitter has become a tool more often used by the elder generation in the workforce.
Were we conspiracy theorists, we might suggest Twitter was designed not for our want of a tool with which to express what we're doing at all times –- but for the pure hilarity of hearing suited executives and politicians utter phrases like:
"Johnson, I'll need you to Tweet those reports to me by five sharp."
"Sen. Joan Smith's TweetDeck has shown incredible promise this election cycle."
The entertainment factor almost makes you forget how annoying this all is in the first place. Almost.
Next page: No. 4: Poke
Most people grow up learning not to "poke" anyone. In the schoolyard, it can lead to fisticuffs. In the office, it's a guaranteed career-stopper.
Maybe that's why so many adults, hitherto denied, are reaching for Slide Inc.'s applications on Facebook or MySpace , poking friends, relatives, and even colleagues with unadulterated glee. The idea is to send a cute, even idiotic, little graphic to your fellow social networkers that achieves the same result as a real poke without getting you fired.
Poking has quickly graduated to SuperPoking, which includes much more than simply sending a cute missive to get someone's attention. On Facebook, you have the following SuperPoke options to wake up your spouse, kid, best friend, or boss: bite, chest bump, dropkick, headbutt, high five, hug, kiss, lick, pet, pinch, pwn, slap, spank, sucker punch, tickle, trip, worship, throw a sheep at, and more.
You can modify these and other SuperPoke actions at will: One fellow's wife threw Michael Phelps at him; another's sister gave him a Moon Man. Ever dream of sending your boss a Doberman puppy?
Speaking of which, the poking craze has generated another Slide application, SuperPoke Pets, in which you create a pet, accessorize it, and send it on play dates around the Internet. MySpace features actual photos of consenting adults engaged in this behavior.
It's all in good fun. But once you get in the game, it takes over like kudzu. One SuperPoke, and you'll find a menu of poke graphics turning up on your profile. And expect pokes back. Someone may even "mass poke" you and your friends -– and who knows where that could lead?
Maybe to the dark land of Spyville. Why take a chance? Let's hear it for poke-free zones.
Next page: No. 3: Vlog
You've got to be fast in this Web 2.0 world, which is why long-winded phrases like "video blog" are necessarily condensed into one-syllable utterances.
While vlog sounds less like a word and more like a sound one might make when vomiting or speaking Swedish, it is, in fact, a commonly used word these days -– as are its variants vlogging, vlogger, vlogged.
This is one of those incredibly irritating buzzwords that offend the ear, are annoying to say, and force your mouth to move in awkward ways. And they are often defined and driven by a whole host of obnoxious people who think they're fab. Revolutionary! Next-gen! Practically Web 3.0!
Ugh. Stop.
Sure, some vlogs, when professionally done, can be great, just like some blogs. But how often are we subjected to the shaky-handed, cam-up-nose Blairwitch Project-esque vlog marked less by its professionalism and purposefulness and more by its ability to make noise and eat bandwidth?
We're vlogging everything these days. It's no longer about the angry religion hater ranting on YouTube –- or a cost-effective interview at a tradeshow here and there. No. We're vlogging all things from political gaffes to births.
We can generally agree that the situation is dire when a person's job title can't be found in a reputable dictionary edited before 2008.
Well, it's only getting easier and noisier for these vloggers. With services like Qik people can now live-vlog from the comfort of their own hands, broadcasting noisy nothingness from their cellphones.
Wait, wouldn't that make it a Clog?
Next page: No. 2: Cloud-computing
One morning, a marketing exec whose name nobody knows woke up after a fitful night’s sleep. Despite his best efforts, visions of his irate boss had consumed the wee hours.
It was those sales figures. Once again, the quarterly results for online or hosted services had failed to deliver the hoped-for growth rates. Sure, revenues were up; but they weren’t hitting the 20-plus percentage points management was pushing for.
As our friend looked mournfully out his kitchen window, waiting for the coffee that would fuel a fresh assault on the day, a small white cloud drifted into his peripheral view.
And cloud computing was born.
OK, maybe it wasn’t that simple. But few terms in tech jargon have so direct a link between literal and figurative meaning. Like its name indicates, cloud computing is gray, amorphous, changeable, and likely to rain heavily on expectations.
The first problem is one of definition. No one can really say with certainty what cloud computing really is, or how it differs from a range of other models like grid computing and hosting. Some say the distinction is clear, most notably in cloud computing’s support of networking that incorporates virtualized clusters operating in a distributed fashion that -- to quote one expert -- is “flexible and adaptive.”
Are any networks in your direct experience multisite, flexible, adaptive, largely virtualized, entirely green, and capable of delivering compute, storage, and bandwidth resources on demand in a manageable fashion?
Thought so.
It’s not that cloud computing isn’t possible; it’s simply not here yet. And while it’s evolving, it might be best to find a term for its that’s less of a model target for naysayers.
Then again, “science project” isn’t very good, either.
Next page: No. 1: Friending
If you are still using the word "friend" as a noun and "befriend" as a verb, my friend, you are living in the past.
With the birth of Web 2.0 and social networking came one of the most irritating abuses of the English language, requiring that we Netizens resort to some sort of new-age cave speak: "Friend me." "I Friended you." "What are you doing? Oh, just Friending my friend on Friendster" (well...).
And so it is with intensified aggravation we bring you the most hated buzzword of Web 2.0, as chosen by you: Friending.
Friending, for those readers still slow-groovin' to Benny and the Jets on 8-track, is the practice of accepting or requesting someone's friendship on the various social sites across the World Wide Web. Our Friends lists, however large or small, determine our social status among the digerati. You are who you Friend.
Friending, while born with the social network, became popularized with the emergence of Facebook as well as the brilliant idea that all sites must be social, and everyone must be Friends.
Ironically, though, in this Web 2.0 world, where everyone is allegedly so fricken' friendly that we've had to adapt the word to fit every known tense, the actual word friend has lost all meaning. Do we Friend friends? Sure. But we also Friend people we don't know -- possibly people we don't even like.
It is even the case that we Friend celebrities who, let's face it, are nobody's friend.
With all this incessant Friending going on, the conclusion is abundantly clear: Trust no one. And mind your marketing buzzwords.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS