> The signal to noise ratio in '97 was high because there was very little signal
I don't agree with that at all, there was plenty of signal, it just wasn't in 'rich media' format. Pages were static and simple instead of having a multi-media circus to put across a simple point.
RiderOfGiraffes has a neat little page up elsewhere right now that could have existed in exactly the same form in '96.
The web changed dramatically when 'big money' moved in and started turning the whole thing into a shopping mall / advertising space and I really think that that is degrading the medium.
The internet has certainly improved in many ways since then as you rightfully illustrate but there was lots of good in those early days (of the web) as well, and plenty of it got destroyed.
Usenet is a good example, there are those who argue that usenet had had it's run and that the web killed it, but it is my opinion that the spam is what killed it, not the competition from the web.
Probably I prefer to have less signal but of a higher quality rather than an absolute overload where you have to sift for the bits that are worth your time.
I think if you and I go point for point on modern web vs. '97 web, you will lose pretty quickly. The things you remember from the halcyon days of the Internet (Archie, Gopher, anonymous FTP sites, Sendmail vulnerabilities, and Usenet) aren't even better than the individual things that have replaced them today.
Quick. What's the site you most miss that the modern "corporate" web has destroyed?
I would think that it was the opposite, the enormous opportunity, to change the world significantly for the better, there was an atmosphere of 'this time we'll get it right', simply because 'big money' was looking the other way.
That changed somewhere around 1997 or so, and was absolutely unstoppable.
Anyway, I can see there is no way I'm going to be able to make you see what I'm getting at. I'm grasping at putting a feeling in to words and apparently the words fail me. But I can't help that feeling...
Ok, I've decided to put some action to my feeling, I'm going to run an experiment to make advertising on my sites optional, since I feel that I have become a part of the problem. We'll see how it works out.
I don't agree with that at all, there was plenty of signal, it just wasn't in 'rich media' format. Pages were static and simple instead of having a multi-media circus to put across a simple point.
RiderOfGiraffes has a neat little page up elsewhere right now that could have existed in exactly the same form in '96.
The web changed dramatically when 'big money' moved in and started turning the whole thing into a shopping mall / advertising space and I really think that that is degrading the medium.
The internet has certainly improved in many ways since then as you rightfully illustrate but there was lots of good in those early days (of the web) as well, and plenty of it got destroyed.
Usenet is a good example, there are those who argue that usenet had had it's run and that the web killed it, but it is my opinion that the spam is what killed it, not the competition from the web.
Probably I prefer to have less signal but of a higher quality rather than an absolute overload where you have to sift for the bits that are worth your time.