Passionate about web.
By Bobby WhitmanThe homepage of our website reads the following:
“We are passionate about web and excited by new trends and web technologies.”
We received an e-mail from someone who had visited the dynamIt site after seeing Nick and Dan on NBC 4 news last week. In his e-mail, this gentlemen informed us that we had a typographical error right on our homepage. He claimed that it should read, “We are passionate about the web…” We quickly thanked him for looking out for us, but confirmed that it is as we have intended.
At StartUp Weekend Columbus this past weekend the same gentlemen approached me about the exact same issue insisting that we were wrong. I was not looking for an argument so I smiled and said something along the lines of “it makes sense to us, we see web as not just a singular object, but as a much larger concept.” But, this man was not convinced. He claimed that it is grammatically incorrect and that the language makes zero sense to the average person. He told me that from a marketing standpoint using this language will just confuse our potential customers and they will not want to work with us.
The audacity of my inquisitor encouraged a range of emotions, but I stayed cool and sincerely thought about what he said. In certain contexts does it sound silly to use the word ‘web’ without the definite article preceding it? Why is it that I left the article off when I originally wrote that blurb for our front page? Why does it sound so natural as it is? What is (the) web, really?
To me, the web is not an object, it is not a thing you use, it is not a place you go. Rather, web is an idea. The web is does not exist to do to a denumerable number of tasks. I do not use the web to just do x, y, and z. Sure, you may just need to do x, and we can help you with that too, but we see web as an endless array of possibilities. When you work with dynamIt we want to open up all of these paths to you. Every application we’ve built is different than the last and every one in the future will be different still. This is what keeps us passionate and engaged. Each project we work on is its own unique little puzzle that we receive great pleasure in solving.
So, within a matter of minutes I was able to craft this argument.
“What is the definition of a noun?” I asked, to which I received the response, “a person, place, or thing.”
“Well, yes,” I said, “but, there is one type of noun that you are forgetting. A noun is defined as a person, place, thing, or idea.” He complied.
Next, I asked, “give me an example of some other nouns that represent ideas.” He responded quickly with two: philosophy and chemistry.
I concluded, “Does it not makes sense if I say, ‘We are passionate about philosophy’? When referring to the subject as a whole, Would you ever say, ‘We really enjoy the chemistry’?”
So, what does everyone think? What is (the) web, really? Did I win the argument? Or, is dynamIt just a little bit crazy? Comment below.
Tags: arguments, NBC 4 Columbus, nouns, Startup Weekend, the web, Web
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:23 am
Great argument!!! I am passionate about web as well :)!!!
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:45 am
I believe this is one of those great opportunities for the gentleman, who loves to start grammatical arguments, to say the word “touche’”. Well played Sir Whitman
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 am
Good argument, Whitman FTW!
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 am
well said bobby, i bet that guy feels like a real boob.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Isn’t “the Web” vs. “Web” very much a 1.0 vs. 2.0 comparison?
“The Web” (1.0) was a site, a place, that resembles the broadcast model of one to many. For most, 1.0 means a brochure site where information is disseminated to an audience.
“Web” (2.0 and beyond) is a distribution platform that has no single destination but rather feeds and widgets that may take original content and mash it into something new. It’s ever evolving from community contributions that are welcome and transparent.
Microsoft = “the Web”
Google = “web”
Just my interpretation.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Bobby,
You won the argument, but there are actually two winning theories. The premise is that the web is an idea is good. But the 2.0 web is the social web. So in affect, the 2.0 web is alive. It’s no longer an inanimate object, holding information, it really seems to be a living thing. I wouldn’t refer to a living thing as “the Squire” or “the dynamIt”. Of course all of that is predicated by the idea that that the web is a living breathing thing. I believe.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Tim.
Good observation on the 1.0 versus 2.0 distinction. That had not occurred to me, but I like it. I think you are absolutely right. This even relates back to the days of dial-up when you had to wait a good minute or two just for your computer to be taken to “the web.” Today, the ubiquity of access–be it through broadband, wifi hotspots, or even mobile–supports the theory that “web” is a collective concept.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
realization of web as THE platform means that you’re there, you understand. when web is THE platform, the possibilities are endless as you think of social media and distribution. also, acceptance and reliance on web as A/THE platform allows one to truly begin to grasp RDF, XML, N3, OWL sematics, 3.0, etc.. and the idea that web does, can and should facilitates linked data. we just need to get there.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
You are very passionate about this point. Say I ask you a question like, “Where can I find information on DynamIT.” Would you respond “Let me do a web search,” or “Let me get on THE web and find out?”
Most logicly you would say, “Let me go to THEIR web site.”
I voice that it could go either way.
Do not let that detract that you made a very vaild point!
July 25th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
As someone who produces the blog the270.com, my vote if for “the web”.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
It took me a few minutes the first time I read “We are passionate about Web” but it kind of grew on me. Now that I read this, it makes total sense. Web has become a growing living breathing thing (much like chemistry) and I think you are one of those few are able to see changes early or as they happen. It will take others a while to figure it out, but I suspect that others will refer to it as Web in the future, once the concept gain traction. Stick to your guns.
Oh, and I come back here just to gaze at that pretty, messy, colorful splat on the page. I think it’s pretty cool.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Bobby,
Good to see you guys at CSMC the other night.
And for clarification, I am the “boob” who brought this up in the first place. I am glad that I have stumbled upon this post now so that hopefully I don’t just look like the anonymous grammar nerd out to pick on the grammar-less web developer. It is pretty clear that you guys are great at both “web” and grammar.
Anyways, I am sorry to have ever brought this up, and I had really no idea what this was going to become when I first emailed you. But, I hope you realize that I wasn’t trying to correct you as much as I was trying to understand where you were coming from. I think I have come to terms with the ladder several times over. And Tim, I really like your Web 2.0 observation. That makes a ton of sense too.
However, thank you to Alvin and Rocky, and others for at least offering my opinion some credibility. I was beginning to think I was going crazy. Personally, I know very little about “web” etc., and the background behind that use of grammar. It still doesn’t feel right to me, and my guess is that it wouldn’t feel right to the layman. But your argument is very well thought out and, like I said, I understand your perspective.
Hope to see you guys around soon. I owe you a drink for wasting so much of your time explaining this. But, I think it is awesome how you linked your homepage to this blog. Now, you won’t get anymore emails from idiots like me.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
JC.
No apology necessary, I am actually really glad that you did bring it up as it has provoked much thought from our end. It has really helped us define what web is to us and made us think about the medium in which we work.
Also, my purpose in blogging about it was not to call you out or flex my own intellectual muscles. (Well, maybe the latter just a bit). Rather, it was to tell an entertaining story and provoke thought about the concept of web amongst the community. With a dozen comments on the post now, I feel that I have achieved this, albeit on a relatively small scale.
Stay in touch.
-Bobby
October 9th, 2009 at 10:51 am
demmande logiciel des plan des chaluts de peche de fond