I used to understand "beta" as "feature-complete". Web applications rarely are ever feature-complete and rather evolve slowly with time. So does "beta" have any specific meaning with them or is it just a gimmick?
+1
A:
I use that term if I want to say that something is "feature complete" regarding a specific milestone or any other kind of pre-announced feature set.
DR
2008-10-28 08:27:00
+3
A:
When you're Google, it means "ready for the public, but were continuously going to be tinkering with it"
Rik
2008-10-28 08:28:03
Quite fitting seeing as web 2.0 doesn't *really* mean anything :)
Greg
2008-10-28 08:33:48
Roborg, you beat me to the punch :)
Rik
2008-10-28 08:38:09
+5
A:
It's a pre-emptive disclaimer. "Go ahead, use it, but go easy on us if something collapses into itself and becomes a black hole."
Ishmaeel
2008-10-28 08:35:10
+1
A:
It's kind of like Windows. "As a special offer we are going the let you do all of the testing for us"
To be a bit more serious: I tend to use it when the website is "new" and the core features are working. Quite often additional features require big changes in the implementation. Once the basic implementation has stabilized ie. additional features won't require major changes to existing features I'd remove it.
These days it seems that the marketing and legal department are reluctant to remove the beta status. And it just so happens that none of my "commercial" websites projects have ever gotten rid of the beta status. Even though I would have stripped it. Kind of makes the beta status a bit meaningless as others have already answered.
Gene
2008-10-28 09:11:46
A:
Releasing a BETA version of a site, permits to understand if user like te mess you're making with interface, or just see that's failing.
Other examples: For community, or like ,sites, it permits enstablishment of first population itself, even if not fully features.
Joshi Spawnbrood
2008-10-28 10:33:48