10 definitions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings

I have come to avoid talking about this stuff with people. The first question anyone asks me is “what is Web 2.0?” Unfortunately for the ensuing con­ver­sa­tion, it’s a little tricky to provide a straight answer. Every time you find a neat expres­sion for summing the whole Web 2.0 thing up, I imme­di­ately think of an excep­tion, or three, or ways that the defin­i­tion doesn’t really get us anywhere.

In the list that follows, I’ve taken a lot of these char­ac­ter­istics or defin­i­tions from Tim O’Reilly’s What is Web 2.0?, and also Paul Graham’s Web 2.0 and Jason Fried’s user survey about the term.

1. The wisdom of crowds: We’re thinking here of things like digg that harness col­lective judge­ments to decide the import­ance of news stories. People talk about the power of ‘network effects’ when they’re keen on this defin­i­tion. Google Search works like this by using the number and quality of inbound links to decide a page’s import­ance. But the whole idea does not apply to Google Maps, or any of the other Software-​​as-​​a-​​Service (SaaS) crowd e.g. Basecamp, Writely, 30boxes, etc., which are non­ethe­less thought of as being Web 2.0. Nor does it apply to social networks that are just about devel­oping and main­taining friend­ships, like MySpace, though they do benefit from network effects, of course.

2. Shared Web Applications. One of the defin­i­tions from Jason Fried’s list and quite prom­ising. Almost the opposite of our first defin­i­tion, since it quite clearly applies to things like Basecamp, Writely and 30Boxes. However, there are some Web 2.0 applic­a­tions that have no social element what­so­ever, e.g. Pandora, Google Maps, Orchestrate, goowy. I’m also strug­gling with the idea of web applic­a­tions. I can see why digg and Google Search are applic­a­tions, but to have this as a defining feature of Web 2.0 would mean clas­si­fying MySpace as an applic­a­tion. And if I allow that, then almost any web site becomes an application.

3. Web as platform: It’s hard to know where this one starts and ends. In some sense, every web page is using the web as a platform. For Tim O’Reilly, who came up with this explan­a­tion, it means services that could not exist without the web, and he’s thinking of things like eBay, craigslist, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, Skype and Dodgeball. For me, that means that every online com­munity could fall into this category. Are message boards and usenet Web 2.0? Most people would say not. Too broad.

4. User Participation: This is about the pointing out the dif­fer­ences between old-​​fashioned news­paper and magazine sites and new services like YouTube, flickr, and OhMyNews where the con­sumers are also the creators. The expres­sion ‘Read/​Write web’ crops up among pro­ponents of this defin­i­tion. Again, it’s rather too broad, so it could equally apply to message boards, but also too narrow in a dif­ferent way, since it misses the SaaS sites.

5. Rich User Experience: Web 2.0 sites use CSS, AJAX and other tech­no­lo­gies to enhance usab­ility and create dynamic pages able to display more inform­a­tion in the same space. But hang on, the default MySpace page is probably one of the least “rich” ima­gin­able. Oh, apart from craigslist. And until they intro­duced search term pre­dic­tion earlier this year, Google Search didn’t use any fancy present­a­tion tech­no­lo­gies at all. Also, the presence of an AJAX-​​enhanced shopping cart on an etailer site doesn’t really capture what people mean by Web 2.0. Dell.com, for example, has had a ‘live’ shopping cart for years. It’s a good cart, but Web 2.0?

6. Marketing Buzzword: This is what all the sceptics say. So Google Search and Amazon and eBay and craigslist, all of which are believed to be Web 2.0 applic­a­tions, because they match some of the other char­ac­ter­istics I’ve described here, are just some sort of modern fad that’s going to fade away, are they? The same thing goes for anyone who wants to describe Web 2.0 as “the new stuff on the web”. I do agree, incid­ent­ally, that Web 2.0 has become a mar­keting buzzword, it’s just that I think that it’s also more than that.

7. Data is the next Intel Inside: Though it’s a bit of a mouthful, I actually quite like this one. Again, it’s from the O’Reilly paper. Data man­age­ment is a core com­pet­ency of Web 2.0 com­panies. “SQL is the new HTML,” is another quo­ta­tion from the paper along these lines. All the Web 2.0 crowd, and we can go from giants like Amazon and Google to startups like 30boxes and Orchestrate, operate mainly from data­bases to contain and present per­son­al­ised views on that data. There’s two problems here: (a) data man­age­ment isn’t quite such a sexy idea as people would want and (b) a lot of the Web 1.0 com­panies were also about finding clever ways to use data­bases e.g. Altavista, Lastminute.com.

8. Permanent Beta: Web 2.0 applic­a­tions are re-​​released, re-​​written and revised on an ongoing basis, putting paid to the yearly release cycle that char­ac­ter­ised earlier software devel­op­ment. Most Google applic­a­tions, for example, are still in Beta. flickr is rumoured to some­times be revised every 30 minutes. MySpace and the other social networks add extra features every couple of weeks. I think that this is a clear char­ac­ter­istic of Web 2.0 apps. But it’s also become a feature of main­stream applic­a­tions. Windows and MacOS, for example, get new fixes and patches every month. Antivirus programs are updated every day, but they aren’t Web 2.0, are they? The same thing goes for ‘light­weight pro­gram­ming models’. Also, I think people mean more by the term than the way in which it’s pro­grammed. Most users couldn’t care less, they just want it to work well.

9. Using the web as it was meant to be used: This one is from Paul Graham’s essay on the subject. He’s refer­ring to the increases in usab­ility that are achieved through very good design as well as things like AJAX, but also by allowing users to develop their own ways of organ­ising the inform­a­tion they have, the way del.icio.us and flickr do. Again, I have a couple of problems here. Firstly, it’s a bit loose: I’m sure that there were always some very well-​​designed sites that worked exactly as you wanted them to. The old (and now defunct) UK train timetable site was a perfect web app in many senses: it got you train times quickly and easily. But no-​​one would call it Web 2.0. Second, it’s a little self-​​satisfied as a defin­i­tion and implies we’re reaching an end-​​point. A lot of the sites described as Web 2.0 have quite clearly got it wrong.

10. Nothing: One of the more popular answers in Jason Fried’s user poll. It’s a hard one for me to evade given that I have just come up with counter-​​examples or objec­tions to all the defin­i­tions I’ve been able to find. Still, I resist the idea that this is nothing. Here are two answers to the question I think are true. (a) A Web 2.0 applic­a­tion, site or service will have a com­bin­a­tion of the features given above. Just as black and white aren’t sat­is­factory for describing the colour of everything, neither is Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0. It isn’t a binary division of the web, or a revolu­tion. Instead, we have a spectrum. Those sites and services which satisfy a number of these criteria or char­ac­ter­istics are more Web 2.0 than those which don’t. That is not a value judge­ment, of course. Sites with no Web 2.0 features can still be won­derful. Sites with a lot of them can be awful. Also (b) Web 2.0 is still too young as an expres­sion to have reached the point where we have con­sensus about what it means. It means dif­ferent things to dif­ferent people at the moment. It may only be with hind­sight that we come to be able to narrow things down enough to be able to say what it was in one sentence.

Share this post:

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Possibly related:

83 comments to 10 definitions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings

  • Interesting Ian. Personally, I think Amazon is Web 1.

    For me Web 2.0 is about com­mu­nic­a­tion channels. Web 2.0 sites open up many-​​to-​​many com­mu­nic­a­tions and use these as their primary raison d’etre. Web 1 was primarily one-​​to-​​many (i.e. web­master to visitor).

    This works for SaaS because the inherent network of the Internet makes them multi-​​user by nature (albeit, perhaps, within one account). It works for com­munity sites (obvi­ously) and it works for auction sites like eBay. It doesn’t work for etailers which usually form one-​​to-​​many.

    WRT message boards. I think early forums and message boards were trail­blazers for what is com­mon­place now. Where message boards were used as a sec­ondary and sup­porting prop that rules them out — but early usenet groups were, IMHO, the seed­lings of Web 2.0. After all, they are what spawned Omidyar’s baby (according to ‘The Perfect Store’ and eBay has to be the perfect many-​​to-​​many.

  • 11. Many-​​to-​​many com­mu­nic­a­tions. Hmmm… That’s quite com­pel­ling. But not Google Search or Maps or Orchestrate or Pandora, then? Your own web applic­a­tion, busi­nes­sITon­line would thus be Web 1.0 if used by an indi­vidual, but Web 2.0 if used by a team, which is an inter­esting conundrum.

    You’re def­in­itely right about forums and message boards.

    When I launched a magazine website a couple of years ago, we included full features from the mag, news items and what we thought was a really helpful shopping database. And a message board. Six weeks after launch 99% of the traffic on the site was to the message board. It remains so ever since.

    The same thing happened with my first site, back when I used to be a teacher. I wrote a site about the play Hamlet, intended to help A-​​level students. I wrote tens of thou­sands of words covering every possible exam topic. It was quite highly praised and (for me) a major success that i never bothered to try to monetise — around 300K page impres­sions a month. But where did the traffic go? The message board, of course.

    So Web 2.0 har­nesses what has always driven traffic, many-​​to-​​many com­mu­nic­a­tions, in what developers hope are com­pel­ling ways.

  • Yes, the true value of BIO is realised when it is multi-​​user. Sure, it’s access­ible remotely from any computer which beats a spread­sheet but it’s the col­lab­or­ative nature of the app that’s compelling.

    Google Search — col­lab­or­ative data com­mu­nic­a­tions (many-​​to-​​many linking) gets this in, but tra­di­onal text search doesn’t get in
    Google Maps — correct, unless mashed up on a col­lab­or­ative app
    Orchestrate — don’t know it
    Pandora — again, col­lab­or­ative data communication

    The com­pel­ling point for visitors is that some­thing (alive) is hap­pening with their data, i.e. things will have ‘happened’ since they last visited.

    Will check back here soon… :-)

  • Not sure you’ve quite covered off Google Search there, since the com­mu­nic­a­tion you describe is entirely non-​​verbal. A pingback is com­mu­nic­a­tion of a sort, sure, but that only applies to blogs. It’s about Google tracking the links that are created, which may or may not have a human-​​to-​​human com­mu­nic­a­tion element. Still, it doesn’t matter one jot to me, or anyone else if Google is Web 2.0 or not. If I pursue my ‘some of the above’ method, then it is. If I follow your many-​​to-​​many method, then it isn’t.

    I am also inter­ested in this duality thing. If nobody views or comments on your photos shared on flickr, then it’s Web 1. If they do, then it’s Web 2. With the assist­ance of meta-​​comment applic­a­tions like Alexa and Diigo, any site can poten­tially be Web 2 that way. But if a web page falls over in the forest and no-​​one is listening, does it make a sound?

    PS. Orchestrate is an AJAX to-​​do list system which works really well IMHO.

  • Rob

    It doesn’t really matter how Web 2.0 is defined. That is in the hands of the people. I went on one site with a dir­ectory of these things and it said WordPress and Drupal were Web 2.0. I don’t really think that is true, but if that’s what people mean by Web 2.0, then I am wrong. The defin­i­tion is very flexible at this point. Maybe that is why there’s so much com­mo­tion about it.

  • Ian says that Amazon is believed to be 2.0, but David thinks it’s 1.0. My own take is that if Amazon were a pure online store it would be 1.0 (I agree with Ian that being database-​​driven isn’t a new 2.0 thing), but its inclu­sion of user reviews makes it 2.0. And Amazon’s adding the ability for people to sell their own items, in a form of com­pet­i­tion against Amazon’s, makes it even more 2.0.

    Amazon’s been around for a while, which to many people is an auto­matic dis­qual­i­fic­a­tion for 2.0 status. I don’t see it that way: I don’t believe that “newness” is a useful attribute. In fact, when I answer the question “What is Web 2.0?” I refer to eBay as my example and then explain what’s “dif­ferent” about it. The people I talk to seem to understand.

  • Ibbs

    I visit http://www.techcrunch.com and http://www.web2list.com to be updated what web 2.0 is.

  • Why try and find a defin­i­tion? Isn’t it all about language games and family resemb­lances?
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#Lan

  • You might be right, Tom, and in some senses that’s where I ended the post (the 10b remark). Family resemb­lance doesn’t really help in under­standing what the thing is, though, and doesn’t help settle an argument over whether some­thing is or is not Web 2.0.

  • Hey Ian,

    You know my thoughts on this — the common theme of Web 2.0 is user-​​centricity, which is a) a very good thing and b) not par­tic­u­larly new as a concept.

    There isn’t a firm defin­i­tion that means anything much, nor do we par­tic­u­larly need one. I guess Web 2.0 simply rep­res­ents a bunch of tools /​ concepts /​ approaches that, by and large, are there to make things better for web users.

  • Chris. I’m con­cerned about this laissez-​​faire, willy-​​nilly attitude. ;) How can I write per­fectly good articles like the forth­coming “Why 2.0 is Crucial to Human Civilization”, “Why Web 3.0 will Revolutionise the World” and “Web 2.0: Sliced Bread Admits Defeat” if I can’t even say what it is?

  • To be honest, I think web 2.0 is more a gimmick than anything. JavaScript or rather DHTML have been around forever, I mean this whole fetch the xml and display it, and don’t reload pages — instead just fetch the content and make the user waiting with one of those ajax loading anim­a­tions, is annoying. On lower end machines, this causes severe lag in browsers like FireFox. I mean I tried using a 1ghz computer to load GMail (com­pletely clean install­a­tion, no spyware/​viruses) and it took like 1–2 minutes for it to load (con­nec­tion is clocked at 1mb p/​s) it’s not the con­nec­tion or computer, its just that dif­ferent browsers vary on time used to render javascript.

    Let’s all get over Web 2.0, podcasts and all these stupid jargon terms and let’s call it for what it really is, gimmicks.

  • Clearly Web 2.0 is just a ref­er­ence of time, or rather an era. Think of it like art clas­sical, modern, post-​​modern. We all get a vague idea of when web 1.0 and clearly we are in the era of web 2.0 right now. I think the next era will be web 2.5 just to throw people off.

  • Tryggvi

    Forgot one: Web 2.0 is pre­ma­ture. Go back and read your Vannevar Bush, Ted Nelson, Douglas Engelbart, Tim Berners-​​Lee, et al, and you’ll quickly realize that we’ve barely reached web 1.0 yet.

  • Synfin

    Web 2.0 = XMLHttpRequest

    That is all that is really needed to define web 2.0. It the cap­ab­il­ities that XMLHttpRequest has allowed in web devel­op­ment, which boils down to multiple threads of com­mu­nic­a­tion to the server without having to refresh the entire page. I’m so sick of IT hype!

  • Its about the end user. Everything from “Web1.0″ was in essence a copy/​paste from preex­isting frame­works for com­panies inter­acting with con­sumers. Amazon == online book store. (of course I would argue that they’ve begun blurring the line) Most of the Web1.0 com­panies websites were e-​​brouchures, maybe they’d even have their user manual for download (The same exact thing that you’d have in the box) maybe they’d even have an E-​​mail form (analagous to the “We’d love to hear your feedback” surveys). Dell had their e-​​shopping cart, coin­cid­ent­ally it func­tions exactly like a real shopping cart.

    However after the first bubble some­thing else began hap­pening. The internet no longer was copying the cold cor­porate concepts that existed in the real world, but were bending more towards the users. essen­tially the dif­fer­ence between a fast food chain and a family owned resraunt on the corner.

    Now we see Google search come about because users don’t want the e-​​yellowpages of the older search engines, they want results. we see google maps come about, not entirely innov­ative, but incred­ably usable. We see Pandora and last.fm cus­tom­izing radio for the end user. We see the pre­val­ence of ajax, because the internet is no longer about flipping through the pages of a junk mail advert­ise­ment or a book, its about deliv­ering to the end users what they want when they want in a nice clean fashon. We see friends features on everything because the end user likes the social aspect of the internet.

    Now as google started this movement, various others joined in. And when I say various others I mean spe­cific­ally the end users. Enabled by wiki­pedia, wp/​mt/​lj/​blogger, digg, and many other services/​software people began con­trib­uting to the web. Web2.0 being about the End Users means that people will be pulled into a com­munity and thus a site/​service when they can con­tribute to it. Thus you see Discuss This links poping up every­where, comments on blogs etc. etc.

    In con­clu­sion, my defin­i­tion for web2.0 is indeed overly broad and general, however, it does I think sum it up very nicely. In this great Web2.0 we’re no longer a consumer, an IP adress, or a +1 on the hit counter. We’re people.

  • ajax = XMLHttpRequest
    +
    shiny things
    +
    Beta

    = Web 2.0

  • aldo

    I have a few questions,

    If an applic­a­tion has all the char­ac­ter­istics of Web 2.0 you men­tioned above:

    Does the tech­no­logy camp used to do Web 2.0 matters? Meaning open-​​source vs. tra­di­tional enter­prise software like Microsoft technologies.

    Does the com­munity devel­oping Web 2.0 applic­a­tion would kill the buzz of a Web 2.0 applic­a­tion just because it doesn’t use open-​​source? Or not take it seriously.

    These ques­tions are not about which side is better or less expens­ive… and I don’t want to get tech­nical either. But Web 2.0 seems to be related a lot with open-​​source, but it seems that it would be possible to create Web 2.0 with Microsoft tech­no­lo­gies too.

    What do you think?

  • If we look back in the history of any mass media, the trend has always been to start out with a wide scope, self-​​adjust, and then narrow its focus.

    Whether its news­paper, tele­vi­sion, or radio, the media started with a nation­wide or global audience catering to cor­porate sponsors. After a few years, a large chunk of this media trickles down to serve regional and then local advert­isers. Usually there is some self-​​correction as the media-​​consumer-​​advertiser rela­tion­ship matures.

    The web is no excep­tion. We had our dot-​​com bust. And now local busi­nesses are figuring out how to advertise online and internet com­panies are figuring out how to serve them. (look at Google’s $900 million deal with Myspace — they wanted local targeted advertising).

    None of the tech thought leaders like O’Reilly and Graham want to think of it this way, but I think we’ll look back at the Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 trans­ition as the same evol­u­tion that TV and radio experienced.

    More thoughts here: http://www.mychurch.org/blog/view/?ID=201

  • I’ve blogged about this topic as well, Ian. See Web2.0 to Web2.U

    Chris, it’d be great if you’d give it a read and provide comment as well.

    Also see: Web2.0 Must Go and Cooperative Computing

    Rob — I agree that the term and its meaning are ulti­mately in the hands of the people. I sense from your writing an optimism that people will actually do some­thing other then throw their hands up in frus­tra­tion, or stretch their hands forth to gladly hand it over to the first person who asks for the power to do with it what they please.

    I’d greatly appre­ciate con­structive feedback and the oppor­tunity to continue this conversation.

    Summum Bonum

  • freefall

    Check out the dkp search on http://www.sheeped.net. Its a command line entry point to an applic­a­tion that allows you to query a database. Web 2.0 or just the same simple applic­a­tion of func­tion­ality to solve a need. My point? The command line in a field is a fairly new concept and perhaps it is an applic­a­tion, so, new + applic­a­tion must mean web2.0? Or does it have to have social interaction?

    Hi this is Bob, Bob likes this site so he gave it 4/​5 melons and its appeared on deli­cious and so his peers say YES! Bob now uses an online applic­a­tion to log his activity. People read his online diary and discuss that. Is that whole process to be described as web 2.0 or is each indi­vidual applic­a­tion he has inter­acted with a web 2.0 applic­a­tion? I would argue it is the envir­on­ment that we live in on the inet that is what is being dis­cussed and web2.0 is the descrip­tion of the dir­ec­tion. Because most shallow minded people require tangible entities to point at as evidence web2.0 is used at a singular level. Look beyond that and its obvious what web2.0 actually is.

  • OK. Wow. Bear with me here, because a lot of these posts deserve long, thoughtful replies, but time demands that I can only do short ones today (it’s 11.30pm). Hopefully, we can beat out some of these issues a bit more over coming weeks and posts.

    @Sh Sometimes it’s the case that live updates are the only feature; gimmicks are always bad. What things in par­tic­ular were you thinking of?

    @Russell. Very sensible comment, and true. But doesn’t go far enough. Why are we talking about this trend *now* and not at other times?

    @Synfin. Not all web 2.0 sites use the XMLHttpRequest call, e.g. MySpace. I believe it would be possible to write a site meeting a lot of these criteria in HTML, or Flash for that matter.

    @gleapskate. Broad and general, maybe. But on the money, IMHO. Will be sure to come by your site soon.

    @aldo: great ques­tions. I do think MS could create a Web 2.0 applic­a­tion, indeed many parts of Windows Live would qualify ad Web 2.0, I think.

    @Joe: I have some thoughts on that myself. Damn! Hope you didn’t just pre-​​empt my next topic idea. I really hate these blogs that just echo each other!

    @freefall. Your URL didn’t work, I’m afraid. An envir­on­ment rather than indi­vidual sites, or maybe an attitude? Worth further thought.

  • Travuun

    Seems like what Web 2.0 really is about it VC monies actually going back into the web in the form of these new sites. Web 2.0 could really be any site that can actually get VC funds, haha.

  • freefall

    @Ian Delaney

    that url doesnt work because for some reason putting a period after a url includes it in the link, so try this:

    http://www.sheeped.net

  • freefall. Got it. Very inter­esting applic­a­tion. I guess it would fulfill a lot of the criteria dis­cussed in the post. I’m coming round to the envir­on­ment descrip­tion you offer and also the analogy to an art movement offered by one of the other posters.

  • very interesting–the answer to me seems to be all of the above, some of the above, and none of the above. which is cheating really, but also points to exactly to what you are saying. as soon as we try and create even rel­at­ively airtight defin­i­tions of an entity, or ephochal movement, our attempts fall short. i think this is because web 2.0 is much more than an era, much more than a tech­no­lo­gical movement, but a cultural phen­onemon that is both rad­ic­ally new and also indebted to all the tech­no­lo­gies of communication/​representation that preceded it (whether we’re talking about web 1.0–whatever that is–listservs, or the camera and the printing press). it is very dif­fi­cult to draw lines based on tech­no­lo­gical instru­ment­ality alone, I feel.

    web 2.0 becomes a catchall phrase (like “mod­ernity”) a net, to talk about all the nuances–social, cultural, tech­no­lo­gical, human–that seem to define our age, our tech­no­lo­gies, and our rela­tion­ships to them. which means it’s *rel­at­ively* and perhaps neces­sarily indefinable.

    i expect as you are doing your research, you are finding that people use the term as it suits them, and this does not mean it has no “meaning”–but that its a term in flux, being nego­ti­ated for specific purposes–and that is fine. that’s language! (gawd love it) an inter­esting question would be to look at how people are using the term and for what purposes in specific contexts. and defer the broader question as unanswer­able (for now).

    thanks for the oppor­tunity to think!

  • I’d say Web 2.0 is the single most inter­esting devel­op­ment of the new internet tech­no­logy with no one really knows what it is.

    Check it out at http://www.profy.com/2006/10/29/still-with-web-20-definition/

  • Luogo interess­ante, buon disegno, lo gradisco, signore! =)

  • Any feasible solution depends on its cal­cu­lated com­prom­ises, Web2.0 brings these concepts together, but I would imagine archi­tects will still need to evaluate the approach given the require­ment in hand.

    Ashok

  • Craig Tobias

    I hear a lot of dis­cus­sion around defining Web 2.0; I think simpler defin­i­tion is better such as “user based col­lab­or­a­tion and content gen­er­a­tion”. There are a number of people who want a clear cut defin­i­tion on exactly what Web 2.0 is and everything encom­passed by Web 2.0. This is ana­logous to asking for a list of every animal that exist now or has ever exist before they are willing to talk about dogs or buffalo. Even today new species are being dis­covered. If I may barrow the famous words of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward, “I may not be able to fine it, but I know it when I see it.” Web 2.0 is still growing and evolving this is why it is still so hard to define.

    The biggest issue facing Web 2.0 is not tech­no­logy. Most of the tech­no­logy used in Web 2.0 has been around for quite some time. It is the applic­a­tion of this tech­no­logy which is special. Here is the analogy I use for those who say that there is nothing new in Web 2.0. Using this approach one could argue that there is no such thing as a demo­cratic state. That before the 1700s there were people, states, and gov­ern­ments and demo­cracy is just made of these three elements. Well, we know that it is not the elements but their applic­a­tion which is different.

    Craig Tobias
    Solutions Architect
    Cisco Systems.

  • Speaking a dirty word…

    Ian Green at Green Gathering was asking recently just what was Web 2.0 exactly (he con­cluded it was made of recycled tech blurbs!). While Web 2.0 can be a dirty word in some circles I am keen on the underlying…

  • […] 10 defin­i­tions of Web 2.0 and their short­com­ings at twopoin­touch: web 2.0, blogs and social media (tags: Web2.0) […]

  • […] Link here. Tags : By r00t 4orce August 18, 2006 8:48 am Comments :   […]

  • […] 10 defin­i­tions of Web 2.0 and their short­com­ings — TwoPointTouch […]

  • […] I’m afraid it fits the latter group — nobody really knows what Web 2.0 is. I’d say Wikipedia is Web 2.0 — but there are not too many sites I’d classify there. I wouldn’t say this blog is Web 2.0 — it’s just a static HTML page with a fancy CMS behind it.read more | digg story Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social book­marking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]

  • […] Read 10 defin­i­tions of Web 2.0 and their short­com­ings this morning and it left me with that queesy feeling about the “2.0″ labeling goind around these days (for those not fol­lowing, office and bizdev are the latest two-​​point-​​oh to be coined). […]

  • […] I stumbled on this via digg.  It quickly inspired the fol­lowing off the cuff comment.  In the spirit of web2.0 I’d like to reques tthat if you read this, you con­tribute some­thing to it… or if you don’t every one will make fun of you. You Web1-​​ian. Its about the end user. Everything from “Web1.0″ was in essence a copy/​paste from preex­isting frame­works for com­panies inter­acting with con­sumers. Amazon == online book store. (of course I would argue that they’ve begun blurring the line) Most of the Web1.0 com­panies websites were e-​​brouchures, maybe they’d even have their user manual for download (The same exact thing that you’d have in the box) maybe they’d even have an E-​​mail form (analagous to the “We’d love to hear your feed­back” surveys). Dell had their e-​​shopping cart, coin­cid­ent­ally it func­tions exactly like a real shopping cart. […]

  • […] — Jose Sandoval (he ref­er­ences also to some more serious defin­i­tions– as serious as Web 2.0 might be) …to be continued […]

  • 10 defin­i­tions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings…

    In the list that follows, I’ve taken a lot of these char­ac­ter­istics or defin­i­tions from Tim O’Reilly’s What is Web 2.0?, and also Paul Graham’s Web 2.0 and Jason Fried’s user survey about the term.…

  • The Friday Linker (for 8–18-06)…

    End your weekend with a list of our favorite news items from around the ‘Web, as well as websites that we find inter­esting. Welcome to “The Friday Linker”.……

  • […] 10 defin­i­tions of web 2.0 and why they don’t always fit.read more | digg story […]

  • 10 种 Web2.0 的定义?…

    人很喜欢归条目的,什么十二个最佳 XXX、七个让你 XXX 的理由、五大 XXX 秘诀等等等等,名目繁多,从前年开始就开始争议的 Web 2.0 的定义,直到今天还有人在炒冷é¥ï¼ˆä¸è¿‡ä¹Ÿç¡®å®žæ²¡æœ‰æ˜Žç¡®çš„…

  • […] 10 defin­i­tions of Web 2.0 and their short­com­ings at twopoin­touch: web 2.0, blogs and social media (tags: web2.0 defin­i­tions ref­er­ence web article culture web20) 归类于: 书签 — 数码幽灵 @ 11:19 pm […]

  • […] Tratto da twopointtouch.com […]

  • […] 10 defin­i­tions of Web 2.0 and their short­com­ings at twopoin­touch: web 2.0, blogs and social media - What is Web 2.0?  I’ve been asked that a couple of time.  The answer isn’t easy.  Web 2.0 is not one thing but a com­bin­a­tion of philo­sophy, tech­no­logy, and aesthetics. […]

  • […] Good article on what Web 2.0 is all about. My first reaction months ago about the term Web 2.0 was that it was probably a bunch of hype and at best a buzz word. But no, Web 2.0 is real and changing the world as much as HTML and the world­wide web did in the 1990s. read more | digg story Related Posts: No related posts,  […]

  • […] Enough of the this Web 2.0 shit already!! All it is is web pro­gram­ming lan­guages that are now working together. I really liked this article here. […]

  • […] There’s a great dis­cus­sion on twopoin­touch about defining exactly what is and isn’t Web2.0. Examples citied include: MySpace, eBay, Amazon, Google Maps, Pandora, Digg, WordPress, and Wikipedia. […]

  • […] Momentan teilt sich meine Aufmerksamkeit zwischen gener­ellen Web 2.0 Themen und den Szenarien und daraus ableit­baren Nutzungen und Funktionalitäten des Portals. Einerseits hängt beides mitein­ander zusammen… ander­er­seits ist ein Portal für Studenten als Dienstleistung der Universität eigent­lich etwas, was zunächst nicht von Schlagwörtern erdrückt werden sollte. […]

  • […] Estas perdido con tanto que nombran y dicen web 2.0. Esquizopedia te trae una buena ayuda para hacer tu tarea de informática (suponiendo que llegaste aquí por san Google). Las 10 defini­ciones de WEB 2.0 (en ingles, no pensarías que encontrarías la tarea completa, tra­du­cida al español) Sin comentarios + […]

  • […] Dave com­mented to me on an earlier post that a key defining feature of Web 2.0 applic­a­tions is many-​​to-​​many com­mu­nic­a­tions. I’m still not sure it covers everything we mean by the term, but it’s a helpful tool for each of these first three examples. […]

  • […] 10 defin­i­tions of web 2.0 and why they don’t always fit.read more | digg story […]

  • […] Maar alle defin­ities zijn weer­leg­baar, zoals het artikel 10 defin­i­tions of Web 2.0 and their short­com­ings doet. Hij weerlegt hier dat er 1 bepaalde defin­itie is voor een Web 2.0 applic­atie. Hij zegt dat een site met meerdere defin­ities meer Web 2.0 dan eentje die niet aan deze defin­ities voldoet. Ook zegt hij dat Web 2.0 nog te jong is een uit te leggen wat het werkelijk is. […]

  • […] For the last few weeks, after encoun­tering a couple of blog-​​posts on the subject, I’ve been mulling over this concept of “web 2.0.”   I am won­dering why and how the term carries so much (at least in the blo­go­sphere) currency right now, and fas­cin­ated by the myriad of recent posts that attempt to define what is, and (even more inter­est­ingly) what is not, web 2.0. (Anne 2.0; Anshu Sharma; Ian Delaney; Stephen Downes to refer to just a few) […]

  • […] 10 defin­i­tions of Web 2.0 and their short­com­ings at twopoin­touch … Annotating the next gen­er­a­tion of the web. A blog about Web 2.0. … 25 Email is Broken at twopoin­touch: web 2.0, blogs and social media … […]

  • […] 10 defin­i­tions of web 2.0 and why they don’t always fit.read more | digg story […]

  • […] 10 defin­i­tions of web 2.0 and why they don’t always fit.read more | digg story […]

  • Nowadays More And More Web 20 Applications Appear On The Internet Like MySpace A…

  • […] Es gibt viele Definitionen von Web2.0. Diese Liste von 10 Charakteristikas, erstellt von twopoin­touch, fasst es gut zusammen, aber auch die Kommentare sind interessant: 10 defin­i­tions of Web 2.0 and their short­com­ings Tags: Web2.0 « Web Crimes […]

  • […] Eine ein­heit­liche Definition für den Begriff “Web2.0” zu finden ist schwer. Als Grundlage für eigene Erklärungen kann die Zusammenfassung von Ian Delaney dienen: 10 defin­i­tions of Web 2.0 and their short­com­ings. In dem Artikel nennt Delaney Web2.0-Eigenschaften wie “Die Weisheit der Masse”, Nutzerbeteiligung und “Permanenter Beta-​​Status”. […]

  • 趣闻要闻(8月14日—8月20日)…

    ä¸æ–‡æ’客、博客的介绍:

    中国大批视频播客站点将走向灭亡
    广电总急
    广电总局是“恶搞”的好榜样?
    关于网上视频传播管理的几个猜想
    三言二拍:广电总局的手
    传说ä¸å°†è¦å‘布的.…

  • […] I’ve written about this at some length before. If no-​​one agrees about what Web 2.0 is — and believe me, they don’t — doesn’t that mean it’s the Emperor’s New Clothes? That there’s ‘nothing there’? Not really. Things that are quite big and com­plic­ated are very dif­fi­cult to define and people disagree about them. Philosophers have spent at least 3000 years attempting to define ‘good’, ‘evil’, ‘beauty’, and ‘know­ledge’. They are things that most of us would agree exist yet we can’t seem to get a handle on their precise meaning. The typical philo­sopher is pretty bright, but can they agree? Can they heck. […]

  • […] Weblog Facilities Nowadays more and more web 2.0 applic­a­tions appear on the internet, like MySpace, flickr and YouTube which share some similar char­ac­ter­istics: Web as platform, User Participation (the con­sumers are also the creators) and Rich User Experience (CSS, AJAX and other tech­no­lo­gies to enhance usab­ility). Here is a popular article in del.icio.us about the defin­i­tion of web 2.0: 10 defin­i­tions of Web 2.0 and their short­com­ings. Today I will focus on the blog­sphere. I. Blogging Platform Providers For good avail­ab­ility and reli­ab­ility, you can choose a blogging service provider. Personally I would recom­mend the fol­lowing pro­viders. http://spaces.live.com/ (Good integ­ra­tion with Live Messenger and Microsoft products)http://www.blogger.com/ (Hosted by Google, should be the first blogging service provider in the history)http://wordpress.org/ (Provide Akismet, a good comment anti-​​spam service)http://www.typepad.com/ (This is a famous com­mer­cial service provider) If you are a tech­nical guy and know .NET quite well, CommunityServer 2.1 and DasBlog 1.9 are def­in­itely excel­lent can­did­ates. II. RSS Readers First I would recom­mend two web-​​based RSS aggregator/​reader. One is called Fwicki. I like its theme and styles very much. It also supports Google Adsense. But you’d better use Firefox to open it. The second one is NewsGator Online. Not only it is an excel­lent web reader, but also it supports sychron­iz­a­tion between web reader and FeedDemon (a Windows client RSS reader, the one I would also strongly recom­mend to you for sub­scribing RSS feeds.) and NewsGator Inbox (an Outlook addin) and NewsGator Go! for Windows Mobile. It can help me keep a same list of RSS sub­scrip­tions in dif­ferent loc­a­tions!!! Another NewsGator tool, Desktop Sync, is a system tray applic­a­tion that keeps your feeds, folders and read states syn­chron­ized between NewsGator Online and the Windows RSS Platform. This means that any applic­a­tion that uses the Windows RSS Platform will be auto­mat­ic­ally syn­chron­ized with your NewsGator Online account! Of course, since IE7 uses the Windows RSS Platform, this is a great way to roam the feeds you read in IE from one machine to another. Check out Nick’s post for inform­a­tion on where to download and where to give feedback on the tool. III. Feed Publisher FeedBurner is the world’s largest feed man­age­ment provider. Its web-​​based services help bloggers, pod­casters and com­mer­cial pub­lishers promote, deliver and profit from their content on the Web. FeedBurner can do Publicize your content and make it easy for people to sub­scribe. Optimize dis­tri­bu­tion so that your content is properly formatted for all of the major dir­ect­ories and can be consumed by sub­scribers whereever they are. Analyze your traffic to learn how many sub­scribers you have, where they’re coming from and what they like best. Make Moneyitize by par­ti­cip­ating in the FeedBurner Ad Network. Try it out here and sub­scribe my blog http://feeds.feedburner.com/rossconsulting :-) Hope this helps,Ross Posted: Monday, December 18, 2006 11:45 AM by Ross Shen Filed under: Web 2.0 […]

  • […] man ein Web 2.0 Startup gründet, sollte man diese 10 Definitionen von Web 2.0 und ihre Mängel checken, um sicher zu gehen, dass man ins Schema fällt. Und wer überhaupt erst auf der Suche nach […]

  • […] we us? First of all check out this vodblog and see some ideas about Web 2.0 and then print and read through this post on the short­com­ings of Web […]

  • […] da twopointtouch.com) Questo articolo è stato pub­blicato in data 13 Febbraio 2008 at 08:24, cata­logato in […]

  • […] da twopointtouch.com) Tags: 2.0, web Posted on 24 Aprile 2008 by admin Comments: 0 Category: Web […]

  • […] article here. August 21, 2006 | In web20 […]

  • […] 10 defin­i­tions of Web 2.0 […]

  • […] that in fact com­plicate our lives even further and that Web 2.0 is a waste of time — check out this post on the short­com­ings of Web […]