Finally, a Definition for Web 2.0 We Can Agree On?

What's the definition of Web 2.0? That debate has been raging for awhile. This is understandable given that Web 2.0 is all about participation.

InformationWeek, I believe, has honed in on a definition that's difficult to argue with. It pretty much addresses marketing types, media, entrepreneurs and more. They say: "Web 2.0 is all the Web sites out there that get their value from the actions of users." The magazine cites Wikipedia, digg, Technorati, Flickr and Frappr as examples of Web 2.0 properties. That they certainly are. However, I would argue that many traditional media outlets today are Web 2.0 sites. They generate similar value through comments and trackbacks to their blogs. Take a look at Dwight Silverman and Frank Baranko's blogs for a sampling.

So how about corporate and advertising/marketing micro sites? Well, some certainly are 2.0. There are many tech sites for example that have had forums in place for years. However, the vast majority of corporate sites do not play up the wisdom of crowds or the contributions of their customers. And that's exactly why all of us who advise them have so much more work to go. Everyone else - the public, the media and the start-ups are way ahead of us.

Comments

[Royal]

Interesting.

But I think it's even simpler than that.

We all have the need to know where we are relative to where we _were_.

What time it is? What day? What year? What grade are we in? Etc.

Years ago, we used to track technical progress via the name of the Intel chip... i.e., 286, 386, etc.

Unbelievably, Intel gave up the privilege to name tech cycles, which threw us all into a tizzy.

Web 2.0 is just a way to get us back on a naming track.

Of course, Web 2.0 is "bigger/better/faster/stronger" than Web 1.0 on so many levels... hence, the difficulty (and discomfort) of pinpointing a definition.

No doubt, since tech moves in five year cycles, Web 3.0 will emerge just about the time we've all agreed on the definition of Web 2.0. (smile)

[Darren Stuart]

Interesting Steve but,

Myspace is not 2.0 and that gets it values from the same method.

my opinon is web 2.0 is about applications that have some sort of ajaxy thing going on.

[Niall Cook]

Surely every web site gets its value from the action of users? Our corporate site gets its value from people visiting it then inviting us to pitch.

Don't they really mean "gets its content"?

[Anonymous]

I don't think Web 2.0 exists. It's as stupid as putting version numbers on computers throughout history.

[Avatar]

it´s a incomplete definition.

i like mine better anyway.

http://bloggeratto.blogspot.com/2006/08/what-is-web-20.html

it is a serious definition steve so check it, please?

:P

"No doubt, since tech moves in five year cycles, Web 3.0 will emerge just about the time we've all agreed on the definition of Web 2.0. (smile)"

Five years? It's already here - www.briteclick.com (sarcasm)

[Philipp Lenssen]

I think the best place to find the ultimate definition is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2
... and if you disagree you can change it ;)

[Blog Media Cafe Polska]

http://mediacafepl.blogspot.com/2006/09/web-20-to-wszystkie-serwisy.html

[Jonathan Cohen]

Sounds like Amazon.com would be Web 2.0, by this definition.

The user reviews are a HUGE part of the value Amazon adds.

[Grant Hutchins]

eBay would also be a Web 2.0 application in this regard.

I'll say that Web 2.0 is when sites realize that it's better to set up a simple infrastructure and let the value emerge out of a lot of simple user actions, rather than trying to create a complex system upfront before anyone interacts with it. Iterative, responsive design.

Indeed, Tim Berners-Lee meant for this to be the case for the web from the beginning.

[philip]

In summary then, "Sites that derive added value and growth via the actions of there users," or to put it another way.

web 2.0 = A decent pub

[Shrikant Joshi]

I like Philip's definition.

web2.0 = a decent pub.

In fact, that is what I feel too. People have gotten themselves confused with interactivity and the collective conscious.

Web 2.0 is not merely about interactivity; it extends to the collective conscious as well. It's high time people understood the difference.

AJAX = interactivity
Web2.0 = Collective conscious.

Am I right or wide off the mark?

Regards,
Shri.

[vsolanoy]

The definition is a good start.

The keyword for me is the word "active".

User activity could mean lots of things -- but if none of those things translates into relevant actions on either side of the page, the activity doesn't mean anything.

I think Web 2.0 is a combination of things -- an individual and a community all make information an active component to their experience, with the big potential of influencing the community.

This brings relevancy to someone's actions, thereby improving their experience, further influencing their behaviors.

As a result, more relevant choices can be offered requiring a change to the interaction design of a site and its pages. That's where AJAX comes in -- rich web interfaces allowing exploration and discovery. An added benefit is increased interactivity than the previous generation of websites (who's interaction model really hasn't changed since the web's debut, with the exception of various browser plug-ins).

I think that the value comes when all of the above are present to produce something that's not just relevant, but something an individual can act upon -- subscribe, buy, become aware, blog, etc. that can influence an entire community.