nytimes.com — "Referred to as Web 3.0, the effort is in its infancy, and the very idea has given rise to skeptics who have called it an unobtainable vision." The idea is to create a new layer above the web -- where user recomendations rule. (Sounds familiar).
Nov 12, 2006 View in Crawl 4
calebcharlesNov 12, 2006
Web 1.0 MosaicWeb 2.0 GoogleWeb 3.0 Tutorial how to think correctly to search for what you want and put into terms the searches the search engines can understand to get the results you want, consistently.
dnabeastNov 12, 2006
Remember 'Generation X'? They came after the 'Baby Boomers'. Does anyone recall the lame attempt to name the next generation 'Y'? It didn't take.Web 1.0 only appeared after someone came up with web 2.0When the next level of web interaction comes about it's not going to be called Web3.0. That's not how these things work.
rokstar66Nov 13, 2006
Will 3.0 have more boobies?
chubzNov 13, 2006
Why not call Web 3.0 ... Web 2.0 SP1 ;-)What a bunch of bulls**t.
patrickxNov 13, 2006
The semantic web is actually a real thing being developed by computer scientists, and unlike Web 2.0 it is more than just marketing. It is a way of publishing and finding information on the web that is different from the search methods traditionally used. Calling the semantic web "web 3.0", on the other hand, is just a marketing move someone came up with.
elmoselyeeNov 13, 2006
two things i want to comment about.first, the main problem i have with web 3.0 is that, unlike 2.0, it is being forced to happen. people are defining it before it actually happens, instead of seeing what is successful, THEN defining that as a revolution. web 2.0 was already in effect before it was defined and copied and cliche'd. second, and not really important but more of a redundancy factor, but why must we continue to keep the 'point oh', or '.0' part of the term. there is no web2.5 or 1.6, thus the need for a .0 is unnecessary except for the successful attempt at making it sound technical and confusing to the average internet user.