digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at resourcefulidiot.com

Finally the definition of Web 2.0 & 3.0

resourcefulidiot.com — One of the most misused buzzwords finally gets defined. Now we can stop people from labeling everything on the internet as Web 2.0. Please stop the madness.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sparkl0488, on 05/12/2008, -6/+64interesting article, maybe now people will stop telling me that world of warcraft is web 2.0
    • jstad, on 05/12/2008, -0/+25I would not get ahead of yourself. The WoW crowd is pretty dedicated... :-
    • AngelBunny, on 05/12/2008, -2/+8can anyone provide a mirror please? -thnx
    • jtbandes, on 05/12/2008, -1/+29"Error establishing a database connection"
      That is SO Web 2.0.
      • wiresjr, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Apparently they're fixing that in 2.1, due any day now
      • danomagnum, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Oh wordpress....
    • Kamujin, on 05/12/2008, -7/+5As far as I can tell, Web 2.0 is just a bunch of morons with a blog pandering to popular prejudice.

      I am hoping Web 3.0 will be people who know WTF they are talking about with a blog.
    • titlesaysitall, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7Madness? THIS. IS. WEB 2.0!
  • mmccarthy, on 05/12/2008, -3/+12I know a couple of people who would disagree but since it's not my area of expertise I'll reserve judgment (smile)
    • jstad, on 05/12/2008, -1/+9I welcome all disagreements. :)
      • mmccarthy, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8I shouted to a couple of them, we'll see if they weigh in ... (:D)
    • RogerStrong, on 05/12/2008, -0/+37Some people say that Web 2.0 means the use of AJAX.
      Some people say that Web 2.0 means web apps, AJAX or not.
      Some people say that Web 2.0 means user-driven content.
      Some people say that Web 2.0 means the network as platform, spanning all the connected devices;

      The REAL meaning of Web 2.0 is "Anything you want it to mean, to attract investors." Web 3.0 means precisely the same thing as Web 2.0.
      • notoneofus, on 05/12/2008, -0/+13True. It's also a catchphrase that clients expect to see in presentations and reports. I swear, if the concepts are there but the term is not, invariably someone will ask, "Well, how does this take advantage of Web 2.0?"
        • DeathfireD, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6I agree, company's eat the catchphrase ***** right up. If you're doing a presentation or applying for a job all you have to say is SEO optimization and Web2.0, and they go nuts. "omg does that come with Ajax too?". It's hilarious but at the same time sad that company's and startups use these catchphrases now.
      • danomagnum, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1To me it's AJAX and it's friends. Making the internet pretty.
  • EastcoastSix13, on 05/12/2008, -9/+60Because WoW is web 4.0!
    • PainToad, on 05/12/2008, -6/+29WoW isn't even Web at all! Sure it uses TC/IP but it's no shape or form a WWW, typical WoW player ignorance of real IT issues
      • dorkino, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7TC/IP? lol

        Missed the humor, too.
        • EastcoastSix13, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Sounds like hunter loot to me.
      • duccodude, on 05/12/2008, -0/+9IPv6... now that's Web 3.0.04 beta RC1
      • NeoSporin, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4I can't decide on whether you missed the joke, or the joke missed.
    • northernphoto, on 05/12/2008, -4/+1Funny dude, funny
    • Grimdotdotdot, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Reply links are obviously 5.0 or something, then...
    • Dystisis, on 05/12/2008, -3/+0Actually, virtual reality could be said to be web 4.0 (or a higher number). Read something like the Otherland series.

      It is the internet (or computing in general) in its final realization, mimicking physical reality entirely. So you are not as far off as you think.
  • HotSaucePanCake, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7Hahaha... Now I could talk about Data Center 3.0 for ya? :D
  • ExRe, on 05/12/2008, -0/+71Spot on. AJAX != Web 2.0; Shiny graphics != Web 2.0. AJAX and shiny graphics are simply methods used to make Web 2.0 applications more user friendly.
    • jstad, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6I thought so :)
    • skidooer, on 05/12/2008, -5/+2Web 2.0 represents computer consumable content. RSS, for example. AJAX consumes that content, so it is fair to include it under the Web 2.0 umbrella. Shiny graphics, or graphics of any sort, are not designed to be consumed by computers, and thus are not Web 2.0.
      • dualityim, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7Computer consumable content is the semantic web. That's not what web 2.0 is all about at all.
        • danwallace, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2What the ***** are you guys talking about?
        • skidooer, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Not quite. The semantic web is content that is designed for humans and computers (think mixing HTML and XML). Web 2.0 is content for computers only (just XML).


          (yes, I know HTML is XML)
          • dualityim, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Once again, computer consumable content is not the focus of web 2.0 at all. Web 2.0 is about user generated content, rich internet applications, and interactivity.
    • Vo0Ds, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Define user friendly...
      • evolvingthought, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Is that someone with loads of friends on myspace?
  • skmice2, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5Many people, and even businesses, consider things like Second Life to be the forerunner of Web 3.0, but I tend to agree with the author's view on this.
    (imho) Web 2.0 is about collaboration and sharing (this is where AJAX rides along) and Web 3.0 will build on top of that - there will be tons of accessible resources, so the revolution will come in the way how to efficiently process it and make it available in an usable format ... and this is where semantic web comes in: http://digg.com/programming/Digg_makes_official_it ...
    • noodless, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2My thinking is similar. These numbers are just stages in the internets growth, driven by the hardware underneath it.

      Web 1 was slow dial up. Sites were streamlined to be quick downloading, people didnt spend that much time online so social networking and communities werent huge.

      Web 2 was the broadband revolution. Suddenly we could download video, spend as long as we liked contributing to communities and interacting on social networks.

      Now to guess at web 3, we need to see where the capabilities of the internet are going to expand next. I think this will be in ease of access, so mobile, wireless broadband. This will allow net use on the fly to get info about where you are, whats near you,video call friends, voip phone calls, all for cheap.

      The internet is also going to get faster, places like japan already have 100megabit broadband. I think this will be part of the upgrade that is web 3. It will allow hi def streaming video, tv on demand, video chat like stickam and a plethora of filehsharing sites like rapidshare.
      if you think its hard to contain piracy now, wait till you can share & download a couple of gig file at 100 meg/sec for free. Cant wait.
    • ftyuv, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2If Web 2.0 is about collaboration, was usenet Web 2.0? What about discussion boards? Just about the only definition of Web 2.0 that I've found consistently includes things most people want to include, and nothing else, is: "anything that came about after about 1998."
      • skmice2, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Sorry for not being clear - I meant "collaboration" as in collaboration in creating/filtering/sharing user-generated content (e.g. projects like Wikipedia and social sites including Digg, etc.).
  • Mechtastic, on 05/12/2008, -5/+114What's up with all these ***** Web x.0 articles lately?
    • Genma, on 05/12/2008, -0/+10all the saps who embraced the term just don't want to look retarded because it means nothing, so they're going to spam this all over the internets until it becomes a reality. notice it's always the same garbage with no real reasoning behind it.
    • Dejital, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7You must be new to Digg.
      • dofkex, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3LURK MOAR

        oh wait... this isnt 4chan
        • WallnutBoy, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2"this isnt 4chan"
          You must be new to Digg.
  • CrudeDarkness, on 05/12/2008, -10/+2I agree with him on web 1.0 and web 2.0 but I disagree about web 3.0

    I remember posting about it too: http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php? ...
  • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -20/+72#1) That article didn't provide a definition of Web 2.0.

    #2) The definition of Web 2.0 is "Websites that are primarily driven by user-contributed content."

    #3) You're welcome.
    • cmsjustin, on 05/12/2008, -1/+11#4) Thank you.
    • camilos007, on 05/12/2008, -15/+11@ #2 That is ridiculous. Where did you get that definition from? Mom's guide to the internets? Developers were building html webapps that allowed users to contribute since back in the old early html days. So were those web 2.0 apps?
      • LightSpeed4, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4i agree, i cant believe he was dugg up.
        • camilos007, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1And i'm being dugg down for being right. That's what happens when people who don't know crap about tech give their opinion. Oh well. If you can't beat them, join them.

          Web 2.0 = A website with as much Flash as possible. There, that should satisfy these people.
      • BootsElectric, on 05/12/2008, -0/+11Emphasis on "primarily driven" please, pedants.
        • BootsElectric, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Though, that's not to say it makes discussion about "web 2.0" any less worthless.
      • headzoo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5There were also social networks from the very beginning (i.e. forums) too. All of the ideas being applied today have existed one way or another from the very start. What defines a generation of web users and web technology is which of those ideas takes center stage. So while it might be true that developers were "building html webapps that allowed users to contribute since back in the old early html days", those apps existed on the fringe of the web.
        Flossdaily is absolutely correct. User-driven sites (Facebook, Wikipedia) have taken center stage, and define the web of today.
    • LittleDas, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6Web 2.0 is a buzzword. It doesn't have a precise meaning.
      to quote the wikipedia article
      "Web 2.0 is a term describing the trend in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that aims to enhance creativity, information sharing, and, most notably, collaboration among users."
    • Grimdotdotdot, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7That's *****. The very first bulletin boards were web 2.0, were they?
  • macweirdo42, on 05/12/2008, -2/+25That's all well and good, until we reach Web 4.0, which involves having an internet-capable device implanted into our brains, instantly connecting our minds with each other and the entire sum of human knowledge. Oh, and prepare to be saying the phrase "Resistance is futile," on a regular basis.
    • EastcoastSix13, on 05/12/2008, -8/+1I thought that was halo 4?
    • ZimJimmy, on 05/12/2008, -1/+18Resistance is futile
      (if < 1 ohm)
    • DeFex, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7Inductance is futile!
    • aigulf, on 05/12/2008, -4/+2Memristance is futile.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor
    • noahhoward, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3I'd kill myself before that happened, do you really want to be walking around with a rick roll in your head every ***** second. Sites like digg have proven conclusively, the majority drag the average intelligence way down the *****.
    • fadetoone, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2That was a Stargate SG-1 episode... season 7 I think.
      • ChildeRoland420, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2No, that was the Borg from Star Trek.
        • fadetoone, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I was referring simply to the implanted internet in the brains concept, not your one sided view. There's more to life than star trek.
    • IEatHamburgers, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Nah, I think we'll incorporate a Facebook-style system where you have to add someone as a friend before they can surf through your brain.

      Also, this will completely eliminate nuclear weapons once and for all. Why? Because it'll be much easier, safer and more effective to infect an entire nation with a virus that kills everyone, or installs an obedience program into their heads.
      • wiresjr, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2iObey? (gets installed as an update to iTunes without your consent)
    • KingGorilla, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1I for one welcome our singularity overlord
  • MtheoryX, on 05/12/2008, -7/+66WTF? Burried as completely worthless...

    FTA: "difficult to define what Web 3.0 will be as you cannot define something that has yet to occur on a large scale. The best way I can define what we will see"

    Okay, so basically, you have no ***** clue, but you're going to spout off the same as every other asshat as if you have the definitive definition of the bogus term, right? Okay, just making sure. Burried.
    • jstad, on 05/12/2008, -15/+8I explain in the article the difficulty of explaining a movement prior to it even happening. The entire article is focused on that fact if you bothered to read it critically. I use the last two trends to make a judgement of Web 3.0. The whole goal of this article is to illustrate that these buzzwords are meant to define community shifts/movements and not label new technologies like every digg idiot seems to think.
      • familynight, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7It's nothing personal and probably just my bias against the web *.0 labels, but that sounds asinine and worthless. What's the point?
      • serpentor, on 05/12/2008, -1/+9Pretentious much?
      • KSUdesigner, on 05/12/2008, -1/+9So let me get this straight. You submit your own article to digg, in hopes that it gets popular and makes it to the homepage. And then you go and call diggers idiots? If you think we're idiots then don't submit your ***** to Digg. Take a hike.
        • sparkl0488, on 05/12/2008, -5/+1I'm sure you do the same and submit your own articles so don't get ahead of yourself here.
    • HastyNameChoice, on 05/12/2008, -2/+10Buried for not being able to spell 'buried'.
      • MtheoryX, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Damn, you're right! Sorry about that.
    • sparkl0488, on 05/12/2008, -6/+0I say unless you have a better way to define it- go find something better to do than spout off about what you think is worthless- kind of a worthless comment don't ya think? In reality no one cares.
  • NotOptium, on 05/12/2008, -1/+29I thought everyone had realized by this point that the term "Web *.0" was the modern equivalent of "cyber-".
    • Fordi, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Granted.

      If you want to know what the next big thing in rich web application coding is, just look at what the latest web coding libraries allow. Last year, it was simple and easy integration of various data sources via the various AJAX libraries, this year it's going to be the use of vector art for visualization, collaboration, fun, etc.

      Actually, with the advent of increasingly ubiquitous support for the Canvas element, you might see the reemergence of Javascript games.
  • Darkhacker, on 05/12/2008, -3/+67That screenshot of AOL brought back some childhood memories. I actually really miss it. Yeah, I know it sucked, but I miss the interface just because it was something I grew up using and was in total amazement that something I typed on the screen could be sent to someone thousands of miles away in just a few seconds. I also really miss the dial-up sound and the graphic with the electricity coming out of the key as I connected. Yes it was cheesy, but I was a kid and loved cheesy stuff.

    I feel sorry for kids growing up today with this boring "click the blue E" mentality with no dialing sounds. Waiting for it to connect made you appreciate it more and I giggled with glee when I heard "You Got Mail" hoping it was an e-card or something made with Shockwave or Flash. Kids today only see the boring "professional" web. No more burning text or animated gifs that say "email me".
    • Pandalume, on 05/12/2008, -2/+14All that stuff lives on in a magical land known as "Myspace".
    • Joeyrev, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Yeah, I remember the feeling of sitting at the computer on a busy night, and finally hearing the connect sound after several busy signals. It's fun to reminisce, but imagine how frustrated you would be if you suddenly had to go through that ***** again.
    • Fordi, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1Heh, funny. I remember when AOL started - and eschewed it for better providers that existed even at the time. I was spared the crap that came with it, and have been 'just clicking the blue N / red fuzzy swish' for at least a decade now.
      • elDud3rino, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Wow, you must be up to like web 5.0 by now.
        • Fordi, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Dude, I wasn't ahead of the curve. AOL was - is - behind it.
    • aydoubleyou, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7Well said Darkhacker, well said. I agree entirely.

      I think I really just miss the 90's all together. Such a great decade. :(
      • vinnythekidd, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Yep. The 90's rocked. I'm right there with ya.
    • RyeBrye, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2AOL was awesome because it was so utterly hackable. It used a system of tokens (and some data associated with the token) sent from the client to direct the state of what you were doing... Of course, the ONLY way to send tokens out would be through using their GUI client - so this isn't a problem, right?

      (See things like: http://www.aolwatch.org/aol4free.htm )

      At one point, I actually had a list of the tokens and their data. There was some crazy crap you could pull up on the client by merely sending certain tokens - like... crazy crap. (Internal billing screens... etc.)

      Yes... I miss AOL. :) But... I'd probably be in jail now if I hadn't stopped messing around with it.
  • D3koy, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6they are both broken?
  • socivitus, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Someone didn't set their wordpress cache very well. I'll check back later. ^_^
  • thelock65, on 05/12/2008, -20/+4WTF! 106 digs and on the front page?!?!?
  • DigitAl56K, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7Campaign: Stop putting version numbers on the web!
  • sjbdallas, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6I think i'm going to wait for web 5.0
    By then they should have all the bugs worked out.
    • t0x2c, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Web 5.0: Service Pack 1 for me.
    • lupinglade, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1yeah, people, if you are planning on putting out a web site or something, hold off till at least web 5.0...
  • MPimagery, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1How long till we're at the stage of Web 4.0?
  • MG111, on 05/12/2008, -2/+11Web 2.0 should equal servers that can handle 120 diggs, but apparently not.
  • onionbagel724, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2yah, until we get this thing figured out, I am going to discontinue the use of any kind of web for fear of mislabeling it 1.0? 2.0? 3.0? whatever it is, its is all evil. goodbye.
  • ishkur88, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5Anyone got a mirror ?
  • somenice, on 05/12/2008, -0/+31Around web 10.0 or web 11.0 they will change the name to CS
    • Fordi, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6Around v.4, it'll be Web XP.
      • lupinglade, on 05/12/2008, -0/+610 might be Web X
        • joshcxa, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5I don't know if that works...it may remain web XXX
        • bennovw, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Whenever the human race comes to a screeching halt, then it will be called web Vista
  • davydany, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4mirrors?
  • JAppi, on 05/12/2008, -1/+15web 2.0 = Error establishing a database connection ??
  • Lokomis, on 05/12/2008, -5/+12Buzzwords. Nothing more.

    I don't care if "Web 3.0" comes with sprinkles on it. It will still be just Web 2.0 (which is just 1.0 + Gradients and other design trends) with some sprinkles on it.
    • MScrip, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3> "Web 2.0 (which is just 1.0 + Gradients and other design trends)

      Come on. There's more than that. Back in the early days of the web, buying things online was just an experiment. And websites were just glorified brochures with product info. Now, we buy everything online, including digital media. And there is plenty of user-generated content, and information sharing. Online communities are everywhere, like Facebook, but you can even communicate with people on Flickr or Digg.

      Saying Web 2.0 is nothing more that the web from 1997 with a fresh coat of paint is silly. As much as I hate buzzwords... you have to admit that the web has changed a lot in the last 12 years.
      • psevium, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Of course it has, and it'll continue that way, but it's not like it just "upgraded" to a "next version" and everyone installed and AJAX addon or anything. Which is why the term "Web 2.0" is so lame
      • LightSpeed4, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3stfu mscrip
        • MScrip, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I'm digging you up, because you seem like a nice person! And since most of your comment always get dugg down. Digg user profiles are a big tattle-tale.
    • Fordi, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3The Web x.0 thing only really represents a gestalt change as recognized by large business. Us coders just see the smooth changes in innovation generated by more capable browsers and more creative peers.
  • preved, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2http://duggmirror.com
  • paulius, on 05/12/2008, -0/+12Definition of Web 2.0: Using up-optimized high-CPU consuming PHP scripts on underpowered servers and/or clusters. AJAX, of course, helps mask the slowness of most pages by showing an edible loading icon to the end-user.

    www.duggmirror.com anyone?
    • Fordi, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3Actually, AJAX significantly reduces server loads by reducing the amount of content that needs passed per transaction. With responsible coding (you know, well-built SQL queries, best practices when it comes to sorting and filtering, etc - which rarely happens with some of the libraries and prebuilt monstrosities you see floating around. Drupal, I'm looking at you), you can minimize server and client load significantly.
      • Fordi, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1Oh, gee. I got dugg down for showing knowledge on the subject.

        Here's a hint, guys: it's not the asynchronous transactions slowing, for example, Digg down. It's the combination of nonasynchronous load time procedures and animation.
  • piratearggghhh, on 05/12/2008, -0/+13I just made an appointment with Geek Squad tomorrow to install Web 2.0. *pumps fist* I waited this long so they can work out the bugs but I think I'm ready to make the plunge. Hopefully 3.0 won't be out for a while because I don't want to run outdated software on my overclocked 486.
  • ElBeh, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Did you hear that awful sound?
  • YamiJim, on 05/12/2008, -5/+2how dem pretty pitchers get on mah computer screen!?!?! ZOMG IT CAN HAS BE TEH WEBzORZ 3?!!?!?
  • jstad, on 05/12/2008, -1/+10http://duggmirror.com/tech_news/Finally_the_defini ...
  • Ploosheeta, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Madness?
    • coresnake, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____________________________________________
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ THIS... /
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / IS... /
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / SPARRTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!! /
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . /___________________________________________/
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . .. . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
      . . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ; . . . . . . . .
      . . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
      . . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
      . . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
      . . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
      . . . :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : : ||/ /,-‘-‘x### :: ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . / /---‘’’’ : # : : : : : | | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . /,’____ : : ‘-# : , : : : : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/ . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . .,/ /|| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ . . . . . . . .
      . . . . .’| |/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : : , . . . . . . .
      . . . ./¯ :| | : |/ :: ::----, :/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
      . . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’ . . . .
      . ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
      ./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
      / : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,-~’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
      : : : : : : :¯’’~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : :
  • Syphon8, on 05/12/2008, -0/+12Web 2.0: Webmasters evolved to site designers; people too lazy to make their own content.
    Web 3.0: Site designers evolved to ideamen; people too lazy to make their own sites.
  • hitkaiser, on 05/12/2008, -1/+14I'm currently doing a research project at uni about Web 2.0
    and this is a little section with quotes from Tim O'Reilly (the guy who came up with the term in the first place)

    The term “Web 2.0” was coined by Tim O’Reilly and his associates during the first Web 2.0 Conference in October 2004 (O'Reilly, 2005). In the three years since there has been much debate about the actual definition of Web 2.0 or if it even actually existed or was merely a marketing buzz terminology.
    Tim O’Reilly is often regarded as a key authority in Web 2.0 literature, his definition of Web 2.0 is:
    “Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all the connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, creating network effects through an “architecture of participation” and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experience.” (O'Reilly, 2005)
    However, it isn’t regarded as an official definition because many so called Web 2.0 sites conform only partially to O’Reilly’s criteria. O’Reilly himself noted that “Web 2.0 doesn’t have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core” (O'Reilly, 2005).
    The term Web 2.0 is now increasingly accepted as a new generation of websites with a number of commonalities based around online participative communities as well as web applications offering a richer user experience achieved through some key technological advances.
    ..
    Further on in the report I've boiled down the 3 main features as: (examples in brackets)
    User Generated Content - (Youtube, Wikipedia, Flickr)
    Rich Internet Applications - (Google Calendar, Docs, Reader etc..., Rememeber the Milk, Billmonk)
    Collaboration/Communities of Interest (Flickr, Google Docs, Digg)

    Web 2.0 sites tend to have one or more of these characteristics and although they existed in "web 1.0" the current technologies (Read software) used make it easier and more interactive (2 way) hence escalating the amount of people participating. For instance, personal home pages were a form of "user generated content" but it was one way, there was the publisher and the reader, but now with blogs and such, commenting is so easy that a conversation can happen between the publisher and the reader creating a discussion (as with digg comments).

    About web 3.0, the first time I heard about it was through some new york times columnist which claimed it was "all about location", but I've been sort of ignoring it so can't really form an opinion on what is/is not web 3.0
    • designet, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5"The term “Web 2.0” was coined by Tim O’Reilly and his associates during the first Web 2.0 Conference"

      wtf? so they were at a conference called "The Web 2.0 Conference" when they invented the term "Web 2.0" ?????
      • Jeeum, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1LOL I didn't catch that. Grats on the reading skillz.
      • hitkaiser, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2He formalised the definition during the conference, before that he had talked about it, but yeah I need to rephrase that - thanks for the proofread ;)
        • designet, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1no problem....was just thinking...WOW...how did he come up with it? Read the brochure? :o)
  • circaxxxx, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6It'll be funny decades from now when we realize numbering something as constantly progressing as the Web is a bad idea. Web 28 is going to be awesome.
  • NightRiderkami, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6Web 2.0 is down already.
  • Computer_Kid, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5This server is actually web 1.8.0.1 RC1 beta.
  • juggalofr33k, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3mirror 2.0 anyone?
  • fluffyturtle, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4One thing is clear, “Web 2.0” is a catchphrase peddled to pique excitement for gain.

    Granted the “many to many” approach of blogs, RSS feeds etc. are more pronounced, they themselves and forms of them have been around for a very long time. I commonly see Amazon cited in this case, back in 1996 they allowed for people to review products. Never mind already existing protocols and techniques that allowed for the free flow of information and files (FTP, NNTP etc.). Sticking to a more strict answer of it actually being web based, even the most famous example of Amazon shows proof of prior art. Needless to say there were other web based forums that existed at the time. So for over a decade we have had web 2.0, apparently no one got the message.

    For arguments sake let’s just assume everyone is happy with a broad definition of Web 2.0 requirements. So the underlying argument is that prior to this undecided moment in time websites were very 2d interactive wise, or again for the sake of argument let’s just say 1996 (Amazon) was the turning point. Prior to this you went to a site to retrieve information, not produce it. The closest thing to interaction at the time was a mailto link.

    However, wasn’t the fact that you created a site of your own to share the information you wanted interactive on its own? At the time the Web might have seemed like a one sided coin but clearly the internet wouldn’t be what it is if people didn’t have the “me too” mentality and sprouted websites by the millions to share their own views, information and data. So today we have nothing more than a consolidation of information and people. The web has always been “open” after all, if you wanted to say something you made a website, now days you log into an existing website and break out the soap box. This is nothing more than an evolution of prior art, once again. Not that this is a bad thing, in reality this is the only way it can progress, at the rate we were building outwards we were only going to run into problems finding a domain name that fit in one line of text, building upwards was the obvious solution. So to sum up, skyscrapers are city 2.0. Oh never mind.
    • wtfheadexplody, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1The difference in a web 2.0 world you have 12 years olds pretending to be 15 so they can sign up for MySpace so that they can share their data to the world. In the web 1.0 world only nerds published to the internet.
  • cmuwriter, on 05/12/2008, -4/+5Well I'm not sure if www.hampsterdance.com is web 2.0 or 3.0, all I know is that it is a guaranteed good time.
  • sfacets, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2So what, some other person dreams up definitions for two buzzwords, and yippee it's all resolved?
  • dorkino, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5Web 5.0 will feature web-based beer taps. I don't know how, but it will.
  • bokep, on 05/12/2008, -0/+10All these "_.0" reminds me of the days when AOL would spam your mail box with CDs.

    "The new AOL 6.0, Now with an address bar!"
  • dougmc, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1`Web 1.0 is the movement that took place during the beginning of the internet.'
    Taken literally, it sounds like he's saying that Web 1.0 predates the WWW ... which actually makes a certain amount of sense, when you take his idea that Web 1.0 involves putting things into a digital format -- which happened before the WWW.
  • jhshukla, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4Let me make sure it is not:

    Failed to Connect
    Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at www.resourcefulidiot.com.
    Though the site seems valid, the browser was unable to establish a connection.
    * Could the site be temporarily unavailable? Try again later.
    * Are you unable to browse other sites? Check the computer's network connection.
    * Is your computer or network protected by a firewall or proxy? Incorrect settings can interfere with Web browsing.
  • camilos007, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5All of this web 2.0 crap is nonsense. Utter nonsense.
    The REAL web 2.0 is this post right here. And the one below this one is web 3.0. And so on and so forth.
    • bennovw, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Web 3.0 must have an equal amount of buries as web 2.0 has diggs then
  • se1zure, on 05/12/2008, -4/+1I would say immersion, interaction, and usefulness are all of equal importance in the web 2.0 definition.

    Facebook is immersive (hence people spending hours on it, it is immersive because it offers something to do), usefull, and interactive.
  • WhoDoneIt, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4But it's stupid and has no merit. Just because things evolve in life doesn't mean we should constantly add versioning numbers to it.

    Most things in life change or gets better and expands over time. So labelling something 1.0 or 2.0 or 100.6 is retarded. If we should give them versions then HDTV should be TV 4.0, or gas ranges = appliance 3.0.
    • lupinglade, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3right on my friend. so tired of this!
    • sparkl0488, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1So maybe they will change the name just like HDTV is to TV 4.0. The reality is that everything whether it is stated or not has a version number, everything evolves- why all the drama about the numbers after? let it go dude
  • Beowulf2112, on 05/12/2008, -4/+1Is web 3.0 free of links that break after 267 Diggs?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.