As a specialist in fuzzy systems, I am both annoyed and intrigued by the large-scale manipulation of the extremely vague term “Web 2.0”. One thing is clear: to say now about your new site that it is not Web 2.0, the same thing to say in the program “Good morning America” - “niggaz are people too”, which is true and not bad, but your karma will come close to negative googol.
Let us try to analyze and systematize oops and ahs about these three well-known letters and two numbers.

Analysis

- By this she made it clear that she is my social status puts above my personal, human status!
- Translate ...
An old parable.

The extreme vagueness of the popular term Web 2.0 first appeared along with its appearance in the T. O'Reilly article “What is web 2.0” . The most clear definitions of this, as the author suggests - the phenomenon of the Network, are the following: ... Web 2.0 lesson: focus on user services and algorithmic data processing to reach the very edges of the web, pay attention not only to the head, but also to the tail ... .
... The basic rule of Web 2.0: the more people use the service, the automatically it becomes better ...
… collective mind…
... platform ... Honestly, it’s not clear from the article what the Web 2.0 is different from Web 1.0, and where the roadmap versions of the Web are. The only useful, from our point of view, conclusion from this article are two key words “collective” and “platform”. Actually all other definitions of Web 2.0 can be divided into three groups:

1. Social
2. Technical
3. Other

The first group includes various definitions that emphasize the social characteristics of Web 2.0; generation of content by users for users , systematization of content by users, the democratic nature of Web 2.0 services, usability , etc. The second group includes definitions that rest on the technical implementation of Web 2.0 services: AJAX technologies, Web services, RSS, Blog, Blog, Mash-up, Tags and so dalee.K third group includes various non-system definition from "a cheap PR, which would be quick to cut the dough from suckers investors" to "this is a sign of" beta "on the logo of the project" .Harakternym example of such a taxonomy can be considered the results of osovaniya (note the use of such vague definitions as "special», «AJAX?», «Phenomenon"). However, critically looking at these definitions, you can see that all of them are truisms. In fact, the SourceForge project that has existed since 1999 is inconvenient to call “Web 2.0 a startup”, whereas it fits all the basic definitions of the first type. Technology AJAX, Mash-up, are applets, which appeared in 1995. RSS and tags are the means of announcing and classifying content and have analogues in the form of directories and thematic collections of sites that appeared along with the creation of the Web. Well, blogs are good old forums, conferences Fidonet, Usenet etc. Thus, these definitions of Web 2.0 are necessary, but not sufficient.

Synthesis

Joint work for my benefit - unites.
K. Matroskin, the ideologist of Web 2.0

Money rules the world, brother ...
Folk aphorism.

So is Web 2.0 a phantom? Of course not. The objectivity of the existence of this phenomenon is no longer in doubt. Where is he the cornerstone that holds all this socially platformal rubble? Among the pompous phrases about "collective intelligence", "love for users", "democracy and freedom" among the definitions of Web 2.0 glimpse sound terms "marketing" and "business model". And it is true, even the classics argued that the development of society is directly related to the development of economic relations. In relation to the Web, this can be interpreted as - the growth of the site’s steepness is directly related to the method of knocking the dough. From this point of view, typical business models of generations of the Web look like this: Web 1.0: We create content at night, advertise it intensively, get initial traffic, which we convert into loot, which we recruit serfs who generate content further while we rest on Tenerife.
Web 2.0: We invite everyone to participate in the good, interesting, free (just for you!) And, very possibly, profitable business - the generation of content on my site. As an option: not content, but direct traffic to my site, or not to mine, but in my favor (underline the necessary). As a result, half the world works for me, and I am not known to anyone in my native Bobruisk and from time to time I shoot another portion of money in Sberbank. It should be noted that the ancestors of the Web 2.0 scheme were various MLM networks, such as affiliate programs. But these networks have a significant drawback - the “partners” have to pay something. In this regard, the Web 2.0 model looks much more progressive for the following reasons:

• it exploits the philanthropic, creative motives of users that do not require payment, as well as, in part, the love of freebies;
• it involves a much larger circle of potential content / traffic creators compared to Web 1.0, with which there is competition between them, leading to an improvement in the quality of content and the emergence of gambling motives for participating in your project.

The main business schemes of the Web 2.0 model include:

1. Various kinds of community exploiting the creative potential of users: LJ, blogs, etc. Traffic is converted into loot at the expense of those eccentrics who are still Web 1.0, that is, through advertising, as well as through premium accounts, which give the opportunity to flow more fully and more refined.
2. Various mash-ups exploiting the healthy laziness of other site owners (why the heck will I invent a new chip for the site when Google has already done this). The traffic from their sites is converted into your loot mainly by advertising on applets.
3. Exploitation of love for freebies: various kinds of file sharing, auctions (cheaper ...) and advertising affiliate programs (something, let it drip). Conversion of traffic in the loot or through advertising, or due to the percentage of transactions.

Anticipating possible objections, I will immediately note that the lack of conversion of traffic into loot on some Web 2.0 sites is the exception rather than the rule and lies entirely on the conscience of the authors of these sites.

Conclusion

So, the main difference of Web 2.0 projects is their business model, namely the method of generating traffic convertible into loot. It should be noted that in this sense the main trend is the transfer of most of the technological process of the Internet project from its home site to the masses. Bringing this trend to a logical end, you can isolate the main features of Web 3.0:

• full transfer of all parts of the life cycle of an Internet project to the masses interested in it;
• refusal of intermediaries in the distribution of cash flows converting traffic into loot.

Some interesting conclusions about the technical structure of Web 3.0 follow from this conclusion, but this is already a topic for a separate article.

PS: This article does not bear the personal attitude of the author to the mentioned sites and users, but is only a modest attempt to understand the essence of things.

Basil naivel