The term of web 2.0 seems to beeing used to apply to a type of technology, a type of website, user intergration, valid code and every thing you can think of right now.Has web 2.0 lost all meaning?

Web 2.0 everyone seems to have there own interpretation. Mine is it refers to a description of sites that are fullfilling the potential investors saw that created the initial dot com boom and these sites are now creating interest and investment back into the internet.

I don't think it is about technology, user intergration or anything else. It to me is about a set of sites that have reached the goals they set out to acheive.

Here's what Tim O'Reilly said

The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web. Many people concluded that the web was overhyped, when in fact bubbles and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all technological revolutions. Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage. The pretenders are given the bum's rush, the real success stories show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what separates one from the other.

From [tim.oreilly.com...]

Often I see web 2.0 used to refer to a technique or a type of interatction with user and Tim O'Reilly has gone on to expand web 2.0 to cover a set of principals.

I am sorry but I think the initial description of web 2.0 contained a list of sites that have succeeded in their field and succeeded despite the dot com crash. The technology used and techniques of these sites differ widely. It also claims to represents a change of technology. But even this original list I now doubt as the net moves on.

Here's O'Reilly and Media Live original list

Web 1.0 Web 2.0
DoubleClick --> Google AdSense
Ofoto --> Flickr
Akamai --> BitTorrent
mp3.com --> Napster
Britannica Online --> Wikipedia
personal websites --> blogging
evite --> upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation --> search engine optimization
page views --> cost per click
screen scraping --> web services
publishing --> participation
content management systems --> wikis
directories (taxonomy) --> tagging ("folksonomy")
stickiness --> syndication

Lets take a few things on the list that are already changing......

DoubleClick --> Google AdSense

Google Adsense is choosen by the advertiser and increasingly Adsense partners are a thing advertisers choose to switch off from there account. Yahoo howether are gaining increased crediability in this area.

Akamai --> BitTorrent
Ok p2p we have had napster(now paid service), kazza , limewire amoungst others.No evidence Bitorrent offer any dominent market share.

mp3.com --> Napster
Ok Tim so what about itunes. The whole ipod itunes thing has been a huge success. There is lotts of other competition in this area and market share changes by the day.

domain name speculation --> search engine optimization
This was largely due to the old algo's google ran which gave little weight to domian name. Current algo gives weight to domain name so speculation will begin again.

I could go on. But my point is that at that time a snapshot was taken of the web and those sites and techniques were decided as web 2.0. They probably were infact at the time the leaders and some still are but the web audience is nothing if not fickle and some of the things on the list are already irrelevent.

The internet is a constantly moving animal and there is not a single website that can afford to sit on its performance and consider itself as dominent in any field. Every website needs to progress and all I feel the Web 2.0 list represents is a replacement of sites and techniques that at that time had been replaced by something more popular.

There is no mention on the list of for instance ebay and amazon that were there at the start and are still there. If web 2.0 reffers to a techique or a concept surely these sites would be included.

I do feel whatever the original point of web 2.0 it has become lost and confused. Not every site needs ajax, not every site needs reviews, not every site need wiki. Whats sites do need is success and continual progression and whatever is done to achieve that is for me a good thing.