Is Your Site "Web 2.0" or 1.0?

Or, do you plan to go "2.0" any time soon?

[FourDegreez]

This topic came up in another thread, but I think it's an interesting question. Yes I know, "Web 2.0" is a buzz word that annoys some people. But it is also a useful term, refering to web sites that are more interactive, often having AJAX components, dynamic/user-generated content, social networking, content sharing, etc.

The 1.0 site, in contrast, would be mostly static HTML pages and/or a basic CMS, and maybe a forum or blog.

So do you have a Web 2.0 site? If not, do you plan to go in that direction? If you don't, is it because you consider Web 2.0 a passing fad, or because you just aren't interested in that type of site? If you have both types, which performs better with AdSense and why?

[dataguy]

moTi and EVF makes some good points. I think as the Web matures there will have to be some more well-defined definitions of types of sites.

web 1.0 = information
web 2.0 = socialisation

This is a good start, though I think Wikipedia is a good example of 2.0 and it is the Mother of All Information Sites. I work hard to make my own Web 2.0 web site full of useful information, and it has a similar eCPM as my 1.0 site (mid teens).

One similar debate is if a legitimate business plan for a web site can rely on organic (free) search engine traffic. This debate raises similar ire mainly because of the same conflict of two completely different types of sites. A Web 1.0 site business plan probably needs to not completely rely on organic search engine traffic. A Web 2.0 site typically makes its money in much smaller increments, so there is probably no possible way for a Web 2.0 site to succeed without organic traffic. Does that mean that a Web 2.0 site can not be a legitimate business? I hope not!

[europeforvisitors]

web 1.0 = information
web 2.0 = socialisation

I think that's an oversimplification, if only because 2.0 implies the next step beyond 1.0, and key features of "Web 2.0" (social networking, user-created content) go back to the days when people shared Word macros, Excel applications, Gold Rush game cheats, etc. on CompuServe product forums. For that matter, the ODP, which started as "Gnuhoo" back in 1998, was and is a prime example of a community-generated site.

Some observers have used the term "Bubble 2.0" as a synonym for "Web 2.0." In a VentureBlog article titled "Born to Be Bought," David Hornik commented:

"...when I hear large numbers of companies pitching themselves as excellent acquisition candidates before they've even gotten out of the gate I can't help but think to myself that we are in the heart of Bubble 2.0. Sadly, only one thing follows Bubble 2.0 and that is Bust 2.0. On the good side, there's always Web 3.0."

(By the way, Hornik's comment was written back in October, 2005.)

[FourDegreez]

moTi, wouldn't you say that many information sites have the same issue? 1.0 sites that have no pre-sell or do not attract viewers with their wallets open are in the same situation. It may be true, though, that this issue is all the more magnified on the 2.0 sites.

dataguy said:

there is probably no possible way for a Web 2.0 site to succeed without organic [SE] traffic.

But 2.0 sites also get word-of-mouth and repeat traffic. My site gets a good amount of organic SE traffic, but the majority is from other (free) sources--links, emails, repeat visitors, etc.

[edited by: jatar_k at 4:20 pm (utc) on Aug. 12, 2007]

[europeforvisitors]

1.0 sites that have no pre-sell or do not attract viewers with their wallets open are in the same situation.

Audience motivation is more important than whether a site is "Web 1.0" or "Web 2.0." To put a Web 1.0/2.0 twist on a comparison that Google used when Smart Pricing was introduced, a "crowdsourced" camera review is likely to perform better with AdSense than a traditionally written page of photo tips is; at the same time, a traditionally written camera review is likely to perform better than a "crowdsourced" page of photo tips. Why? Because the camera-review reader is more likely to be researching a camera purchase than the person who's trying to learn how to avoid redeye or how to get his dog to sit still for a portrait.

[roosevelt]

Is it just me or Web 2.0 sites doesn't look much professional or basically the most look I've came across doesn't really give the taste of a business website have.

In my website I do have ajax, a way to let the user interact and so on... but still I don't see it as web 2.0.

Matter of fact, I still didn't mind a good definition of web 2.0 yet.

[Wlauzon]

I am kind of with Ken on this, we are still web .85 or so.

I have seen some business oriented "web 2.0" sites, and quite honestly ... they suck for the user.

Social sites are a different animal, you seldom go there for any hard info or prices etc.

[rocker]

Matter of fact, I still didn't mind a good definition of web 2.0 yet.

Think of web 2.0 as the internet version of reality tv. Basically, people that are not members of the production staff contributing to help provide the content.

Also, web 2.0 and reality tv have both been around, in a limited capacity, for a long time. It's their buzz word names that are new.

[netmeg]

"Bleeding" edge technology (or just plain different technology) has nearly always failed first time round IMO.

Remember - the pioneers are the ones with all the arrows in their backs.

My best performing site has three pages (albeit database driven) and no graphics whatsoever except for a couple of corner pieces and the little bookmarking graphic. My users are welcome to submit content - but they have to email it to me, and I add it myself. Nobody can optimize my site better than I can.

[ccDan]

web 1.0 = information
web 2.0 = socialisation

If Wikipedia is being touted as an example of a Web 2.0 site, perhaps a better definition is:

Web 1.0 = trusted information (edited content)
Web 2.0 = untrusted information (free-for-all)

There have been pretty public examples of where Wikipedia has been misused and incorrect information added. Now, people argue that this will be corrected by the next person to come along, but while that may be true for popular topics, what are the odds of someone catching an error (intentional or not) on a more obscure topic? Regardless, at any given time, you cannot be sure of the accuracy of the information you're reading at the time you check an entry.

If Wikipedia is a prime example of a Web 2.0 site, it's no wonder so many people are turned off to the concept of Web 2.0. Is Web 2.0 the Wild Wild West? I thought we already passed that stage of the Internet!

[europeforvisitors]

Wikis have been around since 1995. (PC Magazine features Wiki inventor Ward Cunningham in its current issue.) So it would be hard to argue that Wikipedia (or any Wiki) is "Web 2.0," when Wikis predate most of the sites that are currently on the Web.

I have seen some business oriented "web 2.0" sites, and quite honestly ... they suck for the user.

PhoCusWright, a research company that covers travel e-commerce, has been organizing conferences and selling reports about "Travel 2.0.," meaning Web 2.0 in the commercial travel sector. I get a lot of its marketing e-mail, and if the hype is anything to go by, every hotel chain and tour outfit is hoping to cash in on user participation. Seems pretty farfetched to me: As a user, are YOU interested in contributing to the Web site of Mega Hotels International or Mini-cost Bus Tours? Mind you, there's nothing really new about the concept: Vendor-supported product forums and chat rooms have been around for at least 15 years. The big difference between then and now is that users of a CompuServe vendor forum were already members of the CompuServe online community; they were members first and customers second. It's a big jump from participating in a third-party forum to writing reviews and other content for a vendor's "Web 2.0" site (although I suppose vendors might be able to encourage participation by awarding prizes, loyalty points, etc. to active members).