Web 2.0 is a buzzword commonly used to embrace diverse and novel processes on the World Wide Web. Even though predominately a marketing term, some of the key imputes colligated with Web 2.0 include the emergence of social networks, two-way communication, various ‘glue’ techniques and substantial multifariousness in content types. Although most of Web 2.0 runs on the same platform as 1.0, there are some key divergences. Our aim is to key out the elementary differences leading to the properties of interest in 2.0 to be characterized.
Web 2.0 enamours a combination of conceptions on the Web in recent years. The accurate definition is subtle and it is hard to categorize with the binary label “Web 1.0” or “Web 2.0”. But there is an uncluttered separation between a set of extremely popular Web 2.0 sites such as Facebook and YouTube, and the old Web. These separations are seeable when contrived onto a variety of axes, such as technological structural and sociological.
One of the major differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 is that the content creators were very few in Web 1.0 with the sheer majority of users merely served as consumers of content, while any user can be a content generator in Web 2.0 and various technological assistances have been added to increase the potential for content generation.
Another difference between Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 can be based on time. The term “Web 2.0” was coined around 2004 and many of the first genuine Web 2.0 sites started progressing in late 2003 and early 2004. The websites which have modified a little in structure since the early 2000’s and before may be counted as Web 1.0 (such as IMDB).
A key feature in Web 2.0 is that these sites boost users to expend as much time as possible on their site. They offer strong inducements for increasing stickiness on the site. In Web 1.0 most websites have links to external sites and users can easily follow those links to other sites. The primary reason for this is that most of the Web 1.0 sites incline to cover a single topic and do not necessitate users to log in to access them. On the other hand, Web 2.0 sites encourage intra-site activities, usually requiring users to log in and build links to others on the site.
Web 1.0 sites were for one-way communication while Web 2.0 sites build two-way communication medium. Web 1.0 was autocratic and top-down. On the other hand, Web 2.0 is democratic and bottom-up. Rather than the New York Times 1.0 website stating you what the significant stories of the day were, Digg.com, Buzz and Yahoo.com depicts the stories users have voted the most crucial.
Web 1.0 sites were plainly to be read passively. Web 2.0 sites tempt participation, voting for the content up or down, grading it, remarking on it, and submitting new posts. By 2000, Amazon.com was allowing users to review books but nowadays users can take part in many different ways like create lists of products, write product guides and edit wiki articles (Amapedia). In 2000, Amazon was utilizing its sites to sell products it bought in. With Web 2.0, Amazon now lets you list and sell your own new and old books and products through their website.
Web 1.0 sites were static and seldom gets changed where Web 2.0 sites are dynamic and change hourly or even more frequently, pondering all of those user shares. Web 1.0 sites were closed up sites while Web 2.0 sites are collaborative sites.
Below table highlights the distinguishing features between Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 and compares how things have changed since the web culture has overturned.
Web 1.0
It was about reading
It was about companies
It was about client-server
It was about HTML
It was about home pages
It was about portals
It was about taxonomy
It was about wires
It was about owning
It was about IPO’s
It was about Netscape
It was about screen scraping
It was about web forms
It was about hardware costs
It was about dialup
It was top-down
It was edited and produced
It was about banner ads
Web 2.0
It is about writing
It is about communities
It is about peer to peer
It is about XML
It is about blogs
It is about RSS
It is about tags
It is about wireless
It is about sharing
It is about trade sales
It is about Google
It is about APIs
It is about web applications
It is about bandwidth costs
It is about broadband
It is bottom-up
It is raw
It is about AdSense
Leave a Reply