Web 2.0 is a buzzword commonly used to encompass diverse and novel processes on the World Wide Web. Although predominantly a marketing term, some of the key imputations associated with Web 2.0 include the emergence of social media, two-way communication, various “glue” techniques, and substantial diversity in content types. Although most of Web 2.0 runs on the same platform as 1.0, there are some key divergences. Our objective is to identify the elementary differences that lead to characterize the properties of interest in 2.0.
The Web 2.0 falls in love with a combination of conceptions on the Web in recent years. The precise definition is subtle and difficult to categorize with the binary tag “Web 1.0” or “Web 2.0”. But there is a clear separation between a set of extremely popular Web 2.0 sites, such as Facebook and YouTube, and the old Web. These separations are visible when they are designed on a variety of axes, such as technological, structural and sociological.
One of the main differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 is that there were very few content creators on Web 1.0 and the vast majority of users simply served as content consumers, while any user can be a content generator. on Web 2.0 and various technological aids. They have been added to increase the content generation potential.
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 began to progress in late 2003 and early 2004. Websites that have changed their structure somewhat since the early 2000s and early 2000s. previously they can be counted as Web 1.0 (like IMDB).
A key feature of Web 2.0 is that these sites encourage users to spend as much time as possible on your site. They offer strong incentives to increase adherence to the site. On Web 1.0, most websites have links to external sites, and users can easily follow those links to other sites. The main reason for this is that most 1.0 Web sites are inclined to cover a single topic and do not require users to log in to access them. On the other hand, Web 2.0 sites encourage on-site activities, typically requiring users to log in and link to others on the site.
Web 1.0 sites were for one-way communication, while Web 2.0 sites build a two-way communication medium. Web 1.0 was autocratic and top-down. On the other hand, Web 2.0 is democratic and bottom-up. Instead of the New York Times 1.0 website telling you which stories were the biggest of the day, Digg.com, Buzz, and Yahoo.com describe the stories that users voted the most important.
Web 1.0 sites had to be clearly read passively. Web 2.0 sites tempt participation, upvoting or downvoting content, rating it, commenting on it, and submitting new posts. In 2000, Amazon.com allowed users to review books, but today users can participate in many different ways, such as creating product lists, writing product guides, and editing wiki articles (Amapedia). In 2000, Amazon was using its sites to sell products it bought. With Web 2.0, Amazon now allows you to list and sell your own new and old books and products through its website.
Web 1.0 sites were static and rarely changed when Web 2.0 sites are dynamic and change hourly or even more frequently, considering all user shares. Web 1.0 sites were closed sites while Web 2.0 sites are collaborative sites.
The table below highlights the distinctive features between Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 and compares how things have changed since the web culture changed.
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 all about cables
It was about owning
It was about IPO
It was about Netscape
It was about scratching the screen
It was about web forms
It was all about hardware costs
It was about dial-up
It went from top to bottom
It was edited and produced
It was about banner ads
web 2.0
It’s about writing
It’s about communities
It’s about peer to peer
It’s about XML
It’s about blogging
It’s about RSS
It’s all about labels
It’s all about wireless
It’s about sharing
It’s about commercial sales
It’s about Google
It’s about API
It’s about web applications
It’s all about bandwidth costs
It’s all about broadband
It’s from the bottom up
It’s raw
It’s about AdSense