Seth Godin has compiled an exhaustive list of web 2.0 sites and their traffic and trends. Regardless of how you define “Web 2.0,” the list is an interesting one in terms of taking the pulse of the modern Web.
Yet Tim O’Reilly disagrees, in today’s Why Seth Godin’s Web 2.0 Watch List Misses the Point post. He feels that the criteria for “Web 2.0” as used by Mr. Godin is completely wrong – primarily by not including companies like Google and eBay.
I think the crux of this argument is the idea that the term can be defined any number of different ways. You could argue that projects are 2.0, or services are 2.0, or just the sites themselves. You could argue that if someone has been around for longer than the term has, they don’t make the cut. Or you could argue that someone as old as Yahoo! fully qualifies, if you look at the garden of services they offer.
Good point. I wonder if we’ll ever agree on a definition at all.
