• Go to
  • Facebook 2014
  • Go to
  • The New York Times 2014
  • Go to
  • Yahoo 2014
  • Go to
  • Apple 2014
  • Go to
  • Craigslist 2014
  • Go to
  • Google 2014
  • Go to
  • Twitter 2014

Present state of the WebEdit

{{ #NewWindowLink: | Web 2.0 }} is more like a big group of friends and acquaintances. Users can still use it to receive information but they also can contribute to the conversation and make it a richer experience [1]. During the initial formation of the {{ #NewWindowLink: | World Wide Web }}, or Web 1.0, users were limited to passive viewing of online content. The term {{ #NewWindowLink: | Web 2.0 }} was coined in 1999 by {{ #NewWindowLink: | Darcy DiNucci }} as people became increasingly able to interact and cooperate online through {{ #NewWindowLink: | social media platforms }}, {{ #NewWindowLink: | virtual communities }},and user-generated content. Some examples include {{ #NewWindowLink: | blogs }}, {{ #NewWindowLink: | wikis }}, {{ #NewWindowLink: | social networks }}, {{ #NewWindowLink: | forums }}, and {{ #NewWindowLink: | media sharing sites }}. {{ #NewWindowLink: | Web 2.0 }} technologies encompass a variety of different meanings that include an increased emphasis on user generated content, data and content sharing, collaborative effort, new ways of interacting with Web-based applications, and the use of the Web as a social platform for generating, repositioning and consuming content.[2] {{ #NewWindowLink: | "Web 2.0" }} refers to a perceived second generation of Web development and design that facilitates communications and secures information sharing, interoperability, and collaboration on the World Wide Web. {{ #NewWindowLink: | Web 2.0 }} concepts have led to the development and evolution of Web-based communities, hosted services, and applications; such as {{ #NewWindowLink: | social networking sites }}, video-sharing sites, {{ #NewWindowLink: | blogs }}, {{ #NewWindowLink: | wikis }}, and folksonomies[3]". The emphasis on user participation also known as the "Read/Write" Web - characterizes most people's definitions of {{ #NewWindowLink: | Web 2.0 }}. [2]

Characteristics of Web 2.0Edit

  • Users are able to make changes and contribute to Web pages. For example, Amazon allows visitors to post product reviews. Using an online form, a visitor can add information to Amazon's pages that future visitors will be able to read. [1]
  • Users can link to other users. {{ #NewWindowLink: | Social networking sites }} such as Facebook and MySpace are popular in part because they make it easy for users to find each other and keep in touch.[1]
  • There are fast and efficient ways to share content. For example, a YouTube member can create a video and upload it to the site for others to watch in less than an hour.[1]
  • There is streaming information. Currently, internet surfers can subscribe to a Web page's Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds and receive notifications of that Web page's updates as long as they maintain an Internet connection.[1]
  • Internet access has expanded beyond the computer. Many people access the Internet through devices such as cell phones or video game consoles; before long, some experts expect that consumers will access the Internet through television sets and other devices.[1]

Current Problems with Web 2.0Edit

1) {{ #NewWindowLink: | High recall and low precision }}. The most relevant pages are retrieved, but so are many other irrelevant or semi-relevant pages.[4]

2) {{ #NewWindowLink: | Low recall }}: Sometimes we don’t get the answer we want at all.[4]

3) Search results are too vocabulary-sensitive: Semantically similar words do not return similar results.[4]

4) Search results return only single Web pages. Users must travel to separate places, extract information, then bring together a solid body of information. This requires several queries.[4]

5) {{ #NewWindowLink: | Search engines }} are not integrated with software; they often stand isolated.[4]

"Therefore the term {{ #NewWindowLink: | information retrieval }}, used in assocation with search engines, is somewhat midleading; location finder might be a more appropriate term." The {{ #NewWindowLink: | semantic meaning }} behind what information we with to retrieve is "not machine-accessible." The computer cannot interpret sentences the way humans can, and developers feel that there is a need for relationships between data to be established that are more conducive for human needs. [4]


  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5  Strickland,J.(n.d). How Web 3.0 Will Work. HowStuffWorks. Retrieved March 12, 2014, from {{ #NewWindowLink: }}
  2. 2.0 2.1 A,Harris. A, Rea. Web 2.0 and Virtual World Technologies:A Growing Impact on IS Education. Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol.(20)2 
  3. Fields, Kennedth(2007) "Ontologies categories, folksonomies: an organized language of sound." Cambridge.
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Antoniou, G., & Harmelen, F.(2008) A Semantic Web Primer (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.