Research any topic before you write.

Find related topics. | Discover entities. | See connections. | Build a topical map.

Web 2.0: History, Trade, Applications & Products

Web 2.0 (also known as participative (or participatory) web and social web) refers to websites that emphasize user-generated content, ease of use, participatory culture, and interoperability (i.e., compatibility with other products, systems, and devices) for end users.

Language: English [EN]
Use the mouse wheel or two fingers (on touchscreens) to zoom in and out of the map.
100%
More settings
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Web 2.0 topic overview

The analysis highlights History, Trade, Applications and Products as prominent areas in the source structure around Web 2.0. 1 topic appears in more than one source area, which can help identify connections that are less obvious in a linear reading.

Related topics
229
Source areas
10
Connected nodes
241
Extracted relationships
257
Concept neighborhoods
68
Bridge connections
241

What this topic covers Research coverage

Source areas are shown by the number of related topics found in each part of the analysis. Use smaller areas too: they can reveal specialized angles and content gaps.

Overview · 80 topics
History · 39 topics
Concepts · 24 topics
Criticism · 24 topics
Technologies · 20 topics
Social Web · 18 topics
Distribution of media · 11 topics
Web-based applications and desktops · 8 topics
Trademark · 5 topics
Education · 1 topics

Smaller areas are not necessarily less important. They contain fewer connections in this analysis and can be useful for finding specialized angles or coverage gaps.

Explore all related topics Closing gaps

Browse the complete topic structure, not only the most central items. Less prominent entities and concepts can reveal missing angles, specialized context and useful research gaps. Each item opens a new analysis centered on that subject.

Overview

History

Technologies

Concepts

Social Web

Education

Web-based applications and desktops

Distribution of media

Trademark

Criticism

Advanced semantic analysis

Deeper signals for content research, entity SEO and topical coverage. The plain-language headings explain what each technical view is useful for.

How Web 2.0 connects Entity context

The extracted context around Web 2.0 shows recurring relationship patterns in the source. For example, Web 2.0 → Accessibility, Additionally, AJAX-driven, Amateur, American Library Association, Andrew Keen, Cult, Facebook, For, Google, Harvard's Berkman Center, Henry Jenkins, HTML, In, Internet, John Batelle, John Flintoff, Jonathan Zittrain, Keen's, Michael Gorman Another extracted example is Web 2.0 → Ajax, Amazon, API, Bubble, But, Critics, CSCW, Dot-com, First, For, HTTP, IBM, If Web, In, Internet, IP, Lotus Domino, Lotus Notes, Nobody, Other. Use these groups to spot repeated connection types before inspecting the individual relationships.

Web 2.0

Top relations

has impact · 40
Web 2.0 → Accessibility, Additionally, AJAX-driven, Amateur, American Library Association, Andrew Keen, Cult, Facebook, For, Google, Harvard's Berkman Center, Henry Jenkins, HTML, In, Internet, John Batelle, John Flintoff, Jonathan Zittrain, Keen's, Michael Gorman
related to Criticism of the term · 31
Web 2.0 → Ajax, Amazon, API, Bubble, But, Critics, CSCW, Dot-com, First, For, HTTP, IBM, If Web, In, Internet, IP, Lotus Domino, Lotus Notes, Nobody, Other
related to Web 1.0 · 21
Web 2.0 → According, Balachander Krishnamurthy, Blogger, During Web, Facebook, For, GeoCities, Graham Cormode, In, Internet, LiveJournal, Myspace, New Media, Personal, Some Web, Terry Flew, Tripod, Tumblr, Web, With Web
related to Technologies · 16
Web 2.0 → Ajax, Document Object Model, DOM, HTML/CSS, JavaScript, JavaScript Object Notation, Jesse James Garrett, JSON, Otherwise, Since, The, This, To, Web, XML, XMLHttpRequest
related to Marketing · 15
Web 2.0 → Among, Another, Bank Technology News, Business Week, Citigroup's Global Transaction Services, Companies, In, Mainstream, PC Magazine, Saturating, Shane Kite, The New York Times, User, Web, Websites
related to Trademark · 14
Web 2.0 → CMP Media, Cork, In November, Ireland, Irish, IT, June, May, On, PTO Examining Attorney, The, The European Union, USPTO, WEB
related to Web APIs · 14
Web 2.0 → APIs, Application, JSON, Most, REST, REST APIs, Servers, SOAP, SOAP Application, URI, Web, Web Services Description Language, WSDL, XML
related to Web 2.0 · 13
Web 2.0 → As, Darcy DiNucci, DiNucci, Fragmented Future, HTTP, January, Palm Inc, PC, She, The, WAP, Web, Writing
related to XML and RSS · 12
Web 2.0 → Atom, FOAF, Many, Observers, Protocols, RDF, RSS, Specialized, Syndication, Web, XFN, XML-based
related to External links · 11
Web 2.0 → Charleston, ISBN, Learning, MultiMedia, Social Media, Social Networks, South Carolina, SUA, Web, Wikiversity Web, Wiktionary-logo-en-v2

Important terminology

Use these terms to understand the vocabulary surrounding the topic, not as a checklist for keyword stuffing.

Important terminology

web content social users media use term sites websites also site user many technologies application software example online services user-generated

Web 2.0 relationships Subject–Predicate–Object triples

TTTA extracted 257 structured relationships around Web 2.0. Examples in this analysis include Web 2.0 → is a → social web and the now-defunct Tripod → instance of → or on free web hosting services. The table shows each extracted connection, where it came from and its confidence.

SubjectPredicateObjectConfidenceSrc
Web 2.0is asocial web0.90text
the now-defunct Tripodinstance ofor on free web hosting services0.80text
GeoCitiesinstance ofor on free web hosting services0.80text
Myspaceinstance ofon sites0.80text
Facebookinstance ofon sites0.80text
Perlinstance ofinstead of a web application written in a dynamic programming language0.80text
PHPinstance ofinstead of a web application written in a dynamic programming language0.80text
Python or Rubyinstance ofinstead of a web application written in a dynamic programming language0.80text
Amazoninstance ofCompanies0.80text
Facebookinstance ofCompanies0.80text
Twitterinstance ofCompanies0.80text
and Googleinstance ofCompanies0.80text

Related concept clusters Concept neighborhoods

The concept neighborhoods around Web 2.0 bring nearby vocabulary together. In this analysis, examples include Content, Site and Term. Use the clusters to find adjacent concepts and terminology that may deserve separate research.

  • Web 2.0
    • Content
    • Site
    • Term
    • Use
    • Sites
    • User
    • Users
    • Technologies
    • Many
    • Service
    • Media
    • Applications
  • web 2.0
    • Content
    • Site
    • Term
    • Use
    • Sites
    • User
    • Users
    • Technologies
    • Many
    • Service
    • Media
    • Applications
  • user-generated content
    • Users
    • Content
    • User-generated
    • Websites
    • User
    • Web
    • Social
    • Site
    • Media
    • Blogs
    • Systems
    • Service
  • web 2.0 conference
    • Content
    • Site
    • Term
    • Use
    • Sites
    • User
    • Users
    • Technologies
    • Many
    • Service
    • Media
    • Applications
  • software versions
    • Wikipedia
    • User
    • Users
    • Application
    • Service
    • Use
    • Applications
    • Browser
    • Services
    • Web
    • Many
    • Sites
  • world wide web
    • Content
    • Term
    • Technologies
    • Site
    • First
    • Use
    • People
    • Sites
    • User
    • Users
    • Many
    • Also
  • web 1.0
    • Content
    • Site
    • Term
    • Use
    • Sites
    • User
    • Users
    • Technologies
    • Many
    • Service
    • Media
    • Applications
  • blogs
    • Wikis
    • Media
    • Sites
    • Content
    • People
    • Websites
    • Example
    • Social
    • Users
    • Many
    • Site
    • Systems

Connections between topic areas Semantic bridges

For Web 2.0, one of the stronger structural bridges in this analysis connects Web 2.0 with Overview. Bridges highlight paths between different parts of the map and can reveal research angles that are easy to miss in a flat list.

Min side: 3
Web 2.0 — Overview · splits 161 ⟂ 81
Web 2.0 — History · splits 201 ⟂ 41
Web 2.0 — Concepts · splits 217 ⟂ 25
Web 2.0 — Criticism · splits 217 ⟂ 25
Web 2.0 — Technologies · splits 221 ⟂ 21
Web 2.0 — Social Web · splits 223 ⟂ 19
Web 2.0 — Distribution of media · splits 230 ⟂ 12
Web 2.0 — Web-based applications and desktops · splits 233 ⟂ 9
Web 2.0 — Trademark · splits 236 ⟂ 6

Map overview Semantic statistics

Web 2.0

Nodes242
Edges241
Triples257
Avg. degree1.99
Density0.008264
Components1

Source & methodology

TTTA analyzes the structure around Web 2.0 to surface related topics, entities, relationships, concept neighborhoods and bridge connections. Use the map to explore areas such as History, Trade, Applications & Products, including less central topics that may reveal useful research gaps. Automatically extracted connections are research leads rather than rewritten encyclopedia content.

Source: Wikipedia — Web 2.0 · EN edition · Analysis: TopicsToTalkAbout

For writers, content strategists, SEOs, marketers and creators — from quick topic research to advanced semantic analysis.