is NOT web 2.0 compliant, but neither is Google Maps or

Web20flickrevalHaving lived through the dot-com-dot-bomb with great consternation and angst ("should I pitch VC and sell my soul?") I have found a few of those similar feelings recently regarding the hype about web 2.0.  So finally someone answered my questions by providing a validator. 

Being the inquiring soul that I am, the first site that I just HAD to validate was flickr.  Here are the results for a web 2.0 validation of

The score for is 3 out of 18

  • Is in public beta?  No
  • Uses the prefix "meta" or "micro"?  No
  • Is Shadows-aware ?  No
  • Uses Cascading Style Sheets?  Yes!
  • Refers to mash-ups ?  No
  • Appears to be web 3.0 ?  Yes!
  • Attempts to be XHTML Strict ?  No
  • Uses Google Maps API?  No
  • Appears to use AJAX ?  No
  • Appears to be built using Ruby on Rails ?  No
  • Refers to Flickr ?  Yes!
  • Refers to VCs ?  No
  • Mentions Cool Words ?  No
  • Has prototype.js ?  No
  • Refers to web2.0validator ?  No
  • Mentions RDF and the Semantic Web?  No
  • Uses microformats ?  No
  • Actually mentions Web 2.0 ?  No

So there you have it folks (<grin>) is NOT web 2.0 compliant.  Now to test  3 out of 20 with these being the three "yes" votes.

  • Uses Cascading Style Sheets?  Yes!
  • Uses the prefix "meta" or "micro"?  Yes!
  • Appears to be web 3.0 ?  Yes! scored 1 out of 20, so clearly I need to get with the team to add a few more 2.0 references.  Hee hee.

For more angst on the difference between social software and web 2.0 please click that link.