This is a great point--at what point specifically did things go from 1.0 to 2.0? Were there no 2.0 betas? I think a lot of this might be driven by marketers/a

This is a great point--at what point specifically did things go from 1.0 to 2.0? Were there no 2.0 betas? I think a lot of this might be driven by marketers/advertisers trying to sell their clients on "a new way" of selling their content. Remember when some company (Was it Slate.com?) came out with the full-page interstitial ad? That was a new way of advertising content--wouldn't you say that would have earned atleast a Web 1.1 rating? "Web 2.0" _seems_ to be driven by sites being "interactive", I guess above and beyond just clicking around using 1.0(?) navigation. Furthermore, elements like mob behavior (Digg), social networking, RIA expereinces seem to let someone slap 2.0 on their site--not that it's wrong, but that seems to be the criteria. What else might I be missing in that list? What would you call Hacker News? Just because it's born in the Web 2.0 "era", does it make it so?