Would this site be considered web 2.0, or web 3.0?

Well, according the NYTimes, article, I'd say web 2.0

It described web 3.0 as web-wide AI

this is much more in line with the 2.0 concepts of user supplied content

Though we could call it web 2.1 just to be a little ahead :)

Actually I think I am going to have to disagree with Ben.. The article in the NYT described 2.0 as (essentially) the current wave of online content: user supplied content, mashing of different services, perpetual activity, etc. And certainly at the base level that is what this site appears to be..

But Web 3.0 isn't simply about 'web-wide AI'. Web 3.0 was about creating new systems for providing information; it was about using the internet to create a system that that could use the web, like AI, to be able to gather and process the vast amounts of information that people voluntarily put up on the web somewhere. But the real goal there is to garner the information that all of those people have (originally) in their heads. So they talk about data mining programs, and AI creation, etc. But the end goal for all of them is for some system to be able to answer a simply question, like: "What's a good place to go on vacation, with 3000 dollars, and a six year old?" or "what household products can i use to polish silver" or "how often do you need to rotate your tires?"

But don't those sound familiar..? Not to sound ignorantly idealistic, :), but with the right critical mass (and the right improvements), that's exactly what a site like this could be.

Conclusion: This site is definitely infantile 3.0

2.1a

web 2.5

Whatever the number… the “version” that will really count is when information is aggregated from all/many sources on the web—I’m tired of joining dozens of sites to get ALL the answers!!!

The real power of the web will be pulling ALL answers into ONE location. The value of an individual site should be the features and functions of what can be done with and to that information in searching and presentation.