After posting yesterday, I realized that I hadn't expressed on opinion on whether "Web 2.0" is a good name despite it's inaccuracy. Hmm. Yeah, sure, whatever. "++Web" would be more universally accurate since the result could be a different number for everyone's local value of "Web", but that wouldn't be as widely understood. "Web++" looks a little better, but isn't accurate ("increment Web and return the old value"). "Web+=1" would also work, but is too verbose. But it's the only one of these ideas that could give way to the next improvement, which could be called "Web+=2"...except that since "Web+=1" changes the value of "Web", we'd have to agree that we were always adding to the version of Web just before the current one.

So what's the answer? "Web+1", "Web+2", "Web+3", etc., where "Web" is always equal to the value just before the blogging and syndication boom.

...the problem with that being that there's little chance that we'll agree on when a new technology or other shift merits moving to the next version. "Is this Web+3 or just Web+2.1?"