Web 2.0. If you’re at all familiar with the development side of the World Wide Web, you’ve heard the term. For those unfamiliar, you can find a ton of information about it online, but I’ll boil it down for you as much as I can.

Web 2.0 is a nebulous term that’s meant to encapsulate current and near-future web trends. These include things like online applications (like Google’s free spreadsheet and word processor programs), user-controlled content (like Wikipedia), blogging (in lieu of old-school static personal websites), metadata (like Digg and Rotten Tomatoes) and a whole lot more. Like I said, it’s a little nebulous. There also seems to be a design aesthetic, or least design trends with Web 2.0 – white space is our friend, clarity and simplicity is good, and CSS is preferred over table-based design.

For the most part, these trends are exciting, interesting, and mark changes and evolutionary steps in the right direction. But there is another trend with Web 2.0 that’s starting to annoy me a bit: naming conventions.

Consider the following names of Web 2.0 sites, all of which I have either visited, heard of, or recommended to people just in the last 24 hours:

Tabblo, Bubbl.us, Meebo, Joopz, Rollyo, and Joomla! (some may debate whether Joomla! qualifies as Web 2.0).

I have a two-year-old niece. I should have been writing down every word that came out of her mouth at Easter, because apparently any screwed up, mushed-mouth word she utters has potential for being the name of a new Web 2.0 startup. She calls my mom “Meemo” and my step-dad “Baybo.” Has anyone registered those yet?

If Web 1.0 was Kentucky Fried Chicken (a brand name that has something to do with what the product is, and is composed of real, properly spelled words), then Web 2.0 is Pepsi (a made-up word that means nothing, though the spelling of “Pepsi” is far too obvious. It should really be changed to “Pepp.c”)

I find it a bit ironic that while the design trend for Web 2.0 is simplicity, the naming trend for 2.0 is complex idiocy. Maybe part of the problem is with the domain registration process – people can buy names and cyber-squat on them, so it’s to a point where you may have problems buying a domain name for any properly spelled word. If that’s the only reason for these goofy naming conventions, then there should be rules limiting cyber-squatting.

But I don’t think it’s just that. I think a big part of it is people actually saying, “We need a hip new name that people won’t be able to figure out how to spell on their own.”

So in an effort to be hip, I’ve decided I need a Web 2.0 name. You can play along at home! Follow these steps and you can create your own Web 2.0 name:

1. Take your name: Dave Hunt
2. Add at least one vowel: Daave Hunt
3. Remove at least one vowel: Daav Hunt
4. Make it one word:DaavHunt

At this point, you’ll probably need to streamline your name a little bit. Look for ways to shorten it, while making sure you also find ways to make your new name even more difficult to spell phonetically. Got yours? Okay. Now we can proceed to the final steps. From here we have a few choices (because Web 2.0 is all about giving the user choices!)

1. Add random periods throughout your new name: Da.avh.unt
2. Make your name sound like it comes from another culture. African is popular: Daavuntu or Daahuntu (Danger: At this point you may inadvertently create the name of a Star Wars character. Proceed with caution, as George Lucas will happily sue your ass.)
3. Consider adding unnecessary punctuation: Daa?huntu! (Try to have your new name both ask a question and give an answer. This is a great marketing technique!)
4. Spend a few minutes trying to pronounce your new name the way a 2-year-old would say it (as with most things in life, stuffing your mouth full of marshmallows may help with this process): Dabunmu.

And there you have it. Your new Web 2.0 name is ready to go. But don’t rest on your laurels. Web 3.0 is already being discussed by web luminaries. Get ready now to further devolve your name to nothing but a series of grunts.