The problem with the so called and praised "web 2.0 look" is the same as with all other typical visual outspoken looks, maybe even more than others ... namely it is dated! Meaning, at some point in time all people will refer to that look as being "too web 2.0", cfr passé, old-fashioned.
Good design is timeless, undated and unmarked by specific styleguides of a hype or trend.
The checkboxes on a typical web 2.0 look would be:
• Gradients - As many as there can be.
• Official Web 2.0 colours - Pink that isn't a million miles away from 'Flickr Pink'.
• Beta status - Not being able to just go ahead and launch. A good long stint in Beta should put everyone's minds at ease.
• Web 2.0 name - Let's refer a typical example would be 'iPlayr', the lower case 'i' makes it sound trendy and cool, parallel to this is of course the enormous succes of the iPod and many other Apple-products.
• Screenshots floating in mid-air - The wet floor effect on all possible images.
Now you know what to do to create some mindblowing design for webpages that will look like total crap and butugly within a few,... months?