The Top 5 Most Useless Web 2.0 Sites
| New To Snowboardjohn.com? |
| Here are a few posts the other readers recommend you check out. |
After reading Jason Moffatts recent post about how much he disliked Facebook (which I did a market analysis on a little while ago). I thought about the amount of super useless Web 2.0 sites people seem to be hyping but really don’t serve any function.
Let’s start:
1. Twitter. This is seriously the most useless, ridiculous piece of crap I’ve ever seen. 25 word snippets about people driving around town, doing shopping, and other useless communication. If you’re reading people’s “Twitters” you’ve got WAY too much time on your hands.
And as far as reaching your market through Twitter goes? Are you kidding me?! Sure it’ll sort of work for tech fan boys who follow Morgan Webb, and major CEO’s or celebrities, but for the average everyman, NO ONE wants to know the minute aspects of how your day is going.
2. Mahalo. What, exactly, is Mahalo supposed to be doing? It’s pretty much a link directory for a tiny range of subjects. Calcanis calls it an aggregator - but if Mahalo is aggregating information in a new way - so is the DMOZ directory… oh wait… DMOZ has been around for a decade… so it’s not so new after all!
3. Yahoo Answers. And you thought wikipedia had questionable information! When it isn’t clogged with spam, Yahoo Answers provides the pure, unedited insights of nameless, faceless, unqualified nobodies from all over the planet. The only question Yahoo Answers provides a reliable answer to is “can you have a website that provides super low quality information succeed in a big way?”
4. Hubpages. The success of Hubpages is completely bizarre to me. Low quality information, anonymous users, high placement search engine results. Huh?
5. Wikipedia. The internal politics of wikipedia has everyone wondering about who has what interest in what wikipedia entry. The problem with wikipedia isn’t so much that it has bad information, it’s that wikipedia information is TRUSTED so much. The over trusting, and over citation of wikipedia as source, has turned it into an “information cancer” - cells of information that have been influenced (or written) by people who have a vested interest in smearing or vindicating topics, companies, and people.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
October 18th, 2007 at 12:45 am
I wonder what would you say about Heptagrama, a magazine which is striving to summarize verified contents on the Internet. I hope I’ll never find it in such a list.
Facebook is not that bad, by the way.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Tedel your website (if it is yours) does not appear to be social media.
The social media website is a particularly difficult business model to execute - you somehow have to get large amounts of contributive users producing content for you - and have some kind of quality control for that content - without destroying the content producers motivation for producing that content in the first place.
Personally I have nothing against Facebook - I think it’s an interesting form of a shared email inbox - but as far as a marketing reach tool goes - it’s not particularly useful.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
[…] Jason Moffat gives his take on Facebook, and another good look at Web 2.0 sites is here. The Top 5 Most Useless Web 2.0 Sites […]
October 19th, 2007 at 12:53 am
[…] Make Money Online With Snowboardjohn A Study of Online Biz Risk Management Theory « The Top 5 Most Useless Web 2.0 Sites […]
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Thanks for such brilliant article, I especially agree about Wikipedia. Thanks and great Seasons Holidays to you, please keep posting!