Subject:
|
Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:25:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
316 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> This being .debate, I'm going to continue to ask you to be more specific.
Alrighty.
> What exactly is it that bothers you about Yahoo? I don't see buying up
> services and systems in order to extend the reach of what Yahoo is able to
> offer Yahoo users as bad, per se. Rather, I see it as a good thing. Good for
> Yahoo, good for Yahoo users, and good for Yahoo stockholders. But then, I like
> vertically integrated companies when it makes sense for them to be vertical.
>
> Further, I'm not sure what to make of "littering of the internet".
>
> Are you saying that you have a problem with people advertising to build brand
> awareness? Or are you saying that after Yahoo buys a company they shouldn't
> rebrand it? Or what?
My problems with Yahoo are as follows:
1) Moral issues - I haven't experienced the porn banner ads personally, but
from Jeremy's description its abhorring to me and I want nothing to to with a
company who shoves smut down users' throats.
2) Rebranding/littering the internet - basically, Yahoo took over GeoCities
and slapped their brand name on it, now they're doing the same to Webring.
Though for a corporation this might be good, as a consumer and a veteran
internet user (though not as long as some, 4 solid years of watching internet
brands), I see it from a traditional and/or nostalgic POV. Not much weight to
that argument, more a personal thing.
3) The new ring management system SUCKS. They've changed the ring source code
to require Yahoo advertising, from what I've heard (I've tried to see the new
code but haven't been able to - I'm relying on new ring member descriptions) -
they've limited a lot of the things you used to be able to do (edit site
information, generate email lists, customize ring pages, etc) - to a much
trimmed down, Juniorized if you will, management system.
> Make sure you align your statement with your recent statement that you're part
> of a pre-IPO company that you're hoping big things of. :-)
The company that I'm a part of is not of the nature of Yahoo, in that it most
likely will not be merging with other online businesses and rebranding them.
There's a remote possibility of swallowing and integrating services, but it
would be more in the sense of absorbing a duplication of efforts and
increasing size. Yahoo's swallowing has been like adding appendages - adding
unique successful services to itself, where my company will most likely be
adding similar services to increase a user base.
Advertising across the internet is by far not wrong. It helps companies make
money. Personally, banner ads annoy me - but that's from me as a consumer.
Though I do understand they are positive for the comany and do understand that
the internet lives off of them, I don't particularly enjoy looking at them.
My company will live off of advertising, and when working with that company I
will view the advertisements as well. This company is going to, however, take
an incredibly unique approach to internet advertising - something that I can't
discuss but also something the internet has not seen before.
I have a few nitpicks with Yahoo from a design standpoint - though that
doesn't influence my decision to move to Lugnet. Their website is butt ugly,
uncreative, and has remained virtually unchanged (except table backgrounds and
fonts, maybe) for 4 years. A 10 year old could make a page (visually) like
Yahoo does.
The company I'm working with will have a visually appealing site to its target
market, it will aim to be cutting edge in design but allow for easy use - ie
finding a happy medium inbetween. That's the way internet services *should*
be, IMO.
> In any case, why? Be specific. Or else I think you're being a teeny bit
> irrational. Not a big deal, but this *is* .debate after all... where we strain
> at gnats and pass elephants with ease.
Guess then my problem is this discussion was set in .debate, right? ;-)
Another reason for a Lugnet move is because a system like this could integrate
into current less-built up Lugnet features (such as links/) and improve them
by providing information to site owners and giving fans possibly the best
website directory out there. Lugnet is the most logical place for the ring,
and a site index. That combined with Yahoo's woes (IMO, again) have prompted
me to move it over.
For a couple years I've wanted to get LMWR off of the Webring system, and had
plans to, but they fell through. So its not a new idea for me, and not soley
prompted by Yahoo's actions.
> > No one will be paying for this service, it will be integrated into Lugnet as
> > far as I understand in the same manner that the rest of the site is a service
> > to AFOLs.
>
> Reread about what a free community really is (that is, not free). Everything
> gets paid for somehow.
Again, a nitpick, true in principle but IMO so miniscule its not worth the
time discussing. Put it this way, the ring is from the way I see it something
that will take up minimal resources and therefore won't need to cost much.
> > I suppose I won't have a problem with
> > someone running the ring on Yahoo if I work with them during the transition • to
> > Lugnet. But would this really be beneficial/necessary??
>
> My opinion is no. One ring to bind them all, as Jeremy quoted.
Yup, that's the way I'm leaning. Should measures be taken to prevent the
resurrection of this ring?
So, once Todd talks this over with Suzanne, and once we have a solid plan on
implimenting our ideas, most likely more details will be disclosed about this
move. I still have to discuss with him what we'll tell people beforehand and
what we won't - of course, after he talks to Suz.
Hope I don't sound too full of it by this post ;-) I've got a few reasons for
doing this, and Yahoo is just one of them.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
| (...) I should probably clarify this statement. I'm not saying that I know how much programming or effort it will take Todd to do this, and I realize that his time pretty much equals money here. I'm making a half-assumption here based on what we (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
| (...) This being .debate, I'm going to continue to ask you to be more specific. What exactly is it that bothers you about Yahoo? I don't see buying up services and systems in order to extend the reach of what Yahoo is able to offer Yahoo users as (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
