Subject:
|
Resolved: Yahoo is good for the 'net (was Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Sep 2000 04:47:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2069 times
|
| |
|
|
First off, let's separate the move of the ring out of the discussion. I'm
coming around to the viewpoint that for valid technical, feature building, and
community reasons, moving the ring to LUGNET is a good idea, relatively low
cost to Todd and Tim, and likely to have positive benefits. My original
concern that this was a low benefit high cost move has been alleviated.
SO I'm in favor of the move now, for reasons that have nothing to do with
Yahoo per se.
Putting this up front this way allows me to mercilessly snip and completely
ignore Tim's comments about the ring itself as not something I disagree with
and therefore not worthy of .debate... :-)
Now, then, let's shred the remainder of Tim's post, shall we?
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > 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?
Note that you haven't answered the direct question of what Yahoo should do
when they buy something yet.
> 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.
I think branding Maxim as "smut" is using a rather broad brush. (1) It is
certainly an opinion you're entitled to but you may well find that many many
companies would give you Maxim ads, because your viewpoint that an ad for
Maxim is beyond the pale is about 3 sigma out from the norm. Hence you've got
a lot of boycotting to do.
And besides, you just said you're not getting them yourself. You're worked up
over ads someone else is getting for reasons that may not be all that sinister?
So much for that one.
> 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.
Good, we can just dismiss this one out of hand, then. But this being debate....
When companies extend their capabilities by acquisition it is normal practice
to rebrand. In fact it reduces consumer confusion in the long run and is
generally accepted to be a Good Thing. The info about service I get mailed to
my for my Dodge Stratus now comes from DaimlerChrysler even though I bought
the car before Daimler took Chrysler over. I find nothing whatever
objectionable in that, rather I find it reassuring that DaimlerChrysler is
proud of Dodge, and wants me to know that they stand behind my car with the
full faith and credit of their organization.
GeoCities was pretty creaky before Yahoo took it over. Now it's getting
better, technically. That's a Good Thing.
So much for that one.
> 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.
I can't comment on this one except to say as I said before, Yahoo says that
you can continue to use and manage using the old technology. I don't have any
rings in existence that were there before the changeover so I can't comment
from experience.
However I think requiring advertising is not a bad thing per se. More on that
later. Why NOT require advertising for something that cost Yahoo money to
provide? Perhaps WebRing was floundering and was taken over because their
business model didn't have enough advert insert points to make money.
As for the management system being not up to your standards, Yahoo has a track
record of regressing but then getting way better in version 2. I have no
doubts that the needed capabilities will be present soon enough. They are
actively soliciting feedback, as they always do when making changes.
> > 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. :-)
Your next paragraph is a dodge of the question above.
> 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.
So in other words you think it's OK to swallow competitors to achieve market
dominance in your niche, that is, achieve a horizontal monopoly, but it's not
OK to become more things to more people and thereby increase your value by
expanding the scope of what you offer?
This one is laughable on the face of itself. Or do you think that US Steel has
no right to own ore pits, or delivery trucks, only steel mills?
> 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.
You have a lot to learn about website design, my son.
Yahoo overall is a textbook (2) example of how to design a site to be very
fast, very useful, and very easy to navigate. And it IS fast, because it's
simple. Maybe you equate creativity with flash and fancy looks and feels, but
I don't. Yahoo has spent a lot of money to make sure their site is the fastest
around. Part of that is the technology behind the scenes (like their mirrored
servers around the world which spawned a whole new company (aktome?) ) but a
large part is the design that you mock.
Maybe you equate beauty with geegaws, but I don't. I equate beauty with
simplicity of design and with form following function. Yahoo form follows
function with stark simplicity. And therefore it's a beautiful site. One of
the most beautiful on the 'net.
Or were you going to tell me that the www.lego.com site is somehow better
because it changes around a lot and uses the latest gadgets and fancy graphics?
Your ten year old friend might be able to achieve a page that LOOKS like a
Yahoo page but not one that PERFORMS like a Yahoo page. I know I can't, so I
don't even try, when it comes to my personal sites.
Further, change for the sake of change alone is a bad thing. When you make a
change, make sure you're improving something. DON'T change what works. Yahoo
works, in many categories it works better than anything else out there.
So that one is knocked out too.
> 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.
Pass on the cutting edge sizzle and concentrate on ease of use. Free advice
for you because I like you, but it's what I tell my billable clients too, and
they pay a lot more for that advice than free.
> > 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? ;-)
Yep. And now that I've knocked all your props out, it's clear that your
dislike of Yahoo is irrational. That's fine. We can move on, there's no
accounting for taste. Just don't claim that you have a rational or reasonable
basis for that dislike and we're all set.
<one ring>
> Yup, that's the way I'm leaning. Should measures be taken to prevent the
> resurrection of this ring?
Not sure that one can out and out prevent it but we as a community ought to
discourage it.
> Hope I don't sound too full of it by this post ;-)
That depends on the definition of "too"... :-)
> I've got a few reasons for
> doing this, and Yahoo is just one of them.
1 - Sexist, infantile, etc. yes, but there's not a lot of pornographic nudity
in Maxim. No more than, say, in the Calvin K ads in Women's Day. Not saying
you shouldn't boycott those too, mind you.
2 - when I say "textbook" I literally mean that it's cited in texts on web
design as an excellent (THE best??) example of how to achieve speed and ease
of use.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
| (...) Alrighty. (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
