Subject:
|
Re: Resolved: Yahoo is good for the 'net (was Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:53:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
449 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Now, then, let's shred the remainder of Tim's post, shall we?
Well...a couple days ago I had a reply half written on the web interface, but
unfortunately a computer freeze made me lose it. Here I go again, after I've
had a bit more time to think it through :)
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Note that you haven't answered the direct question of what Yahoo should do
> when they buy something yet.
I'm no one to tell them what they should do, but I believe they shouldn't put
their advertising on services where advertising wasn't previously present.
They also shouldn't restrict a much fuller featured service, which is the
feeling I'm getting from experience and from the word of the Webring memebers
who have emailed me.
Currently (did I go over this before?) they restrict Webring logos to a 50x50
area, where the rest is preprogrammed Yahoo content. Webring used to allow
you to use your own HTML. Yahoo's system is programmed to work better and has
a lot more automated features in [the code] - but they didn't have to be this
limiting to the users.
I'm glad that for the time being, the old code still works.
> 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.
I believe that, as you said, I'm entitled to my opinion. I'm not out to
boycott every company that gives Maxim ads either, but I do feel strongly
against them (its just too durn impractical to avoid all that much).
> 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?
I'm not getting them myself, but I'm upset that someone else has against their
will. And I'm more upset that Yahoo refused to stop sending him those ads [1].
> > 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.
In my personal opinion (not based solidly on anything again, just how I feel
and how I see things) DaimlerChrysler is doing a heck of a lot more for
consumers than Yahoo is. They're making cars. When Daimler bought out
Chrysler, they didn't fundamentally change the product, probably didn't
significantly raise the price tag either. And did Daimler put their name on
all Chrysler CARS (the vehicles themselves) - probably not (I don't know for
sure).
> GeoCities was pretty creaky before Yahoo took it over. Now it's getting
> better, technically. That's a Good Thing.
Technically. When I signed up for Geocities 4 years ago, all they required
you to do was provide a link to them somewhere on each page. They moved from
that to their advertisement/channel bar at the top AND the ever-annoying popup
ad. After the popup they moved to some funky little window that sits on top
of everything and you have to close each time. I think the latest was a Yahoo
thing - see how Yahoo encroaches their advertising upon the consumer? Unless
a SIGNIFICANT amount of value has been added to the service (which I don't
think has) the ads are quite unnecessary in that invasive of a format.
> 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.
From my experience, you can't use the old management system. They've replaced
it with one with less freedom and less features.
> 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?
Well - it depends on how monopolistic the nature of a horizontal merger is.
Yahoo appears to be seeking to become a monopolistic service on the internet,
which I disagree with. Instead of improving the services they do have (CNET
reports that their search engine returns a lot of unnecessary/broken results),
they're adding more services, so they become one of the, if not the only
service some internet users can use effectively for what they need. That's a
dangerous place (from a consumer perspective) to be in.
> You have a lot to learn about website design, my son.
As do a lot of people. Don't fault me for something I haven't yet learned.
On the contrary, I'd say I've come a long way by teaching myself - though I do
admit I have a lot more to learn, the field is so much broader than the area I
know.
> 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.
Inktomi, I believe is the company. They are to be admired for their extensive
server network, yes. If I were them, I'd still spend some money (they don't
have to spend a lot) on a more attractive user interface. And no, I don't
equate that with Flash. I haven't even MADE a flash movie (though I own the
program) - nor is it IMO the most useful thing on the web.
Usability and attractiveness are not polar opposites.
> 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?
I won't get into lego.com bashing - but we've all seen some drawbacks the new
site has had. And we've also heard the pleas from Lugnet users for them to
cut back on it. Though the site is very attractive looking, its hard for some
to find their way around it. (given a few extra seconds, I can find my way
around there quite easily, flash turned on).
As far as attractiveness, lego.com rocks. But as far as usability, its
lacking.
> 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.
I wasn't referring to the performance - I was referring to the look of the
page.
> 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.
I know programs that work, but they are torture to look at because of a poorly
designed (or downright ugly) GUI. For ultimate effectiveness and user-
frendliness, they should improve their GUIs.
Yahoo isn't ugly, but it isn't pretty either. It might be functional, but its
not beautiful (in my eyes). I could make a comparison here, but that wouldn't
be appropriate for Lugnet.
> 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.
Yup. My team from the beginning has taken the Google perspective, though we
are going to design an attractive site, we will make it far simpler than other
sites in its field for the purpose of ease of use.
> <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.
Good thoughts.
I don't know if I can keep that ring going with say - 1 site in it, so that
the name cannot be taken. I'll look into that when the time comes.
[1] Yes, I realize the ad system is random and automated - but perhaps with
their 'advanced' Yahoo ID system, they can block the porn ads for Jeremy at
his request.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
