DISQUS

Mashable - The Social Media Guide: 2007/04/21/web-startups-and-the-lying-liars-that-lie-about-them/

  • Pete Cashmore · 2 years ago
    Your comment is the Bebo of comments.
  • Stefan Hess · 2 years ago
    "Slide.com Becomes MySpace for Slideshows" - the post before this.... ;-)
  • Pete Cashmore · 2 years ago
    Stefan,

    Your comment needs more work.
  • Pete Cashmore · 2 years ago
    @Stan

    Breaking: Pete Wins Comment Battle?
  • Dan · 2 years ago
    These comments are gaining traction, but are still very alpha. Will Mashable be the new MyXugr of Techbrunch?
  • Tom · 2 years ago
    Yeah, there's a fine line between old media BS and 2.0 speak...

    Stan - I think the younger blogs just have a harder sell to make in trying to get people's attention, even if they've actually got something good to say. They've gotta to say AND sell it.
  • Amit · 2 years ago
    I agree. I would have expected Mashable to be be a lot more opinion-making and just your usual objective blog. Also, longer posts and no shorties, especially now when you have more writers.

    What about the writers, btw, when are we going to read them?
  • Amit · 2 years ago
    .. and *not* just your usual... ofcourse.
  • Geoff Wright · 2 years ago
    Very good post - really made me laugh!
  • Jay · 2 years ago
    @Pete: I think all this @ business means that people want 2 tier comments at the minimum so they can spin off threads?
  • Pete Cashmore · 2 years ago
    What, like this? ;)
  • Pete Cashmore · 2 years ago
    Wonder how many levels this goes to.
  • Pete Cashmore · 2 years ago
    Ah, I see.
  • Pete Cashmore · 2 years ago
    This is the last level, I think.
  • Gabe · 2 years ago
    Great post Pete. Much enjoyed!
  • shadilac · 2 years ago
    Dude... if you don't like my site, just say so. ;)
  • HRHQueenElizabeth II · 2 years ago
    I say, one does not expect to be exposed as a reader of this site. Now shoo, before I set my corgis on you, I have to play polo with Nicholas Sarkozy and bathe Philip. He is such a bore.
  • Ryan · 2 years ago
    What about bloggers that take money for reviews, that should of been added
  • Tom · 2 years ago
    Stan, sure... I agree. Taking a stance is just a risky business I guess. Get it wrong a few times, and the whole community jumps on you. You're burnt.
  • DvB · 2 years ago
    That was laugh out loud funny. #6 is my fav.

    Now, don't forget to mention something about "going viral" and "widgets," and it's a pretty comprehensive roundup.
  • dan · 2 years ago
    Why is Lulu there? I think if Bob Young can get rich selling FREE software...than Lulu gets a pass...at least for now.
  • Pete Cashmore · 2 years ago
    It's just your standard "web 2.0" pick - companies are included randomly, based on Ludwig's image (cc licensed). And anyway, this is nothing to do with startups that lie - it's about the cliches and shortcuts that are used by Mashable when writing reviews.
  • gordon · 2 years ago
    you know, most of the blogosphere is crap. very very little original content. if a company is starting and people get what they do, it isn't new or unique.

    http://www.cheapgreencar.com
  • sindhu · 2 years ago
    great post. it true that bloggers exxaggerate a start up's ability , who would know? maybe it's a paid in cash or kind post. there is got to be some benefit for the blogger (you know these teenagers who are all about their adsense accounts).
  • Pete Cashmore · 2 years ago
    Ryan,

    This is about Mashable reviews specifically. We have never taken payment for a review.
  • Ilya Berelson · 2 years ago
    awesome
  • Phil Butler · 2 years ago
    Now I realize why I use the word "entity" so much, I have been sucked into the BS 2.0 zone.

    I mean "compelling" Web 2.0 "entity", with the most "innovative" "architecture" is a nice way of saying: I am compelled to vomit if this Web 2.0 BS does not transform the 2007 version of an Internet chat room with video into something new soon. :)
  • Brij · 2 years ago
    Nice work Pete
  • Jack · 2 years ago
    Liked this a lot. Very entertaining post. Being English, I do have a pauchant for self depricating humour. And the comment battle was just a lovely added bonus! Keep up the good stuff!

    http://www.jacksblog.co.uk
  • Pete Cashmore · 2 years ago
    Thanks Jack.
  • Tony Bell · 2 years ago
    This is a good start. But what's really missing is a deeper and more rational assessment (business, economic and technology) of what happens when you have 3500 Flash/Ajaxy upload and share sites. Nevermind attention share issues -- really, when you account for work (8 hrs), meals (2.5 hrs), sex (3 minutes) and personal hygeine (30 minutes) how much time do we have to Flickr, Twitter or Puttr around? -- the real question I have is why does the 250th photo/video/slideshow site think it should exist? They are all using Flash, so there's no unique IP. They all have the same features. They are all chasing the same audience. What's going on here? Is is really a case of the costs being too low to dissuade bored techno-geeks from quickly slapping up a beta site? While I wish them all well, the reality is that this incessant noise and the coverage these sites get on TC on Mashable, etc., is going to result in a big implosion (the Deadpool) very soon. And that's not good for anyone. That's it for this morning. I need to see my wife for 3 minutes and then upload the videos.
  • shadilac · 2 years ago
    Tony -- I think the answer to your question is that these sites often do have a slightly different twist, but the absence of a professional marketing staff often makes it difficult for technical folks to properly promote those differences in a way that the casual visitors (who will spend a grand total of 30 seconds at the site and based on the homepage lump everything you have created into one of a handful of categories based on concept they are already familiar with) will see and understand them. (breath) So the problem, in my opinion, is as much with the cynical user, as with the ambitious developer. People EXPECT to lump every site into a "whatever clone" category, and so it is in their head.

    Also, since there are so many sites out there and many bloggers only review the guys with connections and VC money, it's not unlikely that 90% of these startups don't even know about all the competition that exists. This is a crazy new connected world, you can't just drive up and down the street to check out the competition anymore.
  • Pete Cashmore · 2 years ago
    "since there are so many sites out there and many bloggers only review the guys with connections and VC money"

    I can guarantee that's not true. Bloggers review whatever is worth reviewing.
  • shadilac · 2 years ago
    I want to ask this question with all sincerity and curiosity -- please believe me that I'm not trying to be an ass -- can you define "worth reviewing"?
  • Pete Cashmore · 2 years ago
    As for the reason these cliches are used: readers don't have much time to digest all the information out there on blogs. Most of the time, the cliches give a good overview. And sites that are "Digg with some slightly more complex features" don't usually work out anyway.
  • shadilac · 2 years ago
    "And sites that are “Digg with some slightly more complex features” don’t usually work out anyway."

    That's self evident, most sites "don't usually work out" regardless of whether they are extending an existing idea or presenting a completely new one. My point is that the idea itself is not necessarily worthless and deserving of ridicule simply because it isn't revolutionary. Specifically I was responding to the comment about many similar sites -- I would imagine that if you asked the people who created those sites to outline how they are different they _should_ have an answer for you.

    Unfortunately, I have seen that often a site may only come to the larger community's attention after it's been out for a while, and many of its ideas have been duplicated back into the original project they were extending... or other startups who implement the idea plus something else. The sites may stay alive for a while because the costs are low and there may be a small community using the service, perpetuating the belief that there really are 21 equivalent social bookmarking sites in production with active development, but that's probably not likely the case.
  • Yuzle! · 2 years ago
    The truth is usually "is uses some simple Javascript (without AJAX) that we've been seeing for years".
  • Pete Cashmore · 2 years ago
    That attitude, my friend, is why you don't have $30 million in VC funding. ;)
  • Greg · 2 years ago
    Ok this post is funny on it's own but I had just finished a conversation about blogging and honesty when I read this. It really helped the comedic timing of it all.

    At a conference on parenting blogs, a speaker noted that lies or hidden agendas will kill your blog, which makes sense. But you know, communication always has a perspective and sometimes the most transparent agenda can be the most hidden.
  • smr · 2 years ago
    very nice collection.
  • Motorcycle Guy · 2 years ago
    Lol at putting a question mark behind it and your right either way.
  • Linn · 2 years ago
    I have found, that many blogs "review" sites without actually reviewing them at all. Most blogs out there are just looking for something to write about and do not actually take the time to test a new system, but merely use text that website provide and add a sentence or two of their own...
  • Izkas · 1 year ago
    I have found one nice tool http://www.GoogleItFaster.com . Is so clean and user-friendly, that I'm surprised why more web searching services are not using that solution. Do you have any idea?