Techcrunch.com writes about another hyped service (rbloc.com): Some actual content would be nice, of course. But I’m always patient with new services, unlike all of you people.
Yes! I couldn’t agree more. Some actual content would be nice!
We’re also patient with new services but unlike others we can’t stand it when the ratio just isn’t right. Maybe you should (sometimes at least) write about good services with public content.
Last Shit-Hype:
www.dogster.com (the real dog poo and the funny part is: we had a cynical rule “tag your dog” in our 9rules for web2.0)
www.rbloc.com (no actual valuable content yet)
ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx (you’re excused you don’t have green light)
www.shopify.com (not working)
www.diigo.com (closed beta)
ajax.parish.ath.cx/translator (like translategoogle, babelfish, … only not as great BUT with ajax, woohoo)
What’s also weird is that TechCrunch writes like an essay about Hamachi VPN even though he hasn’t even tested it
He writes: I have not tested the software, but if it works as promised it will allow local area network-like functionality across computers distributed on the Internet.
Why don’t you write about services that have content, valuable features and sometimes even have a business model, like:
www.feeddigest.com (mix, convert and syndicate feeds)
www.oyogi.com (searchable question-and-answer site)
www.blummy.com (bookmarklet manager)
search.mercora.com (music search)
www.smarkets.net (buy/sell shares of amazon products)
It seems schizophrenic. Once you say you only write about web2.0 companies, then you write about retrievr. You write about stuff that doesn’t work yet, give them fame but do not write about websites that already work.
Anyway it’s your blog and you can write about what you want but it just pisses us off and I’m sure we’re not alone.
