:-) To the point Kevin!

Now to waste time ....

We should remember that __investors__ created the pain of the .com by applying anti-evolutionary forces i.e.. over investing in lots of Dodos.

However on a technical level we will, like evolution, go through these cycles. In the case of Twitter what we will have is maybe a few hundred micro-sites created. Of which say 10-15 will be solid ideas that last for years, of which they will be consolidated into 1 or 2 actual sites in the next 5-10 years. This is the history of tech (home computer boom anyone?), it's how ideas _evolve_ bring on the boom!!!

The .com boom (outside of the silly financial side) allowed us to experiment with a whole bunch of crazy ideas of which a small proportion survived and the functionality is still being consolidated into a handful of very useful sites today, so it was with social networks (and still to an extent is), so it will be with the realtime web.

Evolution is messy, it's not rational and not scientific - it's trial and error - however in the long run it can be staggeringly efficient - human beings out of soup, I mean crikey!!!

So yes, lots more small micro-sites please.

ATB
Neil





On 20 Jul 2009, at 14:10, Kevin Mesiab wrote:

While others might waste time educating you with a proper debate, some of us are busy profiting on page views.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Christian Heilmann <chris.heilm...@gmail.com > wrote:

Kevin Mesiab wrote:
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/hottweeters.com/

That for starters....

Pageviews, the success metrics for people who want instant satisfaction.

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/rapidshare.com/

Do we really need more sites that create more traffic for Twitter without a single chance to become a business or help the content quality? Burning money was fun during the first .com boom, can we please stop now?





--
Kevin Mesiab
CEO, Mesiab Labs L.L.C.
http://twitter.com/kmesiab
http://mesiablabs.com
http://retweet.com

Reply via email to