+10 for the thought behind the mail, though -1 for the tone. I can understand the need for Twitter to filter out apps (violation of TOS, still wet behind the ears, poor quality/reliabilty, etc), but I think the filter can be a *show-all-apps-except-bad* instead of * show-none-except-cherry-picked*.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:30 PM, PJB <pjbmancun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Right now, the "ad" in the sidebar on the right-hand side of > Twitter.com is invariably: i) a micro, community, or feel-good sort of > app, ii) a mega-app that most people already know about, that has VC, > connections to Twitter folks directly, or a good PR firm. > > This leaves many non-Bay Area (or medium-sized) apps out in the cold. > > So... can Twitter stop anointing the top dogs in such a willy-nilly > fashion? > > Instead of this annoyingly vague "editor's choice" language about the > selections, can you either set-up a transparent process whereby apps > can be submitted, voted on, whatever... or just convert the whole > thing to paid ads? > > It's incredibly frustrating to see sub-par apps like wefollow.com > promoted just because its founder is buddy-buddy with Twitter folks. > Or for other well-known apps get their "version 2" promoted just > because, well, it's version 2 and it's well-known. > > The choices you guys make have significant repercussions. And it's > increasingly frustrating to find you guys focusing more and more on > market leaders. While I suppose that may make sense from your > perspective, it deprives smaller apps of their ability to compete, and > it ultimately stifles competition. > > It would be far easier if we were allowed SOME VOICE by converting the > whole thing to paid ads, and letting us buy at least SOME space. > > (Or why not just list ALL apps, and weight their presence by, e.g., > click-thrus, votes, etc.) > > > > > -- Harshad RJ http://hrj.wikidot.com