Here, Here . I agree !


On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 23:00, 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.)
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to