My Web 2.0 Filter

New “Web 2.0” companies are springing up like weeds these days, and many of them sound interesting enough to pay attention to – but who has time to really try them all? I certainly don’t, so I’ve come up with a simple filter to figure out which ones to pay attention to:

Any new Web 2.0 company that hasn’t considered the spam problem automatically isn’t worth my time.

That seems to cut out 99% of them. After all, any company that expects to graduate beyond early adopters into a wider audience must consider how it could be hurt by spammers and their ilk. If your startup hasn’t thought about this from day one, then I figure it doesn’t have much of a future.

10 thoughts on “My Web 2.0 Filter

  1. can you elaborate on what you mean by “the spam problem”? spamming forums? using tell-a-friend features to send out spam? I’m not sure I get your point. So either I’m one of the 99% or I’m just not labeling it the same way.

  2. Bob, I just mean that any web-based company has to be prepared to deal with the abuse of their system. Here’s a contrived example: if you plan to start a blogging company, you’d better include features for dealing with comment/trackback spam, etc.

  3. I’d agree 1,000% and add another:
    “Any web 2.0 company that hasn’t figured out how to get people to EASILY get started with their product isn’t worth examining”.
    “Any web 2.0 company that doesn’t respect a user’s previous online history / work / etc isn’t worth examining”.
    PS — I intend this to apply to Ookles and you’ll see shortly.

  4. Nick:
    Agree completely on the SPAM issue. One interesting thing that has come to mind is that so many of the web 2.0 apps don’t rely on any type of proprietary algorithm, so spamming is incredibly easy/simple. At least in prior years, it took a while for users to figure out how to game the proprietary algorithms. The only way I see to get around the spamming issue — I mean to REALLY get around it — is to give each individual user his/her own algorithm. How the hell would one spam that???
    Matt Fleckenstein

  5. Social Software

    Matt 在這篇這樣講:(Web2 Spam)
    Nick Bradbury says Any new Web 2.0 company that hasn’t considered the spam problem automatically isn’t worth my time. I forget who said it, but my favorite definition of social software is …

  6. I’ll play the Devil’s Advocate and say that this shouldn’t be a concern in your 1.0 release.
    Well, if you want to waste a lot of time on early/over optimization, before you know where the problems lie, then yes, do it!

  7. Scott, your comment (especially your second point) makes me even more interested in Ookles – look forward to seeing it.
    BTW, I hope Ookles is enough of a success that you can stop saying “Formerly of Feedster” before too long :)

  8. Shanti, I see where you’re coming from – you’ll be far quicker to market if you don’t try to tackle the spam problem right off the bat. But if you don’t at least have a basic understanding of how spammers can kill your company, then chances are they will because you won’t know how to stop them.

  9. Web 2.0 is a Vector for Spam

    Matt Mullenweg, on the latest Om and Niall podcast, said that Web 2.0 is a vector for spam. In a lot of ways I totally agree with him and many of the larger companies that are benefiting from this spam are the same companies that are making web 2.0 too…

Comments are closed.