| |
|
  |
 What do you think of openserving.com?, Jimmy's new thing |
|
|
| Daniel Brandt |
 Mon 11th December 2006, 4:51pm
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,472
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77
|
It's all over the tech news, in case you missed it. Jimmy is offering free serving. My five-minute gut reaction comes up with two reasons why it doesn't deserve to fly: 1) Yech! All those ads! It's getting to the point where it's easy to tell which sites are worth reading and which aren't. If it's full of Google ads, you move on. Who cares if Jimmy lets the publisher get all the ad revenue? No one will visit the site to begin with! By the way, it appears that you only get the ad revenue if you already have a Google AdSense account and fill in the account number when you sign up for Openservering. If you already have a Google AdSense account, then presumably you already have access to servers. If you don't, you probably cannot get one until you apply to Google and get your Openserving site approved by Google. In the meantime, I'll give you three guesses as to who collects the ad money: a) Jimmy, b) Angela, c) Gil Penchina. 2) What about that search engine shown on the screen shot? If it's as crummy as Wikipedia's search engine, then this means it won't work at all like people expect search engines to work (i.e., full-text searches for words and/or phrases). Openserving.com is one step down from blogging, it seems to me. There are a few blogs that work because the blogger has sufficient control over the presentation and format, and also has something to say. This new project doesn't allow that control, and my guess is that anyone who finds it attractive won't have anything to say. Unless I've completely misread Bubble 2.0, it seems to me that this might have had a brief window for takeoff about a year ago, but by now all it can do is flame out on the launching pad. The big problem is that ads on the web are already too pervasive. But Google, which gets 99 percent of its revenue from ads, is hooked and doesn't know what else to do. So if you are Google, you encourage people like Jimmy to generate more worthless content by volunteer netizens, so that more ads can be displayed. Time to flush the toilet. |
|
|
|
|
|
| LamontStormstar |
Mon 11th December 2006, 10:30pm
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,359
Joined: Fri 18th Aug 2006, 7:25am
Member No.: 342
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 11th December 2006, 9:51am)  1) Yech! All those ads! It's getting to the point where it's easy to tell which sites are worth reading and which aren't. If it's full of Google ads, you move on. Who cares if Jimmy lets the publisher get all the ad revenue? No one will visit the site to begin with! By the way, it appears that you only get the ad revenue if you already have a Google AdSense account and fill in the account number when you sign up for Openservering. If you already have a Google AdSense account, then presumably you already have access to servers. If you don't, you probably cannot get one until you apply to Google and get your Openserving site approved by Google. In the meantime, I'll give you three guesses as to who collects the ad money: a) Jimmy,  Angela, c) Gil Penchina. No wikipedia article. 2 google hits. 4 yahoo hits. I still can't tell exactly what it's about. So all sites with advertising you consider bad or just the google ads? Who is Gil Penchina? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
Mon 11th December 2006, 11:15pm
|
Can't actually moderate
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,814
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
Gil Penchina is the CEO of Wikia, Inc...
From what I can tell, they're not really doing anything different from what Wikia has always done, i.e., set up wikis for people. It may be they've just run out of people interested in setting up free wikis about general-interest subjects, so now they're trying to attract new content creators by (presumably) allowing personal-interest subjects, and promising to let the people involved keep the AdSense revenue themselves... Not that that's like to amount to much.
The actual software being used (and touted as the Second Coming of the original Gutenberg printing press) is just some sort of "MediaWiki Lite" version that presumably is less taxing on the servers. Honestly, I don't see how this is all that significant... Maybe I'm missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Robster |
Mon 31st March 2008, 3:18am
|
"Community"? Really?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue 20th Mar 2007, 2:24am
Member No.: 1,155
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
Salvage from the eventual memory hole (from theKohser's link in the previous item)... QUOTE
Openserving is a failed project owned by Wikia, founded on December 12, 2006, and abandoned in January 2008. Openserving, like Wikia, was to have offered wiki hosting, but it would differ from Wikia in that the founder of the particular wiki would supposedly keep the revenue from the advertising on the site, and unlike other hosts, Openserving would offer this as a free service. Of course, this business model would compete against and cannibalize the Wikia business model, so it was a curious venture from the outset.
According to Jimmy Wales the Openserving site saw several thousand applications within the first month, January 2007. However, after a year, not a single site had been launched under the Openserving banner. The project had not issued any press releases since December 2006.
Openserving used a modified version of the Wikimedia Foundation's Mediawiki wiki software created by ArmchairGM, but was going to be branching out to other open source packages.
Currently the Openserving.com domain humbly redirects in quiet disgrace to Wikia.com. Its closure was never announced in the press.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dtobias |
Mon 31st March 2008, 7:24pm
|
Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
What, exactly was supposed to be the business model of that site? If the service is free, and the individual site's creators got all the ad revenue associated with the site, then how was the company itself supposed to make money? As a nonprofit public service, this might work, but as a for-profit company it makes no sense at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
Mon 31st March 2008, 10:51pm
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 31st March 2008, 3:24pm)
What, exactly was supposed to be the business model of that site? If the service is free, and the individual site's creators got all the ad revenue associated with the site, then how was the company itself supposed to make money? As a nonprofit public service, this might work, but as a for-profit company it makes no sense at all.
Dan, you foolish Web 1.0 type, you. Jimbo had it all covered! Here's what he told the media: QUOTE "We don't have all the business model answers, but we are confident -- as we always have been -- that the wisdom of our community will prevail." But even the easily-hoodwinked media and analyst community didn't buy it. "Forgive me if I'm missing something," Basex CEO and Chief Analyst Jonathan Spira told LinuxInsider, but "what is left to support [Wikia] development and the platform?" Poor Jimbo. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
Neil's right though- I thought of doing it, but he stands more chance of staying block-free, because he's an admin. It is 'worth' an article.