Comments on: The Web Giveth… http://eternallyoptimistic.com/2006/10/26/the-web-giveth/ Wed, 01 Sep 2010 03:24:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Rose & Olive http://eternallyoptimistic.com/2006/10/26/the-web-giveth/comment-page-1/#comment-181 Rose & Olive Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:27:10 +0000 http://eternaloptimist.wordpress.com/2006/10/26/the-web-giveth/#comment-181 Gluttons for punishment? Flickr.com/photos/tetheredto We started over, a couple of months after being deleted. Love, Rose & Olive Gluttons for punishment?

Flickr.com/photos/tetheredto

We started over, a couple of months after being deleted.

Love,
Rose & Olive

]]> By: Pamela http://eternallyoptimistic.com/2006/10/26/the-web-giveth/comment-page-1/#comment-179 Pamela Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:55:36 +0000 http://eternaloptimist.wordpress.com/2006/10/26/the-web-giveth/#comment-179 Dave, I'd like to think that you can be warm and cuddly and still make a profit. In fact, I also have this idea that it would be more profitable to *treat* your users as if the content were the most important thing (instead of the ads), the extra respect that a Web 2.0 company might give a user around Odin's "LAWS OF SERVICE" would correlate into extra loyalty, and therefore into more ad views, and therefore extra profit. (yes, I know - that's why I'm the eternal optimist...) Dave,

I’d like to think that you can be warm and cuddly and still make a profit. In fact, I also have this idea that it would be more profitable to *treat* your users as if the content were the most important thing (instead of the ads), the extra respect that a Web 2.0 company might give a user around Odin’s “LAWS OF SERVICE” would correlate into extra loyalty, and therefore into more ad views, and therefore extra profit.

(yes, I know – that’s why I’m the eternal optimist…)

]]> By: Dave http://eternallyoptimistic.com/2006/10/26/the-web-giveth/comment-page-1/#comment-178 Dave Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:44:38 +0000 http://eternaloptimist.wordpress.com/2006/10/26/the-web-giveth/#comment-178 Without sounding too cavalier, isn't this just another example of nothing is really free and people have to look out for themselves because nobody else (or at best, few others) will? Maybe all of our happy, fuzzy, warm and cuddly web 2.0 companies are just heartless, for profit bastards after all that will bough to the whim of the moral majority. ;-) Without sounding too cavalier, isn’t this just another example of nothing is really free and people have to look out for themselves because nobody else (or at best, few others) will?

Maybe all of our happy, fuzzy, warm and cuddly web 2.0 companies are just heartless, for profit bastards after all that will bough to the whim of the moral majority. ;-)

]]> By: Odin http://eternallyoptimistic.com/2006/10/26/the-web-giveth/comment-page-1/#comment-180 Odin Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:18:54 +0000 http://eternaloptimist.wordpress.com/2006/10/26/the-web-giveth/#comment-180 Pam, You bring up a great point that we should have some level of assurance that our on-line property (photos, videos, email, contacts, calendars, blogs, lists, etc.) will be reasonably protected by the service providers. Web 2.0 service providers should provide a standard set of assurances, or assurance levels, for things like: - Access Control - Protection against corruption/destruction - Portability - Typical Availability - Availability after relationship is terminated Is this an opportunity for creating "The LAWS of SERVICE" similar to The LAWS of IDENTITY? Pam,
You bring up a great point that we should have some level of assurance that our on-line property (photos, videos, email, contacts, calendars, blogs, lists, etc.) will be reasonably protected by the service providers.
Web 2.0 service providers should provide a standard set of assurances, or assurance levels, for things like:
– Access Control
– Protection against corruption/destruction
– Portability
– Typical Availability
– Availability after relationship is terminated
Is this an opportunity for creating “The LAWS of SERVICE” similar to The LAWS of IDENTITY?

]]>