Nathan (gemsling) wrote,

Ringo: yet another sucky web site

What is it with social networking sites and their special talent for being sucky? Of course, there are some decent ones, but some of the really bad ones have become very popular. Is it because of the services they offer, or the way the spread their reach? Or are users just superficial little beings who lack the ability to discern quality, but love smiling, flashing, annoying images on their screen?

Someone just sent me an invite to a site called Ringo. It appears to be a "share photos with friends" site and it obviously aims to grow virally: it looks like people must sign up before they can see your photos, and when they do, they're encouraged to upload their own photos to share.

The site is hideously bad. Pop-up windows abound, and they're the type designed to get around popup blockers. Flashy, blinking graphical ads. Ick.

While I appreciate other people putting their photos online, I shant be using Ringo to share photos in return. At least the people at Flickr have a clue (why else would Yahoo! buy them?). Even without Flickr, which I'm saving for my better photos, I at least have my own hosting, plus there's LiveJournal's Scrapbook, which I'd use if I had the patience to learn S2.
Tags: photography, theatre, web

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded