You may also like...

22 Responses

  1. abcdefg says:

    The people who voted sure like moving images. Maybe they have a TV deficit to catch up because they blew too much hot air around? 🙂

  2. spelling says:

    find: “por”
    replace: “for”

  3. spelling says:

    5min and Sclipo are too similar products…

    …what means that 40% of the finalists are “how-to” video sites

    Are you sure you didn’t find anything better?

  4. abcdefg says:

    spelling, yeah and 4 of 5 products are video-based, see my comment above…

  5. shine says:

    You are right spelling.
    this doesn’t make sense -two of 5 are just to similar.
    I think they’ve made a mistake here and should have sent only one how-to site.it is a growing market but 2 is two much.

  6. mark says:

    Well – I guess the facts are the following:

    – bad website (a complete joke for a web 2.0 competition)
    – bad organization (unclear rules, fuzzy deadlines etc.)
    – no communication (unfair treatment of participants etc.)
    – censorship (comments deleted from blog)
    – 4 spanish and 1 israeli finalists showing similar stuff (call it a spanish competition or even better a big cheat)

    My judgment: this competition is fake, a cheat, has not much to do with web 2.0 (look at the finalists) and is obviously organized by complete ignorants. Do they think they get away with this? If I was one of the so called experts I would be seriously concerned about my reputation. I also feel utterly sorry to have wasted time on this ridiculous event.

  7. admin says:

    Mark, we are sorry Actionize did not make it among the selected projects, but these are the facts:
    – The website works and you can take part in it, both commenting in the blog and submitting your site, as you have done.
    – Rules were not very explicit. This is the first time we organize this contest and we wanted to be quite open.
    – Communication can be improved. We do agree with you on this.
    – No single comment has been deleted. This is a very unfair remark which we can not tolerate.
    – There are 2 Spanish projects, 1 French-Spanish (Properazzi), 1 Israeli and 1 French. Half of the submitted projects were from Spain. I do agree with you it is a pity that two of them do the same, but this is just what the committee decided 🙁

  8. Mark says:

    Admin – It is not a problem for us that you did not select Actionize.com. That is not the point here. The point is, that when you involve people in your undertakings they deserve to be treated like human beings.
    I do not intend to go on with the argument above as we may not reach an consensus on certain points. However, I appreciate that you understand that things can be done better.

  9. xot says:

    According to your FAQ: “The 5 most voted projects and the 10 projects initially selected by the technical committee will be exposed in an event which will be celebrated in Madrid on May, 10th.”

    If five of the fifteen nominees are supposed to be the top recipients of votes, why was YoYo Games not included? Any explanation?

    http://promote.startup2.eu/search.php?search=yoyo

  10. admin says:

    To xot: YoYo Games was excluded for not being a web 2.0.

  11. How can YoYo Games not be a web 2.0. It has a forum, people can upload and download content (games) people can comment on the games, write reviews, send each other messages, have their own page, upload their CV, etc. According to me it has all features of a web 2.0 site.

    And you never told us that it was excluded so we had no chance to object.

    Mark

  12. admin says:

    Sorry, we had almost 300 projects taking part and did not have the chance to inform everybody.

  13. NakedPaulToast says:

    yoyogames.com clearly fits all common definitions of Web 2.0. When comparing yoyogames.com to the other selected sites I can find nothing that would suggest they meet Web 2.0 that yoyogames.com doesn’t have.

    Have you ever been to yoyogames.com?

    Why haven’t you addressed Mark Overmars question regarding why yoyogames is not Web 2.0?

    If 300 entries were more than you could adequately judge and effectively communicate with, then why were you still encouraging people to submit entries on May 4th, the day before the submissions closed?

  14. Jake says:

    From what I have read, Yoyogames did not make it because of… a laziness by the comittee to compare it to Web 2.0’s definitions. That is very sad, especially when you did not inform all of the contestants competing in this lackluster competition of the rules.

  15. disapointed participant says:

    I guess you are happy now that Startup2.0 has been displayed in Techcrunch and Mashable…

    but remember: We Are Disappointed

  16. I would appreciate it if you would at least say that you made a mistake regarding YoYo Games.

    Mark

  17. admin says:

    To Mark. I can not admit that we did a mistake, nor the opposite. YoYo Games’ case is right at the border. Its focus is on games that you can download and the community seems to be a plus. I can admit it is not so clear as the first time we saw it. We required submitted projects to be centered on Web 2.0 stuff (more than 50% of their pages….) and YoYo Games looked like a games site more than a web 2.0.

    Anyway, I learnt something out of this discussion. Next year we will put more time on deciding which projects are considered Web 2.0 and which ones are not. We will probably offer a reply system so that the committee’s decision can be discussed.

  18. jd says:

    Who are the winners of the competition!?

  19. admin says:

    answered

  20. Startup says:

    If you want to get your startup reviewed try startupwizz.com or feedmyapp.com.

Leave a Reply