4 Comments
- dukenukem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's http://amapedia.amazon.com/
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A key difference is that Digg/Google primarilly sell ads, whereas Amazon sells products. If I redesign the page on a product that's selling like hotcakes to absolutely slam the product, I imagine they might step in. If even some criticism is going to get squashed, I am going to be less trusting of information there than if the site was truly independent.
I mean... even with their reviews, those features exist to sell products... you have to expect them to step in when the user-created stuff is slowing the sale of products. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's an interesting concept, but not really taking on Wikipedia, the scope of Wikipedia is totally different. I hope this concept does well (though you can't really expect free speech and unbiased coverage when a for-profit retail company is paying the bills). But it doesn't exactly look like they're promoting it very heavilly yet... they might just be hoping it spreads by word of mouth in (supposedly) true Web 2.0 fashion.
- pranavchavda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can expect a for-profit company to be 100% democratic, that would only benefit them. aren't google or even digg to a certain extent for-profit companies? amazon can not expect to go against the tide right now, which is web 2.0 and I think they are doing the right thing by re-inventing themselves - madonna style.


What is Digg?
Check out the new & improved