We're a community of 1077K IT Pros here for help, advice, solutions, professional growth and fun. Join us!
1,076,437 Members — Technology Publication meets Social Media
Username:
Password:
Lost login information?
Start New Discussion Reply to this Discussion

photoblogging .which to use?who will survive?

hello....i putiing my take on this new genre of online social networks....ie. the photosharing blog networks that seem to be popping up everywhere

flickr

fotolog

and my absolute favorite

fotoamigo

these new generation of hobbie driven social sites seem to be the new community rage, ...but will it last....It seems to me they cant all make it and now google has gotten into the game what do you guys think and what do ya think of my fav.
fotoamigo ?

3
Contributors
3
Replies
1 Day
Discussion Span
8 Years Ago
Last Updated
4
Views
randypebble
Newbie Poster
1 post since Feb 2005
Reputation Points: 10
Solved Threads: 0
Skill Endorsements: 0

They don't seem too professionally designed to me - which basically means no real company backing. You say Google got into the game? How so? Personally, I think the best these can do are be Xanga type sites. I don't think they'll ever get enough pull to reach the professional bloggers.

Dani
The Queen of DaniWeb
Administrator
21,367 posts since Feb 2002
Reputation Points: 1,555
Solved Threads: 368
Skill Endorsements: 122

Only thing I can remember about google getting into photos was picasa which I think is a sofware for desktop to organize photos. www.picasa.com

Scribbller
Posting Whiz in Training
216 posts since Apr 2004
Reputation Points: 24
Solved Threads: 2
Skill Endorsements: 6

Yes - there was some hype awhile back when Google posted a link to Picassa on their ultra-clean homepage.

Dani
The Queen of DaniWeb
Administrator
21,367 posts since Feb 2002
Reputation Points: 1,555
Solved Threads: 368
Skill Endorsements: 122

This article has been dead for over three months: Start a new discussion instead

Post: Markdown Syntax: Formatting Help
 
You
 
© 2013 DaniWeb® LLC
Page rendered in 0.0598 seconds using 2.63MB