Dataquest has recently published a list of 25 hottest web 2.0 “startups” from india.
Refer the text from alootechie:

Cyber Media’s Dataquest magazine has published a list of Top 25 Hot Indian Web 2.0 Startups which include BigAdda, Ibibo, Fropper, DesiMartini, BharatStudent, MingleBox, Indyarocks, ApnaCircle, Burrp TV, Kwippy, LifeBlob, LordsOfOdds, CommonFloor, IndiaMarks, Indipepal, Kreeo, Metaaso, AuthorStream, Uhooroo, Zahdoo, TellAFriend.SocialTwist.com, Kwench.in, Parentree.in, MobShare.in and Tagz.in.

“India has the potential to significantly drive the direction in which Web 2.0 is moving. Micro-blogging and video streaming are the future of Web 2.0 along with niche networking, be it on a friendship portal or around communities,” Shyamanuja Das, editor, Dataquest, has said, adding. “A stronger revenue model and a shift from ad-based framework to an e-commerce based set-up are desirable.”

According to Dataquest, the list was prepared by its editors with the help of IndianWeb2.com from 54 shortlisted companies which began operations on or after January 1, 2007 and are headquartered in India. While shortlisting the companies the focus was on those companies that had collaboration or Web 2.0 attributes as core to their business model. The other parameters which were used to select the winners were reach, impact and innovativeness of offering.

Frankly, I am very surprised with this list. A lot of these are not startups. Bigadda, for example. Or even desimartini…which had been sold to HT a few years back. And one of the selection criteria being that the “startup” commenced operations from Jan ’07 or later. Sure some of them are noble and have a pleasant look about them, like uhooroo, but then, anyone you know who has heard of uhooroo? is it enough to create a good site, and then hope that it gets promoted on its own? Take zahdoo, for instance. Their home page gives me such a complicated description about what’s possible on zahdoo, that i’m still on dictionary.com trying to figure out what they mean (screenshot attached)

I’m not doubting the effort gone into the exercise. It may be a good start, giving a platform for serious startups to stand up and get counted, but there are some obvious loopholes.

1. Define a startup clearly, and once defined, have the courage to reject ones who do not meet the criteria

2. Be clear on what web2.0 means. Having a lot of white and looking cool is not what web2.0 means.

3. Take into account website traffic as well. It does not help if a cool looking site gets created, with no one visiting the same.

My 2 cents to Dataquest, do not make this an annual exercise. Make it monthly or quarterly, where your index points to the best new sites launched in the last month or last quarter, or any other period deemed suitable. If the aim is to encourage startups, then let it be startups alone, who need loads of help and as much of such coverage as necessary. Don’t make it a pointless activity by including sites which are neither web 2, nor startups. Hope to see a more serious and honest effort the next time onwards!