An introduction to Orbital Theory: Understanding and Putting Value on Web 2.0 communities

This post is the first in a series that discusses Orbital Theory, a way of understanding Web 2.0 web sites as a business model and with that knowledge how to monetize them to maximize financial success.

If you’re following the attempted sale of sites like Digg and Facebook, you’ll no doubt recognize the usefulness of a better way of evaluating a site’s worth than it’s Alexa rank or it’s net revenue times a negotiated number. That’s exactly what Orbital Theory attempts to prove.


In May 2006, I was seriously approached by a start up company about acquiring Worth1000, an artistic contest web site I started. Even though Worth1000 was built in 2001, before the term “web 2.0” had yet to be popularized by Tim O’Reilly, it would definitely be considered a Web 2.0 website by his current standards. (Tim defined Web 2.0 as “a system that becomes more valuable any time more data is added to it” at a recent Collabnet conference I attended).

It was the first time a large company had made a serious attempt to purchase Worth1000, and though I was leery at the thought of selling it, I was curious what their offer would be. After a few phone calls, meeting their team in person and checking out their headquarters, they called me up a few days later with their offer: We’d like to offer 3 times your annual net revenue in the form of some cash upfront and the rest as stock.

Of course, I politely declined the offer and hung up the phone more than a little puzzled. Their site was a popular social meeting place and blog along the veins of MySpace, Facebook and Xanga. In other words, they were not currently profitable. Why then would they rely on a website’s net revenue then as a way of evaluating its worth? They would cleary know that wouldn’t be very tempting an offer for me and wierdest of all, it was ignoring something that anyone who runs a web2.0 site realizes immediately:

Your content-creating userbase is worth a heck of a lot more than your annual revenues might be.

I didn’t put much thought into it, but then in September I received yet another inquiry, this time from an associate from a venture capitol firm scouting for investments.

Some of the highlights of the questions he asked me when we discussing evaluation worth1000’s value essentially went like this:

  • “So how many unique visitors did you get per month?”
  • “How many registered members does your site have?”
  • “What’s your monthly gross revenue?”
  • “What’s your monthly net revenue?”

I tried to explain how those were somewhat useful, but ultimately innacurate ways of gauging a Web 2.0 site’s actual worth, but didn’t have a really clear way of explaining it in a way that anyone but a webmaster could understand and we didn’t followup after the call. Members who actually generate content and therefore attract more traffic into a site’s orbit are much, much more valuable than registered members or visitors who don’t. Or simply put:

Not all users are created equal.

I thought about how to explain this relationship to non-webmasters using a clear analogy off and on over the next couple of months, but never had a reason to put my thoughts into writing. Until this past Wednesday afternoon.

Sitting in my inbox was a rather innocuos looking email with the subject “Possible investment in”. It looked and read like a scam. Here it is in it’s totality, sans contact info:

“I manage venture investments for a well-known individual and he is interested in investing in Worth 1000. Is this something we can discuss in more depth?

I visited the domain part of the sender’s email address and got a “Page Cannot Be Found Error” and my Nigerian scammer alert went off. Before deleting the e-mail, curiousity got the best of me and I googled the domain instead. And whoa: The top result was a Wall Street Journal article discussing a very well-known entrepreneur who apparently uses this company name as a front for his personal investments.

I called up the number listed in the e-mail and got a cheery response.

“Hi Avi, thanks so much for calling me back. I represent _______________ and he would like to invest in Worth1000.”

I was floored. We chatted briefly about the site and my (and his) intentions for it. We agreed to talk more in depth this coming Thursday. Part of what we are to talk about is how to evaluate Worth1000 properly.

I finally had that impetus I needed to write this article. And here I am.


Orbital theory is more of an analogy than a theory. It compares websites and their visitors to planetary bodies in 3-D outer space instead of the flat (linear) Alexa approach to measuring traffic by headcount of all visitors.

There are 5 tenets of Orbital theory:

  1. Every user of a website has a unique mass, measurable by their gravity (how many other users they attract towards themselves).
  2. The larger a user’s mass, the stronger their personal gravity.
  3. Users with larger mass pull users with smaller mass into their orbit.
  4. Once in a site’s orbit, a user is now a measurable part of the website. His mass is a measurable part of a self-contained system.
  5. The more often a user returns to a site (the more loyal they are), the tighter and faster their orbit is.

What is important to note is that a visitor who visits a site once and never returns (or otherwise recommends others to the site) is not in orbit and therefore offers none of his mass to the site’s system for the purposes of evaluating it’s worth.

This shifts the most important statistic from “unique visitors per month” to “repeat participating vistors per month”.


A visitor who checks a site repeatedly throughout the day is more valuable than one who visits less frequently. They have a smaller/quicker orbit.

So where does the value come into play?

In a nutshell, grouping visitors by the total sum of the mass and speed of their orbiting bodies is a better way of evaluating their worth than grouping them by a flat head count of all visitors.

Here’s an example of a part of this theory in action: If you have regularly have just 2 visitors to your blog, and User A leaves a thought provoking comment on your post and User B only comes to read, User A has a greater mass than User B. If you decide to sell your blog, the total number of visitors (2) is an innacurate method of determining a site’s value, since it implies that both users are equal. A better way would be to take the sum of both visitor’s mass. Let’s assume that a visitor who does nothing except visit a page is worth +1 gravity as a starting point. So in our example User B is worth only +1. Anyone who attracts other users towards the site has the starting point of +1 gravity and also has an additional gravity by virtue of the attractiveness of their comment to other new users. If Google indexes the comment and 4 visitors find the blog post a result in the future (even if they never return), his gravity is +5 stronger (at the point he makes the post). If because of his post, he returns to a site repeatedly to see what other comments are posted, (and now speeds up his normal visiting habits to 5 times a day), his value to the site is even greater. He can now interact and has a stronger potential to attract even more new members by virtual of his more constant presence.

We’ll get a user’s value by multiplying their total gravity times their average daily orbital rate.

So in our example: User A (+5 mass *5 orbits) ‘s value is 25. That means he is worth 25 non-orbital 1-time visitors, by virtue of his one comment and repeat visits to the site.

Gravity can be a negative number as well. If a visitor posts spam to a site, or a popular member is discovered gaming a site like Digg, regular readers of the site may quit returning to it. That user would have negative gravity in that he repels other users from the system. Similarly, if your site gets too much traffic (i.e. Slashdot links to your site), and your site is flooded by people trying to read the article and crashes, those visitors who are contributing to the crash carry a negative gravity in that they are possibly souring established visitors who may leave the site’s orbit. Negative gravity is not particularly important for evaluating your site’s worth, but we’ll get back to it in a later post that focuses on enhancing the user experience and optimizing your site performance wise to deal with exponential mass growth.

For now, I hope the general outline of how this theory approaches evaluating users is of interest to those of you interested in Web2.0. Up next: Looking at the theory more in depth, some examples of evaluating real sites (i.e. Digg, Facebook, and Worth1000) and putting orbital theory into action to show how harnessing it correctly could enhance a site’s traffic and value.

I invite everyone to offer their own take on constructing this theory. Does it make sense? Do you have a better approach to it? I think as a group of minds coming together we can come up with something cool and useful.

36 Responses to An introduction to Orbital Theory: Understanding and Putting Value on Web 2.0 communities

  1. Ptoner says:

    So…was his offer better?

  2. Avi Muchnick says:

    We’re not at that stage yet and either way, they made it clear that he wants to invest in the site, not buy it outright.

  3. TheBlueFrog says:

    I think that it’s a great idea, and it works especially well with Worth1000, and Plime. However I think that the general idea could be used for other sites, but would have to have quite a bit of tweaking to apply to other sites. Sites like slashdot have a culture of elitist cynics, and that would have a negative effect on most people, but a positive effect on like minded folks, with some folks being balanced in the middle.

  4. EntropyFails says:

    I like the idea of using the term gravity because it brings along the idea of similar things clumping up. However, the math you are proposing seems a bit one dimensional. I feel somewhat certain that a time component should also figure into the equation. Comments loose their emotional pull over time, posters stop visiting, and a whole host of other things happen that can make a static system like that start out looking good but end up generating meaningless numbers.

    I like to look at it this way. A poster pays an up front computational cost to generate a message. The more intelligent they are, the more valuable the message, typically. THIS is their true “gravity.” High content information isn’t just about repeat postings and return visits, it is about having smart people do very hard computational work FOR the people reading the post. This causes learning to take place in the reader, delivering a burst of pleasure for most humans. They then become addicted to that pleasure and thus want to return. The Orbital model can handle these sort of feedback systems, but only if you carefully set up the math behind it.

    For the poster side, he gets pleasure in seeing someone learn from his arguments and the response they generate. I suspect that this triggers either a “victory circuit” or perhaps a “domination circuit”, but regardless it is a pleasurable stimulus. And if the response is of high enough quality that it causes the ORIGINAL POSTER to learn, then he gets the double pleasure of both learning and “victory”. This serves as the basis for the positive feedback loop you describe.

    The most important user is the high-content quality addict. This is what digg and reddit thrive upon. They generate the vast majority of the content. They think quickly and usually have interesting things to say.

    The worst user is the low-content quality addicts. Ie spammers or other people with mental disorders. They will and often DO drive the high-content quality people away.

    So really your “gravity” statistic seems to rely on good content generation. Perhaps using a Flesher-kincade (sp?) grade level algorithm on the posts could determine the rough informational quality of the posts and thus allow you to more rigorously quantify the “High Mass” users.

    Now for valuing things in dollars is something I may respond with later. But I hope these thoughts help!

  5. epc says:

    Interesting theory. I once tried to convince the business side of the house that we needed to measure interactions and use that as a separate gauge of value from page views.

    What about the case where “B” may read your site regularly, but isn’t just lurking, instead is either commenting on your content at her own site, or is submitting the site content to various social services (digg, /.,, etc)?

  6. donteatpoop says:

    Makes sense to me, and I really don’t know a lot about websites other than the webhosting sales that my company makes. So you definately broke it down in an easy to understand format.

  7. Bornbad says:

    I really have no idea what a website can. or will, be worth in dollars. I do know Worth 1000 is a popular stop for a lot of people(many moons in the gravity). With the addition of Plime to the value of Worth, it seems like a growing enterprise. I really enjoy the “Gravity” theory. It serves the common man’s understanding.

  8. Phlux says:


    Fantastic post – I was thinking the same thing when I was reading the article.

    What I see us discussing here is the future of web metrics. There will be a way to actually measure this in a few years…

    There are a few more factors at play here as well. This theory applies to sites which I refer to as “two dimensional” – one dimensional sites are purely passive reading of static content. Two Dimensional sites allow for feedback on content – such as the commenting or rating. There are other levels as well – but in this case we are simply talking about measuring the value which users add to two dimensional sites.

    In the case of measuring these users, it is currently a subjective opinion in that we cannot accurately poll the minds of all the users, and read every single users’ post in order to determine their real value. Additionally, each individuals score will fluctuate with each posted article and comment.

    Rather than equating it to an Orbital analogy, I would reckon the Pigeon Effect suits a bit better.

    Each story is a morsel of food for the flocks of pigeons, Some pigeons lead others around as they are more active in the search for food and thus will flock to the new droppings much faster, raise attention through their visiting (digging) and comments.

    As the food is fresh, the flock will grow in size. As time goes on the freshness of the food stales and the flock decreases. There will be some stragglers who will stick around or continue to return to see if any additional morsels have been left, but over time the whole of the flock has moved to another area in the park with new food.

    The effect is different for each and every even that occurs, in the case of digg you would think to use the front page as a good barometer of the interests and contributions of the pigeons, but with gaming occuring I would halve any numbers arrived at.

    Last, we have not broached the factoring in of actual site usefulness into the equation. When you have a site like digg, which is only two-dimensional it is a bit easier as there is very little depth to the site. It jsut is very fast paced posting and commenting and interest-expression.

    The “tighter faster orbit” concept is extremely common on Digg as users will post and habitually check their profile for up-ticks in the comment numbers on stories users themselves have commented on, but this does not necessarily increase the value of those particular users as, you have pointed out, these users could have negative responses or negative contribution.

    What is better measured is the depth of usefulness a site has – how much can an isolated person do on said site without requiring the external stimuli of either other users, or without leaving the actual site.

    In the case of a site like digg, not much if anything can be done. A simple refresh is about all that one can do.

    THis means that in the long term – digg will become a technology rather than a site. (they already are) This is still an accomplishment. While Slashdot was years ahead of digg in “user contributed content” their rating system was doled out to users based on a calculation of their frequency of visits and frequency of posts. This kept the system “closed” – Diggs rating system is open to any with an account thus a higher degree of participation from day one for all users.

    In the end though, the lack of real usefulness – even in its UI will limit the long term viability of the site (as being the center of attention). Users cannot control their experience as much as they should – but that makes for a whole other article…

    I like where this is heading though, good to see that others are thinking about it as well.

  9. icepigs says:

    Very interesting theory, Jax.

    But in eCommerce, it matters not how many times a person stops by the site, it’s how much money he spends.

    Take Worth for example….I buy credits there. I do it to support the site that I enjoy frequenting.

    I have taken to Plime and am spending more time on Plime than on Worth. But, I haven’t spent any money at Plime…..with Firefox, I have turned off all advertising from Google (which I know you use at Worth). Unless Plime becomes a subscription based service, I don’t see how I’m increasing the net worth of either site….I don’t spend the credits I have at Worth because I don’t use the ones I already have.

    Also, there are quite a few people who are constantly on the boards at Worth and entering contest after contest, but have never purchased credits. Although I see they have some value because of sponsorship, I don’t see how they can be weighed the same as someone who regularly buys credits.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is that I agree that not all users are created equal, I think weighing them will take an amazing algorithm that will vary from site to site.

  10. fez says:

    However nice this theory may be in web2.0 land, when this 2nd bubble crashes it will be back to cold hard dollars & cents.

    Markus Frind has a great post about this on why the Yahoo/Facebook acquisition spreadsheet numbers are so ludicrous. (i.e. ever-increasing CPMs at $5+ when actual monetization of those is currently only $.17)

    But you are right, those high-mass Connectors/Submitters are the real value of sites like yours, whichever way you skin it.

  11. Phlux says:


    Of course its how much money you make off ads – but in order to increase your traffic, and thus you CPC and CPM values you need to have a site that people want to use. Thus your traffic will drive of the money you make.

    Although this started from a theory on sellable valuation – it applies also to the overall valuation (CPM etc) as if you understand how to increase the sites value to the users, you can translate that to your CPM and CPC revenues…

  12. Avi Muchnick says:

    Thank you all very much for the well thought out responses to date (and I’d love to see more). I’m going to sleep on this and think more about how it’s useful in terms of helping people improve their existing sites.

    Entropy fails comment about time is a very good point indeed. A user has a half life and keeping them in orbit over a long period of time is tough. That’s why 3d space is such a good representation of the system. Solar systems pass each other and grab entities out of each other’s orbit. Once someone loses interest in a web site and their orbit begins to get wider and slower, they are more likely to get pulled into another site’s orbit. Their mass may not change, but their return frequency lessons, and so their overall value using the formula does go down over time.

    My focus for the next post so far is on Facebook’s stalkeresque feature debut from a couple months ago and how that *greatly* increased their userbase’ return frequency to the site (or tightened their orbit) and thus increased their members’ value, under the theory. I’d also like to present some flash-based visuals, and I’ll hopefully work with David from the Photogami team (a spinoff project of Worth1000) to generate animated examples of orbital theory in action.

  13. Orbital Theory for Web 2.0 Sites

    Avi Muchnick writes some interesting ideas on the Worth1000 blog about Orbital Theory which states that the value of users of web 2.0 sites is related to their interaction with the site AND the frequency of their visits. As Orbital

  14. Nickie says:

    I really like your concept. I also agree with one of the comments here that, other factors need to be taken into consideration such as how much of the user click translate into actual sales/buying.

    With that said, I hope web 2.0 sites will learn from your theory in evaluating their business model as oppose to “build and flip” mentality.

  15. Nate Westheimer says:

    Hi Avi,
    I’m planning on writing a post about it, but I’ll give people in on this discussion a sneak peak:

    I’ve been trying to answer the Web 2.0 valuation answer in a novel way: by collecting as much data as possible. This spreadsheet only accomplishes a little (you can already see a trend that prices registered users at about $20 a head), but if anyone wants to collaborate on it with me, send me an email with your Gmail address, and I’ll share it with you.

  16. hotweaselsoup says:

    Wow – what an *interesting* theory. It makes sense that the real value of a site is not so much in the quantity of its users, but in their quality (mass). But how do you quantify someone’s “mass” – or “net worth”, in its most literal sense – in such a way that it is an objective value that can be applied across the board?

    And riffing on your theory some more, maybe it would make sense for webmasters to spend more time trying to retain their “heavy users” (aka junkies, lol), instead of trying to attract new users, as the heavy users are pulling in the new users already.

    Anyway, I’m looking forward to the next installment – very cool stuff, Jax.

  17. Flake says:

    Worth1000 is a great site and I enjoy visiting Plime because it’s not full of stories of people modding their wii’s!

    But I think Worth1000 needs a revamp, even after using it for a few years I still find it difficult to navigate. Make worth1000 2.0 and it will go from amazing to incredible!

  18. […] The solution for selecting users who will be given more power than the general rabble must be both qualitative and mechanically precise. This is where Avi Muchink’s Orbital Theory comes in. I love Orbital Theory as a beautiful metaphor for the power of an individual user in a community driven site. Using the mass and speed of an orbiting body(the user) as a metaphor, Orbital Theory effectively quantifies the value a user creates for a site, in terms of both content and traffic. […]

  19. neomeme says:

    As far as metaphors go, Orbital Theory is a great one. In a post about how I think the problems with social networks should be fixed, I blogged about a possible application of Orbital Theory- the selection of moderators/editors. Basically, it is only natural to promote those users with the highest gravity and fastest orbit, because they provide the highest amount of value to the site. Also, the possibility of promotion creates greater incentive for users to create even more value.
    More here:

  20. SmartyPants says:

    I think the real genius of this issue is not just the “some users are worth more than others” concept. The Pigeon Analogy misses a key factor that the the Orbital Theory encompasses: Individual users have their own mass and therefore gravity.

    Trying to pin down users solely in terms of their value to the website misses the factor that the users accumulate value as attractors themselves. If a certain power user were to up and quit, fans of his might stop coming. If a particular artist stopped creating for Worth1000, we might see users stop viewing or viewing less often. Those users’ “mass” is cross-site. There are users on Worth1000 who are well established on Fark and SomethingAwful, and carry that reputation with them from site to site. The user creates content valuable not just as comments and “eyeballs” for advertisers, but in their own personal circle of users.

    We must be careful to avoid thinking of this model with the site in the middle attracting people and all these things whizzing around it with no value other than their value to the site. The users themselves are micro-environments of their own, with gravity and satellites. This also occurs on the macro level, as Worth1000 is one of many sites in orbit around a larger “borough” of the internet.

  21. […] useful tool. I’ve already invites some people in the nextNY community to help out (after the valuation issue was brought up via the Worth1000 blog), so if you’re interested to joining in on the project, feel free to email me with your Gmail […]

  22. pete says:

    Maybe if you tweak the formula with a time aspect;

    user A is introduced to the site in whatever way, then frequency of repeat visits is introduced as a metric then mass is built up by freq. and time- the user may be in a learning curve or just has not signed up yet- and then the user starts posting or generating content and then the user is assigned a exponential or add on metric to account for the mass and gravity.

    So basically, any site that does not have a strong user gen. cont. ingredient is worth nothing even if they have a good idea and a decent user base because everything is so cheap to develop? And valuation of these sites will be dismal. Is this the consensus?

    Because if that is true, you will not see any financial sites become popular because of the private nature of them. Also any stock sites like stockpick,, will never become popular because the sharing/ user gen. model is flawed.

    exclusive to the stock market;
    * the people who do well on the market take money from other people.
    * the majority is always wrong.
    * don’t take tips from the cab driver. the online equivalent are the sites above.

    Feel free to interject.

  23. Avi Muchnick says:

    Yes, the latest incarnation of it that’s sitting on my white board does exactly this. It represents time in terms of how close an object is to the object it’s orbiting. So over time, as interest wanes, objects move further away from their orbit and are more susceptible to being pulled into orbit around another object.

    So we now have gravity influence on others (depicted in terms of size of the planetary body), frequency of visits/interest (depicted in terms of speed of the orbit), and loyalty (distance from the object it’s orbiting, which widens with age).

    I think it’s enough to base a flash visual off of for now. We started working on one inhouse, but if anyone knows of an action-script based flash that depict planetary bodies, that’d be great to work off of.

  24. pete says:

    I know there is a java version- of something similar, jtrack

    do I smell a 2.0 company brewing?

  25. pete says:
    that is the one I was thinking of.

  26. Eric Fricke says:

    Great Idea but I would like to suggest then submit for further reasoning.

    Your Theory: Keep like items in your presentation:

    An introduction to Orbital Theory: Understanding and putting value on Web 2.0 “Galaxies?” The only reason I suggest this is because to make it a theory it should show that it can be represented in like terms.

    If you are a blog site, your Star is the center of the galaxy (Your Thoughts and Ideas) and the other items will be influenced directly. (Planets-big user, Asteroids-small user, comets-smaller user) Also, remember – Small Star, Small Galaxy and visa-versa.

    I like your theory on placing a value on a customer and how to measure such a unique item. Placing weight or gravity on a user can be daunting.

    Your measures seem to have inherent flaws in them:

    1 User STARTS at 1 unit and is adjusted accordingly

    This might not be true at all because of what they bring to the table.

    If a user comes to your site and you assign a value it must be updated accordingly. Actions related to the user should adjust the weight of the unit. So:

    USER * (Actions) = Weight

    Now you have to classify Actions:

    Depending on what you determine are “caused” by this user will determine the weight. Now, applying my personal fundamentals of consumerism, a user can attract, consume, or withdraw.

    Attract = How much other activity user produces
    Consume = How much revenue a user generates
    Withdraw = How much a user takes away

    Adjusting for such in the formula:

    User * (Attract +, Consume 2+, or Withdraw -1) = Weight

    Applying any measure to those three items can be adjusted to track the metrics you wish to track. I could go on and on about each individual item but I hope this represents a synopsis of my ideas.

  27. […] An introduction to Orbital Theory: Understanding and Putting Value on Web 2.0 communities « Worth10… […]

  28. MilleDju says:


    I’m very curious to know what progress you made on this theory.

    How do you factor in contributions from members (active or not) on other sites than your own with your site being the subject? I’m thinking of links, fansites, blogs, video’s,…

    To give you an example: I’ve been a lurker on Worth for some time and recently due to lack of time don’t even visit it on a monthly basis anymore. But I’ve made ‘offline’ publicity for it which brought new (active, contributing) members and I have some links towards it which could bring some visitors. When I use a Worth image somewhere on a forum or blog that displays the Worth logo, I make publicity for it at the same time.

  29. naisioxerloro says:

    Good design, who make it?

  30. Aaron Hoos says:

    Valuing a social network…

    Image by PhOtOnQuAnTiQuE via Flickr

    Social networks have value but are difficult to value. How do you place a value on Facebook? Or Twitter? These sites have little or no monetization and yet they are worth millions for having a highly engaged a…

  31. Joe says:

    This is one of the clearest explanations I’ve seen. You could picture (or equate it) it in your head.

    I was looking at the Alexa rankings and other measures which were helpful, but as you indicate, are only part of the equation.

    Thanks for the great article!

  32. I am not positive the place you’re getting your info, however great topic. I must spend a while learning more or figuring out more. Thank you for fantastic information I used to be looking for this information for my mission.Visit polish website at księgi wieczyste blog

  33. zoomtrader says:

    In get to take part, a person simply spends some profit a inventory, zoomtrader or maybe fx via each of
    our database (for case coffee), and determined by it is present
    value within the stock market, endeavors to estimate whether it
    will be increased or perhaps cheaper at the conclusion of the preset period of time.
    Similarly, should you buy a placed selection,
    plus the industry fails, you’ll yet again earn 70% of this preliminary purchase. zoomtrader gives a significant 30% allowed bonus for any primary down payment associated with $200 or higher.

  34. onbling says:

    Regardless of our reassurances, nonetheless, I’m certain you’ve kept several a
    reservation about heading, and are most likely a tad concered about where to start whenever you arrive, just
    what buy-ins you need to enjoy, and so forth.
    Yet would it be actually so that on account of like 10-25 moves a group is
    actually carefully shuffled, in addition to specifically, in the event you will discover fladskrm cards in a very bunch a
    chance to the fact that, as an example, the second card can seem a double will probably be equal to 1/13?

  35. I’m really enjoying the theme/design of your blog. Do you ever run into any internet browser compatibility issues? A couple of my blog visitors have complained about my site not operating correctly in Explorer but looks great in Opera. Do you have any tips to help fix this problem?

  36. […] be failing in understanding the exact value of users in web 2.0 sites, and that reminds me with the Orbital Concept stated […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: