Saw a link (TO a link with the real story, of course) today about Tick, a Web 2.0 online project/time tracker.  First off, to whomever runs the Talking Web 2.0 blog, can you please put in a policy where posts have to have some amount of original content?  If not, if you are really just quoting someone else’s post, then at least link to the final destination, I am tired of these ridiculous link trains.  It’s like an even dumber version of the Da Vinci Code without all those pesky clues and whatnot.

Okay, back on track now.  Here’s the pitch for the site, dissected:

Devlounge: Tick is an upcoming web 2.0 app with a different flair.
Dead2.0 translation: Tick is an upcoming web 2.0 app that is mostly the same as something else, but with one minor feature change.

Devlounge: Once again, it’s another tracker, but this time, it helps you manage time.
Dead2.0 translation: Like many many others, it’s another (yawn) tracker, but this time, the user interface is different, and they show you progress by time instead of some other metric.

Devlounge: In an exclusive insiders look at the current pre-release version, we’ll let you know if Tick has a future as a successful web app, or if it should be swept away in the web 2.0 craze.
Dead2.0 translation: We saw a cool demo, and tried to scoop TechCrunch (successfully), because if he links to us, we will achieve fame and glory (unsuccessfully, but instead just this damn skeptic guy did).

This “review” is actually pretty spot on for the type of Web 2.0 hype-mongering I really dislike.  First of all, the reviewer took the time to take a screenshot of the login screen.  It features, wait for it… a completely standard login page!!! 

Next he shows how easy it is to create a project (again, with a screenshot of the link, and a reference to how 37signals-like this is).  I have a hunch it isn’t getting too far from 37signals (which I will discuss some time in the future, but if you really want to hear about how they make design decisions, you can read this… personally, I didn’t even scroll down a page-length, but that’s just me…)… Moving right along, users can add tasks which have the novel twist of assigning a time-based budget.  See how it comes together? Tick, like in a clock?  Time-based?  Get it?  Get it???  Oh. yeah, I guess so.

The review plods along (it’s actually two pages long of the same meandering blather) to show more very simple screenshots of a very simple-looking interface.  Finally we get to the conclusion:

Tick is an interesting new project. While today there are trackers galore in the web 2.0 app building world, tick allows you to track something different - budgets. While, at least at the moment I have no use for tick, it could become very useful, especially to those managing multiple projects and clients with many staff members. And by many staff - we mean it, because tick does not limit you to any amount of users.

To Team Devlounge: Want to avoid my criticism?  Write something useful.  Tick “could” become useful?  How about you at least identify three (just three) market segments who would need this.  That’s right, find some companies who cannot do time card management already and want to move it to some freebie Web site.  Is this for really small companies who can’t afford real infrastructure?  If so, they probably can manage with an Excel file.  Is it for big companies?  Well, they have Oracle and a suite of other options.

UPDATED: while everything above stands, the comments below may have been a bit out of line.  Please read more here. 

I may be right, I may be wrong, but at least I’ll put a stake in the ground:

In my opinion, Tick is no more than a feature that all project management software should include.  Is it a good idea?  Sure!  You should be able to find it in the View tab of Project 2007.  Furthermore all of MS Project should natively work with Web publishing (attention Microsoft: Sharepoint doesn’t cut it!) and all that. 

To Team Tick: with any luck you can get picked up by a MS or a Google (gProject?), but you better move fast and fully integrate with either Office or Google Calendar.  You may have to just buid exactly that, and go to both companies with a “business development” meeting, and hope for the best.  Otherwise, I don’t see the revenue model, and you are in a crowded space that already includes Microsoft as a competitor. 

Dead 2.0 odds for success (determined purely by hunch, with “success” meaning the founders personally make a lot of money from the venture) : 1 in 300.