One of the nice things about open source is you can build a site/web app quickly with it. But the downside is if you go with the vanilla install and only spend an hour or two customizing it, you don't have much to differentiate yourself from other sites using the same open source product.

For example, I've heard people complain about WordPress (open source blogging platform), saying that the sites you can make with it "all look like WordPress sites." I think that's true if you go with the same themes everyone else does. But with a little effort, your site can look totally unique.

When Mashable ran an article yesterday about Pligg being for sale, Pete Cashmore mentioned that "we get around 3 Pligg-powered sites submitted to Mashable every day." Obviously I don't see 3 Pligg-site reviews each day, so it means that most of them are turned down.

I asked Pete in the comments how he decides which ones (if any) to write about.

Me: Pete, out of curiosity, since there are so many submissions, how do you decide which ones to write about? Are most of the submissions vanilla installs with an hour or two of customization, and thus you write about the ones that are truly novel, or significantly enhanced, or are backed by an actual business/management unit?

Pete: Just answered your own question. ;)

Granted, my question was a bit leading, but I at least wanted some confirmation, correction, and/or elaboration.