Blogs Bring Back Dot-Com Poster Boy 127
An anonymous reader writes "Wired has a profile of Jason Calacanis, the former Dot-Com bubble rider, and now the mind behind the sale of Weblogs, Inc. to AOL." From the article: "Calacanis and Alvey wanted to get in on the action, but the scale and limitations of blogs bugged them. 'We decided that one blog, like Rafat's, could make tens of thousands of dollars a year,' says Alvey. 'Definitely enough for one person who works 24 hours a day to sustain a business. But how could you get so that you could add more people?' The answer, they decided, was to build a network of blogs."
Comparing bubbles to oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
- Greg
Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges (Score:2, Insightful)
One rule. #1. Get your feet on the ground.
OK. Two rules. #2. Think yourself.
Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges (Score:1)
That's only something to boast about if the money is all that matters. I could understand the admiration if blogs were something useful or worthwhile, but, well...they're just blogs.
When are we going to start demanding quality from those who get rich quick? Is it even possible to get quality anything from the likes of Calcanis? Do the creators of quality products ever get rich from their products, or is that the preserve
Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges (Score:1)
The reason Jason Calacanis is making a profit with blogs is because we want blogs, we like blogs and we need blogs...
Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges (Score:2)
Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges (Score:1)
Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges (Score:2)
This "In Soviet Russia" moment brought to you by Ayn Rand.
Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges (Score:2)
As far as profitability is concerned, the difference lies only in exsiting resources. The dot com people spent incredible amounts of money building and buy physical and IT and virtual resources and infrastucture. Ultimately advertising and direct sale
Social networks (Score:3, Insightful)
Blogs can be ok, for instance of the blogger is really blogging something that he/she does on a daily basis because it's in a single field of expertise.
Blogs should not be used for trivial diaries, and that I fear is what the AOL users will use them for.
On the other hand, there are some blog entries which are worthy of becomming wiki sites.
Re:Social networks (Score:3, Insightful)
No, blogs can be used for whatever people want to use them for.
Its how they are indexed and linked that matters.
If 10 bazillion people all want to talk about their fuzzy heads and broken dreams, then so be it.
In an ideal world, we would not be forced to look at them.
Google still needs tweaking to remove them.
Re:Social networks (Score:2)
If 10 bazillion people all want to talk about their fuzzy heads and broken dreams, then so be it.
But that's a diary, not a web log! A log is more like a ship's captains log, something that stores important daily information of importance, not trivial personal events.
Re:Social networks (Score:1)
People just don't do that much stuff, so they simulate others and post random crap thats important in their day - winning a victory over the cat, preparing for a house move, going for a job interview.
The word has different meaning to lots of people and I think its a losing battle to try to force the critical mass of people from using blogs in the way you describe.
So what? (Score:2)
Re:Social networks (Score:2)
Re:Social networks (Score:2)
Who are you to say what is important information vs. what's trivial, for anyone else?
There are people who make staggering sums of money doing things that I consider to be trivial, but I am at least intellectually honest enough to admit that my opinions are nothing more than that - my opinions as to what's important, and not some kind of obj
Re:Social networks (Score:2)
That's not what the other poster was talking about. No matter how important it is to some people, journalling about your daily activities is called "writing a diary."
Weblog has a specific meaning - it's a diary, but it's a diary of web-surfing. Like a list of interesting links and websites you visited that day, with a brief description (or sometimes just a list of links.)
Today, people use blogs to describe diaries, news si
Re:Social networks (Score:2)
A weblog is a weblog, it is not a "log", it is a blog. A blog is simply a web page consisting of multiple individual "posts" in chronilogical order.
Any resemblence to anything else is purely coincidental.
Incidentally, in the real world, even the most personal and self-indulgent form of diary is still actually a type of log. (but that doesn't matter, because we're talki
Re:Social networks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Social networks (Score:2)
Here's the thing:
As long as our technology that sorts through content (think search engines, directories, etc) grows fast enough to match the content it's sorting through, we'll be fine
So far I see NO indication that the content is outgrowing our ability to sort through it - Rarely, if ever, do I do a google search and think, "Gee, I'm getting way too many blogs/wikis/random sites in this search!". More often, I th
Re:Social networks (Score:2)
This may well be an indication that there is too much information and that our technology is not up to handling it: chances are the exact answer you want is actually there, but it has been pushed off the results list by all those ALMOST matches.
Re:Social networks (Score:2)
A) I find what I'm looking for after a few pages and realize I could've found it better with a better articulated query (i.e., it was my fault)
B) I don't find what I'm looking for at all (i.e., not enough data)
I almost never find that after sorting through 20 pages on a search like "Jefferson Slavery Declaration Independence Ignore Cotton Gin" do I find what I'm looking for after 5 or so p
Re:Social networks (Score:2)
Re:Social networks (Score:1)
links, please.
Re:Social networks (Score:1)
"Blogs can be ok, for instance of the blogger is really blogging something that he/she does on a daily basis because it's in a single field of expertise."
I do, or at least I try (MexIT [johnbokma.com]). Yet I see now and then search engine hits for stuff that's not on my site, but somehow the words do appear (a "good" example is "horse xxx", #34 in Google).Re:Social networks (Score:2)
To say that everything on the internet should be pure information or something you would be interested in is wrong and short sighted. While you may be a technologically inclined person and not interested in my personal life, you are in a minority and many other people would in fact be interested (as many of my friends read my blog to keep updated on m
Re:Social networks (Score:1)
Re:Social networks (Score:2)
You're 100% right: we need a lot more hot chicks mashing up their boobies for webcams.
We're also short on opinionated guys posting iTunes playlists of every twee indy song they've ever downloaded. And while that's a whole kind of satisfaction by itself, I'm always looking for the next genius who posts links to definitive 200-word AP news stories whi
you mean an online newspaper? (Score:3, Insightful)
amazing.
Re:you mean an online newspaper? (Score:1, Informative)
The difference, to me, is blogs are more 'guerilla' than places like Slate, or other online newspapers. The gamut of weblogsinc is content, and the focus being raw and unfiltered.
Now would be an opportune time to plug my work, but we'll just say you can read it at weblogsinc.
Slashbot replies (Score:5, Insightful)
Cue response which points out you shouldn't judge blogs by just browsing them at random like it was 1994 and you're surfing the internet by clicking on links on crappy geocities sites, you should look at ones that are popular and fit your tastes, and use google and blogsearch etc. to find them. Everything is crap if you don't have an easy way of discriminating from the good and the bad, etc.
Re:Slashbot replies (Score:2)
Re:Slashbot replies (Score:1)
Re:Slashbot replies (Score:4, Funny)
I only just now, while reading your post, noticed that my VCR has a "Home Theater Ready" sticker on it. That's stupid.
So I peeled it off.
. .
That's why I "blog" by posting shit like the above on Slashdot, because I know people here will be interested in it.
KFG
Re:Slashbot replies (Score:2, Funny)
So you've drastically reduced the resale of your VCR now that it's no longer Home Theatre Ready. Who would want to buy it now? Suppose you got devoured by carnivorous pigeons tomorrow, leaving your family destitute. Without that Home Theatre Ready VCR to sell they might not be able to get by. You've concemned them to the poor house. I hope you feel proud of yourself.
That's why I "blog" by posting shit lik
Re:Slashbot replies (Score:2, Funny)
And anyway, African pigeons or European?
Re:Slashbot replies (Score:2, Funny)
Fair point. I guess he could actually keep the VCR and just sell the label as an upgrade kit for someone who had received a cheap VCR for Christmas and wanted to make it Home Theatre Ready.
And anyway, African pigeons or European?
Pigeon Rank pigeons [google.com]
Re:Slashbot replies (Score:1)
Awwwwwwwwww, shit!
Sometimes I forget how stupid people are.
Then I go out and actually meet some. I better go dig through the trash.
KFG
Re:Slashbot replies (Score:3, Insightful)
Before anyone criticizes the general concept of blogs, please remember that Slashdot is a blog.
You might as well just criticize Apache.
Blog is a redundant term, anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
The ability to format the data as a diary, or a collection of diaries, is not in and of itself anything I would consider noteworthy. The content may be, and sometimes is, but the use of extra layers of language to describe something that doesn't need describing just obscures what is interesting by emphasizing the points that are not.
(eg: There are plenty of commercial sites on the Internet today, but the use of "e-commerce" as a specific term is on the decline and "dot-com" is generally a term of ridicule. Sometimes, language gets in the way of the expression.)
As I see it, blogs that are essentially just personal rants will die a richly-deserved death, but "insider" blogs - which the media can draw from without being in danger of lawsuits, grand juries, etc - will likely prosper. "Special Interest Groups" (SIGs) do well as blogs - Slashdot is an example - but I doubt you can manufacture a SIG from a blog alone.
We will know when blogs have become totally accepted. That will occur when we no longer need to see them as anything special, they'll just be a part of the whole.
Re:Slashbot replies (Score:5, Interesting)
The point is that there are all types of people putting their tiny bits of information out there and hopefully linking to one thing they are interested in. One nice side effect of millions of blogs (Technorati lists 24.2 million) is that there are measurable changes to the "structure" of the Web. Google can now look and see what is the most popular razor or news story because idiots like me might link to it. When I blogged a lot I like to use services like Technorati, but I now like it for it's ability to find news stories that for some reason are popular; hopefully because they are important or entertaining. You sometimes find stories that are popular because people liked them, or because a lot of people thought they were worth reading. Meanwhile your usual news outlets forgot to tell you or the story was too obscure.
Sure, there are other options, tools and better ways to do this. del.icio.us does the same thing, and maybe even better. The point is that it is being done. My response is that people are active on the Web. It's a good thing to see. Cue the people who agree! I thank the 24 million blogs for bringing personality to the information age. Hopefully after years of blogging and participation in social network programs researchers can use this information for more useful purposes. It's already starting to happen, we are already starting to see the outcome.
It's great because these are thoughts, emotions, desires, interests, and even unusual proclivities being brought online for the world's disposal. The people I want to blog more are the one who fire off a few short, impulse entries than the ones who are looking to show the world their writing talent.
One thing I haven't mentioned is spam, and we all know that is bad wherever and however it finds its way to our screens.
Re:Slashbot replies (Score:1)
I remember when the only internet dot com poster boy was Craig Shergold.
Re:Slashbot replies (Score:2)
Which doesn't make sense since Weblogs Inc runs Engadget and Joystiq.. which aren't exactly "personal blogs".. instead they're more like slashdot (except that there aren't any dupes and the news posted on them is a bit more timely... so actually, they're nothing like slashdot)
Re:Slashbot replies (Score:3, Insightful)
Dumpster diving is not for everyone. Finding a good web long is not too unlike sifting through rubbish to find a diamond ring.
Funny coincidence... (Score:2)
Say what you will but his company is responsible for Engadget and that sites not half bad...well, they get linked to from Slashdot quite a bit and I guess that means
Bubble's back baby (Score:2)
Re:Bubble's back baby (Score:1)
Re:Bubble's back baby (Score:2)
Word on the street is that AJAX is the new DrKoop.com.
(eggs, meet basket)
Maybe they can pay the blogs with Flooz (Score:2)
Pay for your cooz with some flooz.
Re:Maybe they can pay the blogs with Flooz (Score:1)
Jase and Del (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess the story illustrates what happens: because the internet is so open, it is also open to unlimited quantities of marketers, hype and money. These burn up new ideas at a rate like nothing else. Whatever a new idea might have been, it comes to be seen as just another vehicle for your actual entrepreneur, init, and you can no longer believe a word anyone says. There is always an agenda, and in this case it's your money in their pocket. It's only a matter of time before the whole scene has been gutted to the point of collapse and then the crowd moves on to the next big-bucks bandwagon. So I guess that blogs are, if not dead, then walking wounded because they have no credibility left. I wonder what will come next.
Re:Jase and Del (Score:2)
Pjamas Media (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps we need a different term for serious blogs about whatever subject. Also a term for the commenter community that grows up around each one. Here's your chance to get famous, although Bill Quick [dailypundit.com], who invented the term "blogosphere," doesn't seem to have gathered enough fame from that.
Re:Pjamas Media (Score:1)
Re:Pjamas Media (Score:2)
Re:Pjamas Media (Score:1, Flamebait)
Actually, the people they are paying appear to be fraudulent hacks, not serious writers or commentators. I have also heard allegations that they are claiming other blogs as "their members" who are not associated in any way, and do not wish to be associated with pajamas media. They are claiming non-member blogs as their own as a way of trying to gain credibility and seriousness. Pajamas media reminds me of the p
Re:Pjamas Media (Score:2)
Re:Pjamas Media (Score:2)
Maybe you should check your facts. In what we is he "hard left"? please explain.
Also, how can this be considered quality writing worth paying for? It's barely coherent. Even the "neocon" link doesn't look like real writing, but rather a bunch of comments.
Re:Pjamas Media (Score:2)
As for Marc and Roger's writing, they could write circles around you.
As for checking my references, I know these guys, which is why I chose them as examples. Maybe you should check yours.
Re:Pjamas Media (Score:2)
Will you PLEASE explain to me WHY he is "hard left" as you claim. He's from that conservative rag The New Republic. They never had anyone left-of-center writing for them.
As for Marc and Roger's writing, they could write circles around you.
Difference is that I'm writing comments to idiots on slashdot - not being paid for my insight and writing skills.
As for the other Pajamas person -
Re:Pjamas Media (Score:2)
Pajamams' "serious political blogs"--LOL! (Score:2)
Re:Pajamams' "serious political blogs"--LOL! (Score:2)
Re:Pajamams' "serious political blogs"--LOL! (Score:2)
Oh...that guy.... (Score:1)
Whatever AOL touches dies (Score:2)
Weblogs - Just a Glorified Splog Network (Score:2)
Re:Weblogs - Just a Glorified Splog Network (Score:1)
Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . (Score:1)
Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . (Score:1)
Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . (Score:3, Funny)
You must be new here.
Oh wait...
Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . (Score:1)
Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . (Score:2)
Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . (Score:1)
Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . (Score:2)
Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . (Score:2)
Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . (Score:1)
Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . (Score:2)
Full of himself (Score:3, Interesting)
Whatever happened to the "golden boy" that hits rock-bottom (his words in the speech, btw) and then decides to dedicate himeself to philantropy. Instead, this guy wants to "monetize" (remember that word?)...blogs?
Yes.
Blog Network List (Score:3, Informative)
Well... (Score:1)
I for one welcome our new--oh, wait, never mind.
On a serious note though, am I the only one sick of these "poster boys" who do nothing but produce hot air?
Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words (Score:2)
Yeah! And who is this dude whose lap he is sitting on?
Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words (Score:2)
I have to second that (Score:2)
The really amazing part is that he talk
Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words (Score:4, Interesting)
The feeling I had the whole time I was with them is if you join their little cult (and believe me, that's the atmosphere on the private mailing list etc... Used to make me feel physically sick reading it sometimes) you'll get on famously. If you ain't prepared to drink the Kool Aid, though, your tenure will be very short.
A handful of folk at the top are getting rich off those being paid peanuts down below. The sad thing is those people are saying "Yes, please, give me more." There are people there who actually think posting on one of their sites will lead them to a top career in writing, when in reality they'd most likely get laughed out of the office of anyone they showcased that too.
Suffice to say, if you're ever on Digg and see a link from one of their sites, chances are it's a self link, that will be coupled with a begging post to the company mailing list saying "Please Digg my story". Content should float on it's own accord, not be helped to the top by a bunch of brainwashed sychophants. (And that was one of the many reason I was sick of working for them.)
Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words (Score:5, Interesting)
I would occassionally look at his magazine when waiting for a meeting with someone (but I would never pay for it). I did subscribe to his daily e-mail alerts, but seldom read them. The whole thing was purely a product of the bubble, and he was most definitely a creature of the bubble.
In an era when people were making huge investments based on fads rather than business plans, Jason Calacanis positioned himself as the arbiter of all dot-com related fads. He threw parties that were a bunch of people congratulating each other for how thoroughly their soon-to-be-bankrupt companies would change the world. The parties would also serve as prime places for people working for companies that were about to run out of money to connect with people who just got venture capital funding. At the one of these parties that I went to, someone actually tried to hire me with the pickup line of "my partner and I have started 20 companies between us." When I asked, he sheepishly admitted that the one they'd started that week was the only one that wasn't bankrupt.
I can't blame Calacanis. After all, if he hadn't taken up the role, someone else would have. I can't say that I miss the days of having to wonder how long my next employer will stay in business...
-JMP
Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot: Google annonced its new calendar service today. Google Calendar ingrats with Outlook and iCal and is the most advanced calendar service available
Bring Back? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. (Score:2)
Netscape was a one-hit-wonder that folded as soon as a real competitor showed up.
Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. (Score:2)
True, but at least they released their code into the wild before folding. Remember, without Netscape, there'd be no Mozilla and hence, no Firefox.
Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. (Score:2)
Yes, that was a kind of scorched-earth approach on Netscape's part.
Given the long delay between the release of Netscape's code and the appearence of the first Mozilla release, one wonders if an open source browser written from scratch might have been just as effective.
Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. (Score:1)
Of course it would be. In fact, maybe even more effective. That's what Firefox is.
Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia, Mozilla Firefox is a fork of the Navigator component of the Mozilla Application Suite which in turn is based on the source code of Netscape Communicator.
So if Wikipedia is correct, Firefox is not a open source browser written from scratch but one derived from the code released by Netscape.
So the question still remains whether an open source browser written from scratch would have been just as effective as those derived from Netscape code(including Firefox).
Ne
Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. (Score:1)
Saying that FF is a "fork" of Mozilla Navigator simply means that some of the code in Navigator was used in FF - it doesn't say how much. Seeing as how FF even back then was much faster than Navigator and lacked many of the features Navigator had.
Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. (Score:2)
Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. (Score:1)
Seriously.
Sure, FF might not have been written 100% from scratch.
But then again, a LOT of software isn't - it depends on previously available programs and/or libraries (at least at compile time). We could say that Halo and Grand Theft Auto weren't written from scratch because they depended on DirectX and OpenGL libraries. That's not really being very fair, though, because it still leaves a massive portion of code that
Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. (Score:2)
You already did that when you claimed that FireFox was written from scratch when a previous poster (not me) had already mentioned its heritage. In fact, that's the only reason that FireFox is in this thread about AOL and Netscape.
"We could say that Halo and Grand Theft Auto weren't written from scratch because they depended on DirectX and OpenGL libraries."
Come on. If you can show that FireFox merely linked to some libraries
Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. (Score:1)
Oh, okay. So using code through a library rather than directly putting it into your code is somehow magically different? Maybe you're not a programmer, but libraries and classfiles all look the same to the compiler - it doesn't care if what t
Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. (Score:2)
Let's say I write two versions of a game called grand theft motorcycle. In one version I use a graphics library like Direct X but I don't use anybody's source code. Let's say the other version uses code from Grand Theft Auto. Which of the two would you consider closer to the definition of "from scratch"?
Anyway,
Re:No jokes... (Score:1)