Wednesday, December 26, 2007

comic relief: Craig Claus and the wide eyed journalists...

I get the impression Craig is taking them on his lap and feeds them the fairy tale...


P.S. ... when the truth is probably much closer to this... D.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Craig's props: the pocketprotector

(1:30) Craig: "This is a pocket protector and that may speak volumes..." --> Indeed! I does... speak volumes... D.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

craigscrimelist: not bad but not too good, either...:)

very little in terms of commentary (anyone can get "the facts"; well, whatever the media presents as facts... by doing a search, so unless there is good commentary to go with it or at least a selection according to a particular criteria... I'm not going to be too impressed:)... still, not bad... D.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Moshe's List: can the craigslist trick be pulled *twice*?

it would be a sad reflection on humanity...

Yonatan Shirokov, aka. Moshe, via The Jewish Advocate Online; 2nd paragraph, 20th line : “This is a non-commercial project, and I’m not in it for money" (as long as we don't make any...--> my take on it)--> now where did we hear this before?...


P.S. and the name for his acknowledged Craig "inspired" I-just-want-to-help-out...?! [my emphasis]

P.P.S. interesting twist: he is asking for donations... (top of main page),while in the same time soliciting investors... (under the Privacy Policy??? third sentance) --> I would think this spells out the ultimate goal provided people read the Privacy Policy...

Much less smooth than Craig... although they both made the "dot com" give away of intention mistake, as far as I can tell... Craig appears to have realised that and is redirecting the trafic from to (which appears to have remained an unregulated denomination -- who knew it would stay this way for over a decade?) D.

Friday, December 7, 2007

You *too*, Om Malik?

Oh, Om...

You are definitely one of the people I would think would have no trouble seeing right through Craig's BS (you *know* lack of resources is NOT one of craigslist's problems... and pretty much everything he says is on shaky ground). So why go along with this? Why be a part of this ridiculous PR? I would have thought a lot more of you if you *wouldn't* have had...


P.S. anyways, take care! D.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Craig:"there is nothing altruistic about craigslist"

like it's hard to tell, now... -- you should have said so upfront! (those poor volunteers and sponsors and just trusting people that helped out with word of mouth and everything else would have had no reason to be altruistic towards you/craigslist, either... they just had no clue you would walk away with untold millions for years while denying the community that build craigslist basic things like customer service and improvements...) D.

Saturday, December 1, 2007

Craig's press keeps going strong...

(just mindlessly print what Craig says without looking into it ... if he says so himself, why bother checking!)

Craig, via Kron 4 : (2.44) "Craigslist (...) is only interested in politics as far as fighting online crime" [my emphasis]


P.S. just check out how much crime is going on on the site and what is craigslist actually doing about it? shouldn't this be required research, Brian? -- how can you just let Craig speak in your interview as thought it was his own press release? D.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

child prostitution: at what point it's just too much?

Jim is "evaluating suggestions"? [my emphasis] 9th paragraph from bottom; nobody should need to give them any suggestions! it's their for-profit company... and they are making huge profits year after year after year... by spending close to nothing -- how long can this keep going on? when are people going to wake up?


Monday, November 26, 2007

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Sounds like turkey...

Hi, Rachel!

Sounds like turkey to me :)… Just think about it: how many customer service people does craigslist employ? How many links would need to be sent it (especially when you consider all the bad stuff going on on the site)? — craigslist can’t possibly address more than a minute portion of that and it doesn’t… it also appears to have no intention to hire an adequate number of people (it’s been severely understaffed while walking away with ridiculously large profits for years). Yet all sorts of people keep talking Craig’s word as gospel and continue to sing him praises — go figure…


P.S. take care! D.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

the perils of believing craigslist...

yahoo got fooled! big time...:they are currently listing a half-truth as their top hit for "craigslist criticism"... (giving craigslist as the source)


P.S. and what's the truth? it's been appealed ("the complaint was dismissed but is on appeal" -- Newspaper Association of America; 7th line)... just don't count on craigslist telling you that... D.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

insights into craigslist...

Hi, Greg!

I think you'd get a much better insight into craigslist if you wait a little until The Arizona Republic is going to have to PAY Craig for that ad... and an even better idea when the initial "reasonable fee" will start creeping up (the number of places where craigslist charges for posting jobs has increased dramatically and gives no sign of easing up...)


P.S. take care! D.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

prostitution moving in: effect on the local communities

the broken window theory:" along with prostitution comes guns, along with prostitution comes drugs, along with prostitution comes exploitation of minors" (Robert James , Dekalb County Solicitor, GA via Fox 5, and Prostitution; towards the end of the video)

(prostitution) so much for the claim that craigslist makes it easier for cops...

Robert James, Dekalb County Solicitor, GA: "On the actual street corner one officer can make dozens of arrests, on the virtual street corner it may take 10 to 15 or 24 or 48 man hours to make one arrest" (second half of the video) D.

(more on) what would a non-profit competitor look like?

MORE: (11th comment)


It doesn't seem to have much to do with being in the right place at the right time, as far as I can see. New craigslist local sites are added all the time and in very different places -- it appears that all you have to do is give it time and wait for the site to grow...

As long as you have no real competition. Most people are really frustrated at the point when they need help -- there is just nobody to help most of the users in need of help (way too many users per customer service employee and it's getting worse every day). But as long as they can't go elsewhere... they are stuck with craigslist, however badly treated!

In some foreign places, there are local options that have done quite well. As far as I'm aware none of these were non-profits. So given enough time, they couldn't compete with a non-profit alternative either...


OK, Seth... show me! (9th comment)

How much money did Craig spend on PR *before* craigslist turned for profit? How much money did he spend up to that point, period? Apparently, not much at all... -- he got the people to pitch in and help and the media to sing him praises.

Did he plan it all out? may well be... but he didn't have to spend any money on PR to get the good press (and free publicity) and see the site grow enormously as a result.

Why couldn't someone else do this and NEVER turn for profit? Use all profits to further the mission like it was supposed to be: start out *and remain* a community service with a philanthropic mindset. The for profit models (such as the current craigslist) couldn't possibly compete.


Thursday, November 15, 2007

(Net Neutrality) the reason Craig "forgot"...

... to mention

Barack Obama is for "Net Neutrality" --> which would mean craigslist (and other for-profits) would NOT have to share in the long term costs of making more and more internet capabilities available to the public (the telcos would end up just charging you and me and the other "little guys" across the board, whether or not we use those expensive capabilities or not...) D.

what would a non-profit competitor look like?

MORE: (6th comment)

Seth, I don't think people would have to think those things right away for the non-profit to eventually be a big success (and put its for profit alternatives out of business). The non-profit would just have to do right by its users... and keep doing it!

For instance, if it charges for ads or allows ads on the site to get revenue --> just tell the users what that money would be used for and *do* that! as long as it goes towards serving them, great! if it keeps doing that... the word is gotta get out at some point!

I find it hard to believe that none of the effective media outlets (in terms of publicity) would report on the uniqueness of it: "little people$list has spent the 20K -- or whatever amount they were able to raise through ads -- on developing a sophisticated way of protecting the users' information against unreasonable government searches."

This is how craigslist got all that great and free publicity early on (and still gets it, 'cause reporters continue to be taken for a ride, as far as I can tell): by being UNIQUE (by being something the media wrote about *without* having to spend money on PR).


P.S. What I'm basically saying: the way to beat Craig (and his equivalents) at his own game is to DO what he *says*! BE the community service with a philanthropic mindset...

The for profit craigslist (or other similar entreprises) would eventually become irrelevant: who would put up with the retarded development of the site if they HAD an alternative? Who would choose NOT to have their information as protected against unreasonable government searches as possible... if they HAD an alternative? etc. etc. D.

I'm not sure what you mean, Seth. (third comment, followed by Seth's answer)

What burden? what people? Why would people working for non-profits that are paid the market salary etc. get any more tired or distracted or sloppy as far as researching things, if that's what you mean...

PR is not the end and all of everything: I don't think a non-profit would need to outspend the for profits, PRwise (that should be the least of their concerns since they wouldn't have anything to cover up).

Imagine craigslist would have stayed NON-profit. Would have done *exactly what it does*, EXCEPT *much much* better by spending huge net profits on figuring out how to best safeguard users info, among a host of other things important to the users. It could spend millions and millions on it! --> that would put the for profit alternative, that would just pocket all those profits (like the for profit craigslist appears to do) out of competition, as far as I can see...


Wednesday, November 14, 2007

comic relief: bummer! there goes my hope...

... that I had a "secret admirer" at Google who just got in there and fixed it! 'cause I said so.../joke D.

Ah -- I should have clarified the main issue...

Seth's answer (9th comment) and mine (10th comment)

EVEN MORE: the link to the entry had been the hit that was at the bottom of the first page of hits, pretty much uniformly across search engines...

MORE: the link that Google moved up was not exactly the link I gave in my post: I linked to the relevant comment, Google linked to the entry... [part of Seth's explanation was that Google was taking into consideration the phrase and the link, in an automatic fashion, I assume]

Correction: re: results for "craigslist criticism"

Sorry, Seth! you actually said "quite a few," not "most" (I guess I'm sensitive to the topic since I thought I did a pretty good job of not bringing up my blog unless necessary...) D.

Thanks, Seth!

Ah -- I should have better clarified the main issue. Of course, I appreciate you looked at it in general but here was what really puzzled me:

after I mentioned it on my blog, that link JUMPED from the bottom to the third (I would say that's pretty significant) AND is *staying* there -- which makes me think it wasn't something explained by normal variations in time -- AND that ONLY happened for Google...(not for the other search engines I checked -- those showed no significant change)


P.S. Again, I'm not at all familiar with these things -- that's why I asked you:)... I'm not sure what you mean when you are saying that most of the 140 pages when you search for "craigslist criticism" are spam? I hope you are not referring to *my* posts:), which do make up the bulk of it (I've been hoping somebody would take this topic out of my hands for a long time).

Although the topic of my blog is "craigslist criticism" I use this phrase very rarely. It's usually when I post a comment on a site and after a long discussion I just need to go... so I might suggest the person check out the blog *if* they need more information on this.

The vast majority of times when I make comments I don't even mention my blog (I enter it in the URL box if that's an option, just in case people want to check it out... but I'm just posting relevant comments to their post).

I do feel that I need to tag almost all the posts on my blog as "craigslist criticism" since this is the topic of my blog and I do try to stay on topic. I don't see how this could be regarded as "spam," if this is what you meant. They do not *all* show up when you do a search -- there is only one hit for my blog -- (if you want more you have to click for similar results).

There is relatively little spam among the results as far as I see... just some adult sites, that I suppose grab all key words they can get and possibly some innocents that list "craigslist" and "criticism" separately (I see that as an imperfection of the search engine, not as "spamming" by those people). D.

Friday, November 9, 2007

How did Google do it?

EVEN MORE: we'll see if Seth comes up with something... (3rd comment)

MORE: thanks for the comment, Seth! sorry for the delay... I didn't expect you to answer here but this is good!

here's the page

here's my comment

here's my thank-you-note-to-Google when I noticed the change (it may have happened earlier)

that page is still the third Google hit for "craigslist criticism"

that page is still at the bottom of the fist page of yahoo hits for "craigslist criticism" (well... worse than that, it's currently only the second hit on the second page of top hits -- it actually went down)

Thanks, Seth!


let's see if Seth has an idea... D.


here's another one for you:

-- there was a page -- not mine -- that I thought should have a higher rank than it did (it was barely on the bottom of the first page of results)

-- I *said so* on my blog...

-- a couple of days later, I noticed that the rank for that result increased significantly (got to third) and continues to stay the same

-- I just checked and "craigslist criticism" is NOT on Google's Open Directory (the article you linked to said that was the "human component" to Google search)

-- other search engines, such as yahoo and altavista kept the old (flawed, as far as I see it) order


P.S. I don't really NEED to know how it all happened but it would be interesting... if you have an idea. I just thought it was *way* cool!:) and made me love Google web search even more... D.

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Right, Susan! and... what do you *do* about it?

talk is cheap... and it's getting very "And, let me be clear," Best wrote. "We don't want illegal activity on our site. It is not welcome". (last paragraph)


P.S. unless you are brain dead, you know it's going to continue to happen if you don't figure out how to solve the problem -- if you keep treating it like it's NOT your problem, the laws are going to clarify it for you! (they are due for a huge update) D.

(prostitution) "craigslist is working with the police to get the bad guys" -- says *who*?

MORE: corrected the mistake...

ERRATA! ok, ok... I tried to clarify it and ended up introducing error... sorry!: it WASN'T the police that was ignored (at least not as far as we know) but the reporters who needed more detailed information from Craig&Co... (and that's consitently the case) ; you'd think giving info needed to clarify serious issues with the site would take precendence over shooting the breeze as far as Craig's email time was concerned...

hints as far as the reaction of police to the way craigslist handles such situations are much more subtle and understandably so... e.g. "Craigslist says that its 24 staff members cannot possibly flag all objectionable ads, but that hasn't stopped law enforcement officials from accusing them of enabling prostitution".[my emphasis] (Prostitution 2.0 through craigslist, downloadsquad, begining of last paragraph)

--> why would police say that? they may well have good reasons based on their experince with craigslist in such situations

and anyways, why does craigslist continue to be severely understaffed? the resources are certainly there... they have been for a long long time... so are they not enabling the horrible things that keep happening on the site by willingly handicapping their ability to adequately address such problems? ... and what of all that moral compass and philanthropic mindset they claim to have? -- what a sad joke! D.
Craig, of course... and journalists keep repeating that without checking with the police... as to craigslist's help in terms of providing needed info in such situation, just look at a good number of these cases -- there is usually no response from craigslist ("We tried to contact officials with Craigslist, but none of our phone calls or emails were returned"; last paragraph)


P.S. You'd think Craig should have no difficulty answering these emails since he seems to be answering any random person emailing for any reason whatsoever... (it's good he's answering them! it's definitely made him popular -- P.S. to response to Diane -- but that makes ignoring serious issues even more of problem...) D.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Thanks, Google! :)


(looks like they got that comment re: "craigslist criticism" on Craig's blog much higher on the list of top hits, as I think it should be.... -- it's currently lower than only two hits: my blog, and a link on The New York Time site Eileen helped with...)


P.S. and no, I haven't done anything to cause that... (aside from mentioning it on this blog)

P.P.S. looks like yahoo kept the old, flawed, order... D.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

same old, same old...

the one good thing about this podcast is that he calls Eileen, "my girlfriend" (not "the gf") -- she deserves at least that much respect -- , otherwise... same old, same old... -- if you've been following this blog you can probably spot all the tricks by now: vagueness, ambiguity, leading into confusing traps etc.


P.S. disappointed with the Berkeley audience: a couple of decent questions but they appear to have eaten up his BS answers... (poor framing and weak follow-ups) D.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

journalists digging for answers...

ENEN MORE: ok... looks like it's posted now (Nov 6th) ... and... surprise, surprise...(or not) a comment from Craig asking her to call/email? (looks like damage control, again, since the article is somewhat critical of Craig -- looks like she's cought on what looks to me like Craig's evasiveness: "the way to overcome that is to keep asking for examples and dig deeper into what he is saying, but that didn't seem to be working as well for me as it sometimes does"; end of 9th paragraph --> sould have given Heather credit for noticind this and saying it...) D.

I hope she doesn't fall in his trap like so many others have done before: sure she needs to talk to him but she also needs to try to be objective about what she's writing... so setting things aside and doing some independent research is absolutely necesary -- I hope she does it! D.

MORE: well, I don't know what's up with Heather... she either has no comments or she has one! here's what I see when I click on that link (I'm not sure if it's the same if others do it, if you just go to that entry it says no comment but my comment, number 57, must be there somewhere since it posts when I click on the link)

fine with me if she's got it hidden or something... hopefully she's got the message...

No Comments on Digging For Answers Without A Shovel »

October 31, 2007
Delia @ 8:53 am:

Hi, Heather!

I think it’s great that you are out digging for answers! — that’s what journalists are *supposed* to do…(and you certainly appear to have the credentials)

I would just suggest that you set aside what Craig (or any other interviewee) says and really look into those things…

e.g. “According to Craig in the interview, the community doesn’t care about fancy graphics or features, they just want it to do what it does” –> I’d look into this… feedback forum — it has a search function –is a good place to start: what has the community asked for and for how long? (more than a rudimentary search function is one of the obvious candidates)


P.S. good luck with everything and take care! D.

Hi, Heather!

I think it's great that you are out digging for answers! -- that’s what journalists are *supposed* to do...(and you certainly appear to have the credentials)

I would just suggest that you set aside what Craig (or any other interviewee) says and really look into those things...

e.g. "According to Craig in the interview, the community doesn’t care about fancy graphics or features, they just want it to do what it does" --> I'd look into this... feedback forum -- it has a search function --is a good place to start: what has the community asked for and for how long? (more than a rudimentary search function is one of the obvious candidates)


P.S. good luck with everything and take care! D.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Katherine Ann Olson: 1st craigsist murder... or *was* it?

MORE: CNN eat it up also... (just took it from KARE and associated their name with it): "The Craigslist founder says this has *never* happened before."(1:58) ... really? he says so? well, that's ALL we need to know! -- he is reporting this story, isn't he...? D.
Craig, via KARE 11 News:"I can't recall a single case like it" (...) "This is the worst that I can recall" (5th paragraph, The Register, Woman murdered after answering craigslist ad -- flaky link)


P.S. and the reporters fell for it again... (just took Craig's word for it and failed to check -- Craig's own press... isn't it journalistic malpractice not to at least mention the case of the still missing Donna Jou?)

P.P.S. notice the effectiveness of his vagueness and ambiguity, again... (it seems to lead even seasoned professionals -- hordes of them -- to believe what he appears to want them to believe, when that is not at all the case...) D.

Jimmy puts Craig to shame...

Jimmy, via Valleywag: "I am 100 percent fully supportive of Wikipedia remaining just as it is: a charitable project. Period."


P.S. good to hear that, Jimmy:) ... D.

Monday, October 29, 2007

comic relief: craigslist search mentioned next to Google search...

that *is* funny!


P.S. craigslist search has been kept at rudimentary level apparently to "save" money (people have been begging for an upgrade forever...) -- I suppose it all adds up if your goal is to end up with huge net profits and craigslist appears to have done a spectacular job at that since switching to for profit in 1999...

P.P.S. the hefty cash cow must be obese by now... D.

the appearent oddities of search engine hit rankings...

Technorati is not the only one that baffles me... I love Google! (web search) and they appear to love me back... (with some lapses, they have been giving my blog as the top hit for "craigslist criticism" for a long long time...; they even used it to promote Blogger) but that doesn't mean I understand it! for instance, I would have never guessed that a comment re: "craigslist criticism" on Craig's blog would only make the bottom of the first page of hits...


P.S. about the same for yahoo... D.

Thanks again, Eileen!

Thanks again, Eileen! thanks for helping out, again...(you were the one who got a link to my blog on the New York Times site way back when I had barely started the blog -- it seems to have helped a lot!)


P.S. I'm pleasantly surprised that you appear to have kept up with my blog. I hope you enjoy it:). BTW, there is nothing *personal* about the jokes on that blog, I just need some comic relief once in a while... (unpleasant topic most of the time)

P.P..S. Best of luck with everything! D.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

just as relevant to this blog...

does craigslist target?

not a biggie ... but could use some help...

I'm still baffled by this: if anybody knows how that could happen... (a Technorati insider maybe?:), please let me know!


P.S. thanks to Seth for some good hints! D.

(Net Neutrality) Craig keeps misrepresenting...

... the issue and Seth's got it right!


P.S. left a comment for Seth, to that blog entry:


I'm with you on this one... actually, it reminds me of one of my comments on Jeff Jarvis' blog (the seeking compensation as a PR person part)


P.S. BTW, I sent you an email yesterday with a little request... (don't worry if you just didn't have the time for it -- just wanted to make sure you got it) D.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Hmmm... looks like Craig's liveblogging got dumped...

EVEN MORE: well, *as of Halloween*...they got it back -- I don't know if they did it on purpose... it is sort of scary... kidding, kidding:) ... D.

MORE: well... it just got dumped from the main Colb-blog... (it's still there if you search for it... not that you'd have good reason to do that... and how many people would think of searching for it anyways... they should have had a plain entry for that instalment of the show so people could post pertinent comments -- Craig's liveblogging was peripheral to the show at best... good thinking to take it off the main blog, at least...) D.

from the Colbert Nation site -- which is UNofficially related to the Colbert Report show -- (there were a couple of his entries there, starting on October 18th -- looks like they didn't keep any of it... :) interesting -- I for one would have posted a comment to that show instalment on the Colb-Blog but NOT to Craig's entry -- after asking disingenuous questions and then claiming *I* was the one "stalking" he deserves nothing of the kind...)


P.S. does that mean you got my message, Stephen? ;)...

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Stephen Colbert is entirely forgiven...


You can do MUCH better than that... (but you are entirely forgiven on account of your performance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner :) -- there just isn't much you can do "wrong" after that...) Best of luck with everything!


P.S. just a little hint: (re: "why haven't you sold for a billion dollars?") at the current rate of revenue increases (it reportedly went up again by 75mill while expenses continue to be kept ridiculously low), how long will it take for that money to end up in Craig&Co's pockets *without* selling? D.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

so... how about it Stephen?

Stephen Dubner:

So... how about it, Stephen? Are you going to write that no-nonsense-article about craigslist? pretty please?:) I’m tired of thinking journalists are a bunch of clueless guys and gals that can be taken for a ride... forever! (it's only been about a decade...)

I'll give you three major hints:

#1. re: why don't they "sell out"? --> at the current rate of revenue increases (it reportedly went up again by another 75mill while expenses continue to be kept ridiculously low), how long will it take for that money to end up in Craig&Co's pockets *without* selling? (the highest valuation for craigslist was around 2 billion...)

#2 "great customer service!" --> 25 employees for how MANY users? (the emperor has no clothes...)

#3 WHY did Craig switch from non-profit to for profit in 1999? (keep in mind that staying non-profit would have provided Craig and everyone else employed a decent living -- the non-profit set up allows for normal salaries, benefits etc.--; it would have also meant that net profits would have been spent on things like customer service and improvements instead of ending up in Craig's, Jim's and the other shareholders' pockets)


Friday, October 19, 2007

anyways, I was looking for a picture...


MORE: if anybody knows where it is or can find it, please let me know! or even better, send it over to Stephen Colbert (a comment to that particular show online or on his blog may be the best way to do it); thanks! D.
that contradicts what Craig said on the Stephen Colbert show (that he *never* takes his shoes off for the camera: 1:41 time mark) : I think it was an older article, something like "A guy named Craig," -- may actually be one of the pictures that originally went with that article -- a shoeless Craig on a couch...)


Saturday, October 13, 2007

Jim is vague and ambiguous again...


that's vague and ambiguous: what's "generally" doing in that statement? re: "we *generally* don’t view information submitted by our users as data to be used for other purposes" (my emphasis); as usual, I think you are taken for a ride...


P.S. take care, anyways! D.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

a breath of fresh air...

Joe DiStefano,

you made my day! what a breath of fresh air...: the vast majority of journalists that write about craigslist sound like embarrassing lap dogs


P.S. keep it up... on this forum and/or elsewhere D.

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

let them eat cake!

at this rate, the profits will be in the billions in no time, while expenses are kept ridiculously low: who says the community that built craigslist should have basic things like customer service and improvements... -- "let them eat cake!"


P.S. low billions (which is the highest valuation for craigslist) is nothing... Craig&Co can milk much more without selling (it's just that you'd think it would blow up at some point -- the number of users left to talk to themselves will be just too high for the scheme to still work... so, yeah, Craig is gambling) D.

Friday, October 5, 2007

the false impression given by ""


I don't know if you are doing this knowingly or not but "dot-org" is a misleading characterization of craigslist. Just it case you need some clarification, I think Ryan Blitstein gave the best one around in his article Craig$ in the SFWeekly:

" the false impression that the site is a nonprofit, by using ".org," an extension almost exclusively used by nonprofit companies and foundations. Craigslist's marketing materials call this "a symbol of our service mission and non-corporate culture." (, which the company also owns, draws far less traffic.) It permits Newmark to use the word "non-commercial" twice on Craigslist's "Mission and History" page, and to bury the phrase "No charges, except for job postings" in the third line from the bottom. It means establishing a separate nonprofit, the Craigslist Foundation, which trains other nonprofits in marketing, technology, and fundraising skills, but makes no grants, has no endowment, and charges for many of its training events. This year, Craigslist will provide less than half of the foundation's $240,000 budget."


P.S. take care! D.

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

I hope Stephen writes an article on this


This is not bad for gathering info but I hope you use it to write an article that raises the real questions about craigslist (whether or not you succeed in getting Craig/Jim to answer them -- I doubt it...).


P.S. look at it as a great opportunity (this is one topic that MSM has done a terrible job at covering and the blogosphere hasn't done much better, either...) Good luck! D.

new fees = progress... for the shareholders?

re: "As is usually the case when fees are introduced or raised, Craigslist is presenting this change as progress."

Hi, Michael!

I would have looked into that claim: what happens with that money? -- it appears to go straight into Craig&Co's pockets instead of being used to provide customer service and inprovements...


Monday, September 24, 2007

Jim *is* smiling, Lucy...

he just won't let you see it: he is keeping the expenses ridiculously low (this means denying the community that made craigslist what it is basic things like customer service -- most users in need of help just can't get it... while the money is sitting in the bank accounts? (17th paragraph)... whose bank accounts? Jim&Craig's of course...

the result of keeping expenses very low is huge net profits that end-up in the shareholders' pockets because Craig switched to for profit in 1999 -- if that's NOT pocketing the money, I don't know what is...


P.S. and they have the nerve to talk about customer service, philanthropic mindset and all that -- bullshit of the century... D.

Friday, September 21, 2007

Monday, September 17, 2007

current profits

MORE: craigslist to charge in Chicago, Orange county, CA, Portland and Sacramento (they are just proposing the fee? yeah, right... just see what happened in the case of previous "proposals"...) D.

Hi, Matthew!

Your $50 million estimate seems to be pretty old (craigslist has added a bunch of cities to the "pay list" and keeps doing it in a rapid succession -- that has to dramatically boost profits since they are not using the extra money for things like customer service or improvement (although the profits are getting to be ridiculously large -- given the claim to be "non-commercial" -- craigslist remains severely understaffed and severely underdeveloped).


Monday, September 10, 2007

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

(prostitution, drugs etc.) is craigslist an accomplice?

looks like it might be... (when it comes to federal law -- 3rd paragraph)


P.S. Craig seems to be dizzy again: on his blog, he is talking about his trivial profile in the Wall Street Journal instead of mentioning the very serious article on craigslist prostitution in The New York Times...? D.

(prostitution) craigslist "helping out"...

MORE: College Call Girl, The Price (4th paragraph) : "I want to be very clear that I recommend this lifestyle for no one. It is easy enough to cross the line because the line is invisible. Much harder still to go back, to return to a time when you shared no piece of yourself with strange men, men you don’t like, even men who don’t like you. I detached myself completely from the work I was doing and felt that I was getting off scot-free with minimal psychological impact. I was having fun at first; I felt beautiful and confident and adored and I was financially secure for the first time ever. But those nights found their way underneath my skin. They just burrowed down deep under the folds of my subconscious like a rat nestled at the bottom of a shopping bag."
Jossip: "Would you have gotten into prostitution without Craigslist?"
College Call Girl: No chance
(2nd question)

Thursday, August 30, 2007

let the Kool Aid rule...

MORE: where is all this going? (at this rate, the profits are going to reach billion level -- what is Craig going to tell people then? "the trillionaire life is really lousy... *we* wouldn't do that, now... would we?" yes, you would... ) D.

"He doesn't believe in making more than a small profit..." -- yeah, that's why he keeps adding a fee for posting jobs in more and more cities at the point when they hit critical mass... (and refuses to spend money on customer service and improvements...) D.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

"Keeping Score In The Money Race..."

now, that sounds like the kind of thing Craig should be involved in... -- maybe if he is on the board for such things, nobody is going to wonder where are those craigslist profits going... and what's with all his empty talk...D.

Sunday, August 26, 2007

craigslist foundation PR: all the spin that's fit to print

Craig hires another flack... Liane? what... Susan wasn't bulshitting enough? "there is more to craigslist than meets the eye" -- you have no idea, Liane... you have *no* idea... D.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

child prostitution: plenty of profits...

MORE: and ...wouldn't you know it, Craig is back at it! congratulating himself... (who cares that he is personally doing "customer service"? he seems to be pretty clueless most of the time and how is that supposed to solve anything...? he should be getting competent people instead, enough of them and pay them well so the problems can be solved -- he comes across like either a monumental idiot or a fast talking crook...) D.

...As I was telling Seth... I am tired of this topic.... but good God! why won't craigslist spend some of those humongous profits to address its child prostitution problem? So what if it's not illegal ( last paragraph) to have such ads on the site? it *should* be! what's wrong with these people who defend it? how could it help to provide an efficient way of doing such things? once in a while the police catches a couple of cases... but that's got to be minute compared with the increase in child prostitution cases due to the ease provided by craigslist...


Monday, August 20, 2007

where are you, Charlie Rose...

oh... what a credulous interviewer... he did ask occasional good questions (e.g. the upcoming fee for Chicago) but he's taking Craig's answers as gospel -- where are you Charlie Rose...


P.S. left a suggestion...

Hi Michael!

If you haven't done that already, I think you may benefit from watching Charlie Rose interview Craig...(it's on Google video)


P. S. take care! D.

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Friday, August 17, 2007

(looks like) Craig planned an accident...

Craig: "craigslist is a company, well... let's say accident"...(3.20)

let's see... Craig registered a commercial website on his own name "" as "Newmark Enterprises" but he didn't plan it... it was just an accident... (how much more ridicuous can he get?)


P.S. notice his ambiguity again...

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Craig is a marketer...

alright ... just like he's an entrepreneur (as much as he would like people to believe otherwise...) D.

Monday, August 13, 2007

Sunday, August 12, 2007

another "pro" publication that doesn't seem to be worth much...

MORE: they also removed my comment after they had posted it -- what's the word?:)... (starts with a "p"...)
... as far as getting accurate info about craigslist goes... (reminds me of webpronews) D.

Saturday, August 11, 2007

If you say so, Jim...("the masses" = Craig&Jim; "decent living"= untold millions...)

Keith McArthur, The Globe and Mail update: "The former hippie from Ann Arbor, Mich., says he's even come to accept that capitalism is the best way to "organize societal resources" to provide the masses with a decent living" (2nd paragraph)


P.S. keep in mind that non-profits can provide people (including the owners) with a decent living (normal salaries and benefits), the difference is that the owners don't get to pocket the profits... D.

Friday, August 10, 2007

craigslist went down even before...

... serious competition showed up...

Hi! (to whoever is writing this -- it wasn't apparent)

well, craigslist used to be #7, no? so it's been going down even prior to Kijiji taking on their turf...or Facebook taking about being a marketplace themselves...


Thursday, August 9, 2007

(in the past 3 mo) craigslist views per user increased by 5%... *why*?

according to Alexa -- is this a result of banning Listpic? (people have to spend a lot more time looking at a lot more pages in order to find what interests them and might even give up early) D.

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Craig: Charlie asked tough questions...

well, it's good Craig acknowledges this (answer to second question) -- it's just that plenty of Charlie's good questions, such as those about ownership and profits had been asked before... it was just that Craig never answered them... so... Charlie's real merit was getting Craig to answer...


P.S. makes you wonder why would Craig answer only when Charlie asked these questions but not others... D.

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

whatever happned with Sellius? (did Craig throw them a bone?)

MORE: oh, the sound of sucking up...
sort of looks like it -- they had some pretty good questions back a while...


P.S. a bit of attention from Craig, and they seem to have forgotten all about it... D.

Monday, August 6, 2007

nothing (necessarily) wrong with charging -- pocketing the money is the problem...

re: Craig (about charging money for real estate ads): "It was simply a fix to a problem."
(end of third paragraph)


P.S. that "financial windfall" should have gone towards customer service and improvements instead of adding more millions for the shareholders... D.

Sunday, August 5, 2007

will craigslist ban Wipbox?

it certainly appears to help users but does it technically violate craigslist's terms of use (agree not to:"u) use automated means, including spiders, robots, crawlers, data mining tools, or the like to download data from the Service - unless expressly permitted by craigslist") and will craigslist do anything about it?


P.S. Wipbox gets their ebay data through dataunion (which licenses the ebay content to them) but it appears that they do not have permission to use the craigslist data. D.

Saturday, August 4, 2007

Is Craig a pimp?

some people think so... it all depends on whether he profits from all that prostitution going on on the site... Steven has unveiled that craigslist's "secret sauce" was sex related... but how much of those all important overall hits (which presumably bring advertisers to the paying sections) are really a result of prostitution? D.

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Owen's story

just so you don't get distracted by the last comments by Seth on Dan Gillmor's blog, here's a good summary of Owen's story (the opinion is a bit off, I'll explain later):

"My only point was to mention that they lied, outright lied, when they said they didn't benefit financially from the eBay transaction, and that they acted in poor character when they decided to malign the co-founded Phillip Knowlton, who did nothing to deserve this treatment. Phillip walked away with a lot of money, but he was also demonized, by people whom he had formerly trusted. And again, as was reported above, the only reason he sold was because he was being squeezed out." (comment by Valleygurl in Valleywag)

the thing is that, as I said on Dan Gillmor's blog... if we go by what Craig said on his blog, on the issue of having profited from the transaction, he didn't straight out lie... was he vague and ambiguous, which resulted in having even seasoned journalists believe he didn't profit financially? -- absolutely! and that's nothing new for Craig...(it seems to be his trademark -- he appears to be extremely good with ambiguity: things just "happen" to click in his interest, over and over and over... the chance that would just happen seems to be minute) ... that's another reason why I found Owen's story quite plausible...

however, on the issue of Phillip Knowlton's part in the affair, Vallygurl would be correct... craigslist was way more than just vague and ambiguous: it demonised somebody they temselves squeezed out, somebody that as a consequence had no choice but to sell...

and the real straight out lie seems to be the "symbolic ownership" (no dollar value) Craig talks about... which is at the crux of Craig's whole story (as we know today, craigslist was profitable at the time -- I don't think that was publicly known in 2004 when Craig told his story)


P.S. keep in mind that Owen's story does NOT come with proof attached (but then, neither does Craig's ...)

P.P.S. also, as far as I'm concerned, bringing to light the truth about things other publications got wrong is the redeeming value of tabloids such as Valleywag... D.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

(Valleywag) Owen brings me back from the break...

just a quick note: you sound like a smart guy, Owen;)...

P.S. I'll have plenty of commentary on this when I get back for good at the end of my break. D.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

(more dust in your eyes) Craig's control over craigslist

Craig:"As a result, I don't have anywhere as much control [because I own less shares]" (16.52mi)

regardless how many shares he owns or doesn't own, he is still the chairman of craigslist (so he does have control)


P.S. I've been spending way too much time on this lately, I need to go back to spending no more than a couple of minutes a day and before that... I'm going to take a week break... take care! D.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Charlie's interview was a great start...

His was the best interviewer ever... by far! he left the competition in the dust by stopping Craig's tap dance and calling him on things... but there are a couple of things that Craig still managed to pass unchallenged...

Here's the worst of them:

#1 philantropy: given all the talk and all the profits why doesn't Craig/craigslist help out those in need?

Craig: "They don't need our money"(19.49) what??? he looks at the Gates foundation and the like and decides that since those are well founded there is just no need for Craig/craigslist philantropic contribution in that arena?

Craig:"the money is better spent when I talk up OneVoice (...)"(19.57) what money? let's say he just onws 25% of craigslist --> that's still a WHOLE lot of money... giving Jay $10,000 to start his project and founding a restroom in a high school in West Bank are both good things... but they are nowhere where his philanthropy should be given his profits AND his talk...

and let's not forget craigslist itself... would they have NOT started as a non-profit, asked for and accepted peoples' contributions and would they have said nothing about the "philanthropic mind set" and "moral compass"... the normal expectations would have been much lower

OR would craigslist had spent the profits on customer service and improvement and just provided normal salaries like it was supposed to do... there would have been no other "philanthropy" to worry about -- craigslist would have been in fact the community service business operating like a public trust Craig claims it is...


P.S. But we all know that's not at all the case.... craigslist is NOT a non--profit (hasn't been for a long long time) so let's stop him from continuing to peddle all that bullshit... and insulting everybody's intelligence... Charlie's interview was a great start! D.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Craig fights scams all day?

his scam spotting skills appear to be nonexistent (check out the email he sent to this guy, included in that comment)


Friday, July 20, 2007

Charlie did better than I thought...:)

he did get some answers! Craig currently does NOT own 75% of craigslist (16.38 min) ; he owns no more than 50% (17.04 min) -- not a surprise... (to me... but it should give David a shock...)

But can Craig be trusted to tell the truth? He conceeds that he has an interest in both the reality and the perception (17.33 min) --> this suggests that, contrary to his normal spiel (he is still for the most part repeating in this interview), he is keenly aware of the situation... he does know what's going on! and he is also well aware what impact the truth/myth have... which means he's apparently easy going, I-don't-know-I-don't-care-thing is not to be taken seriously... This was Charlie's biggest accomplishement with this interview... I think... (making it clear he is not buying the non-sense and pressing until he got some "confessions"...)


P.S. In a way I'm relieved -- it would have been kind of sad to find out he actually meant all that non-sense and for all this time I've been trying to make sense out of the ramblings of an idiot...

Alright, then! He is NOT an idiot... but is he a crook? quite possibly... Did he already sell out? (related or unrelated to the ebay sell) contrary to telling the craigslisters and the public that he would never do that... and what's with the non-sense self-congratulation on an almost nonexistent customer service? and what's up with the retarded development of the site? the apearent answer is: it all saves money! and this is in his financial interest... -- it smells too much like deceit (#8) and fraud... D.

Craig is getting irritated? (now... don't do that! Charlie Rose...:)

about time... prominent interviewers are finally asking the real questions... and pressing for answers! (even if Charlie didn't get the answers -- Craig has been hiding inconvenient info for about a decade... like how much he's been profiting from what was supposed to be a non-profit... this stuff should have been out it the open all along.... -- firmly asking these questions on PBS is good progress!)


P.S. there are still plenty of dummies in the audience, though... :)
(not Charlie's fault...) D.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Need help!

MORE: It's kind of sad to think I was the only one paying attention... (and I dread having to listen to that old stuff again -- it was plenty boring the first time around...): how can it be possible that people making a living by writing about craigslist miss crucial things... like David, where does he get off claiming Craig owns 75% of craigslist when the evidence is strongly against it...? And no reaction when people point out the problems with that... that must be nice, keep churning BS and keep getting paid for it (whether people notice or not...) -- I'm thinking less of webpronews as a result.... ("pro"???) D.
anybody remember a podcast/speech/interview where Craig said his shares of crigslist went under 50% when he made Jim CEO? (I hope it's still out there... it hasn't been removed or something...)


P.S. ohh... and another thing... D.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

*paying* customers are also ignored...

they wonder why... (could it be because craigslist only really cares about taking their money?) D.

Has Craig already soldout?

MORE: re: "Craig's sellout": the idea was that the "employee sell off" was a necessary cover up, Craig couldn't have straight out sold his own shares and gotten away with collecting huge financial benefits while in the same time keeping the trust of the users -- the ebay and craigslist special forum seems to be missing those threads...[beginning of the P.S. to that entry]) D.

some people thought so back in August 2004 (when he wasn't exactly forthcoming in terms of his control over and the details of the 25% sell to ebay: ... but in any case, he may well be just a minority shareholder at this point, owning something in the vicinity of what ebay owns (at a minimum, it seems that aside from the 25% he appears to have given to Phillip Knowlton, he gave craigslist shares at least to two more people: Nancy Melone -- the former craigslist CEO-- and Jim Buckmaster -- the current craigslist CEO)


P.S. even if not directly (althought some people thought that was also the case) Craig appears to have benefited financially from the sell to ebay -- craigslist got huge publicity as a result, that seems to have helped a lot... financially... (in terms of craigslist's profits)

P.P.S. hmm... wondering if Craig's untold "part" in the ebay sale -- at least one of them -- was to stay involved with craigslist (ebay's money could have turned to dust if Craig just quit... or sold.. or whatever: a big part of the craigslist myth appears to be the idea that Craig is out there watching...:could ebay have required that Craig stays on indefinitely as a condition of the 25% sale that benefited all craigslist shareholders, including Craig?) D.

Monday, July 16, 2007

craigslist' customer service is just not *immediate*? (what a joke...)

Gina is right... for the most part, craigslist's customer service is just nonexistent... (most people in need of help are simply ignored... they may get a meaningless response from Craig&Co but that's about it...) D.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Wikipedia page on "craigslist": misleading statment (sounds like PR...)

Rocksanddirt: "As of June 2007, there have been no substantive changes to the usefulness or non-advertising nature of the site (still no banner adds, still only charging for a few services to businesses)."

yeah, right... the locations where craigslist charges a fee have increased dramatically (there have been a series of cities added to the list since 2004...) and jobs is no longer the only category where a fee must be paid to advertise...


P.S. and of course a dramatic increase in the money that craigslist appears to pocket was a direct result of these changes... and the trend gives no sign of slowing down...

P.P.S. Rocksanddirt's Wikipedia user page sounds suspicious to me... D.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

craigslist up to no good...

there are probably plenty of people who never really bought craigslist's spiel (good news!) ... they just found it difficult to say it given how much nonsense was circulating (and it still is... is just that once some visible people start talking -- such as Andrew Clark -- ... it's easier for others to come out and say what were they really thinking...)

re: Dan Blacharski: "Nonetheless, whenever a company, in this case Craigslist, claims to have any sort of "for the common good" ethos, and further claims not to care about profits, I have to wonder what they're up to. It's like whenever anybody precedes a business deal discussion by telling me what a good Christian they are. Whenever I hear that, it usually means they're up to no good. And so, I've never really bought into the whole Craigslist ideal."


Tuesday, July 10, 2007

(craigslist started as a NON-profit) Hurray for Mequoda Daily!

re: Kim Mateus: "The originally-non-profit site was incorporated in 1999"
(they are still blind to plenty of other issues but... hey! at least they got this one right...:)


P.S. you'd be surprised how many vocal craigslist enthusiasts don't know that... (e.g. : J.D.: "I don't recall whether Craigslist was originally a nonprofit -- i didn't think they were"; time stamp: Mar 13, 2007 4:33:08 PM)

Monday, July 9, 2007

Yes, Nick... Craig's modesty is fake...

just not in the way you suggest...


P.S. things like bringing to light the truth about craigslist/Craig could be one good way for that Valleywag of yours to gain some real respectability... D.

Saturday, July 7, 2007

Craig is no entrepreneur ... right? (no business plan etc.)

any idea what was the address (which was the craigslist address for 1996 - 1997) registered as?

"Newmark Enterprises" ...


P.S. looks like Craig had entrepreneurial ambitions from the very beginning... (re: "Online Since: 24-Oct-1995" under "Site Stats")

Friday, July 6, 2007

craigslist acting like a walled garden...

Craig Donato (Oodle), answering Donna Bogatin's question:" Craigslist a walled garden? Yes, I guess you could say they are acting like one. They are putting up a wall between the listings that consumers publish in their marketplace and those consumers that may want to use a search engine or other tool to help them shop with online classifieds"


P.S. great info again! (I just wish Donna could overcome craigslist's PR...and she just might:) -- she keeps getting pretty good info... you'd think at some point she would just let go of all that non-sense...) D.

Thursday, July 5, 2007

Howard:"Newmark and Buckmaster telling users what they want..."

yep! I agree with Howard on this... I just think he's mistaken on the "socialist classified utopia" thing -- as I was saying earlier on, we'll see what happens...


P.S. oh... and I think Lucas is right on the profit seeking thing...

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Donna keeps embarassing herself...

... just can't stop eating up their goofy PR... (as I was saying, once you've bought the craigslist spiel... it's hard to think straight...) D.

Monday, July 2, 2007

interesting character: 1stskeptic

1stskeptic :not a bad thread... some of his later posts were yanked... (he was going to do an article and include this experience with craigslist and inviting users to email him in connection with this).


P.S. I'm getting some odd phone calls... coming from an 800 number (G. called to see what the heck it was all about just to have someone hang up on him when he said he just needed to know what this number was... -- I hope it has nothing to do with this blog, a while ago I had to get rid of a Trojan horse on my computer...) D.

Sunday, July 1, 2007

Craig starts responding to comments on his blog...

... why now? he "just figured out" his typekey account... (or so his story goes... -- a "hard-core programmer" who takes months to figure out something as basic as an account? ) D.

Saturday, June 30, 2007

craigslist expenses: how hard can it be to come up with a good estimate?

Jim:"Craigslist uses a 3 tier architecture:Cache->Web->Database and deploys approximately 200 Intel-based servers built to our specs with a LAMP (linux, apache, mysql, perl) framework. Mod_perl , mod_gzip; 175,000 page views per kilowatt-hour" (answer to forth question)

and they have 24 employees... and "approximately 7.5 billion" pageviews per month
(answer to sixth question)

you'd think anybody familiar with the type of business should have no problem figuring out how much does that cost...


P.S. Again,(P.S. for that entry), Donna deserves credit for having gotten a more detailed breakdown of what it takes to run craigslist than I've previously seen... D.

Friday, June 29, 2007

April Fool's joke... or *was* it?

UPDATE: sorry, the link below was wrong (should be fine now -- just click on the the "CL ad plan" link)

Banner ads wasn't the means... but it appears that craigslist got that extra mountain of cash some other way...


P.S. it's striking how familiar the B.S. tap dance is: "constructive" use of feedback, claimed community consensus , made up statistics... D.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

(looks like) Craig can't sleep at night...

... worrying about other peoples' dishonesty... (he may well have some sort of a dysfunction -- he keeps claiming he does...) D.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

what happened with Nancy Melone's share of craigslist?

early on, there were only three people at craigslist: Craig, Nancy Melone (listed as CEO) and Phillip Knowlton... even if Phillip was the one who sold the 25% to ebay and not Nancy, as I though might have happened (Craig says the one who sold was a "he," so IF Craig can be trusted not to straight out lie... Nancy didn't sell to ebay), what did Nancy do with her share? (Nancy left craigslist on unequivocally bad terms...)


P.S. a 50/25/25 split between Craig, Nancy and Phillip makes sense in the light of what Craig has said about his shares of craigslist having gone under 50% only when he made Jim CEO

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Howard gives Donna some good pointers...

EVEN MORE: Same tactic Jennifer fell for

MORE: same tactic here (Jim) and here (Craig: "we don't know what to do with the money")... just listen to the interviews, speeches etc. (they are full of this crap...)
re: (purposefully) misconstruing inconvenient questions


P.S. still, Donna deserves some credit for having asked some real questions, this time... (her serve wasn't bad but she needs to work on her backhand:) D.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

(vague and ambiguous) Jim on craigslist's current revenue

MORE: in any case, unless giving 1% of revenues to charity (aka the Craigslist Foundation) can also not be relied upon... estimating craigslist's total revenues (by multiplying by 100) sould be a pretty accurate method... D.

Jim, in an email to Andrew Clark of the Guardian: "We couldn't in good conscience recommend relying upon the figures you have mentioned (or any other publicly available figures for that matter) for the purpose of accurately estimating revenue" (15th paragraph)

notice Jim just muddles up the issue (he gives no clue in what direction the estimates are off or what is the scale of the error...)


Saturday, June 23, 2007

"where does the money go?"

MORE: wrong answer...

introducing a real estate fee for NY, for instance, was said to increase craigslist's revenues by 10% -- Jim hasn't denied it, there is an article somewhere --; there appears to be no relationship between craigslist's increases of revenues as a result of imposing a fee in new cities and the costs of running the site... (the only apparent relationship with anything is the "maturing" of the local markets in case -- reaching the "critical mass") ; as to introducing fees for categories that were previously free, such in the case of real estate, I think we will see more and more of that as time passes... until everything will be monetized... ; I would also expect price increases... D.

best question! (that has been asked every time new cities were going to have to pay...)


P.S. this shouldn't be a question... the money should go towards *paying the bills* (customer service and improvements) -- this is what Craig said when he started charging -- but it certainly appears go straight into Craig&Co's pockets....

Friday, June 22, 2007

(when it comes to image) every little bit helps...

Mathew, I think Craig is an *investor* in Daylife (saying that he "has helped financially" gives the wrong idea that he is a *donor* of some sort...) D.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

what feels right for Craig...

Craig: "Do what feels right, and then follow through with it"

well, if for Craig it feels right to just pocket the money (instead of spending it on customer service and improvements) ... I must say... he's certainly followed through with it! :) D.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

totally honest?


not a grudge... if you want more detail, feel free to check out my craigslist criticism blog (it appears to have motivated some people to really look into things such as Craig's honesty -- Mark Rose, for instance)


P.S. but if you are JUST trilled that, at this point, craigslist is free for the purposes you want to use it... you may just want to ...forget about looking into things... don't worry, be happy! sort of thing :)... D.

follow up for Gil


Well, you *did* say "totally honest" in your original post (that's why you got a comment from me).

As to his "manner and sensibility" it may all be an "act" as you say :)...

And pocketing millions after millions... year after year after year... (money that should have been spent on customer service and improvements) is not a virtue as far as I can see...

But if you've got your mind made up, you've got your mind made up...


P.S. anyways, take care! D.

re:"It doesn’t seem like a big deal, its totally simple, *totally honest* [my emphasis]…and hugely successful. Makes you think!"

Hi, Gil!

yes, it should!


P.S. you may want to check out Andrew's Clark recent article in the Guardian...

P.P.S. take care! D.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

isn't this embezzlement?

they've said (over and over and over) that craigslist was non-commercial, that Craig just wanted to give something back to the community (this claim is still on the craigslist site today) so the community trusted Craig&Co that they were honest, that they were going to charge to *pay the bills*, as they asked...


P.S. instead, craigslist appears to have severely violated that trust by pocketing millions and millions of dollars, year after year after year... D

Friday, June 15, 2007

Craig&Co asked how to pay the bills (*not* how to get rich off of craigslist...)

MORE: there is plenty more on this in prior entries

re: "In 1998 Craig asked craigslist users how to cover the cost of running the site."
(first question under "Background")


P.S. while the costs have been kept as low as possible (minimal customer service and improvements) millions and millions of dollars seem to have just disappeared... D.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

(Listpic moves to Oodle) innovators should skip craigslist altogether...

looks like they are only interested in getting peoples' ideas... for free, of course (Craig, Jim &Co are the ONLY ones entitled to make money, dont forget...), without giving them any recognition and treating innovators like they are bad news -- don't even tell them what you are thinking! (just do your own thing or go to places that appreciate what you are doing and treat you well... craigslist doesn't desirve a moment of your time!)


Monday, June 11, 2007

craigslist appears to make things up...

re: what the community wants/needs to suit their own interests...

e.g. Jim:"We have a sense that small employers don't find a fee burdensome" -- 8th paragraph under the sekers speak up" heading (Jim is usually no this sloppy -- notice he is talking absolutes here, referring to all small employers ... how on earth could that be true?)

He is also vague and ambiguous (looks like Craig's school): at least some of the small employers are very likely to find the $25 $ fee "proposed" burdensome -- just read their posts in the special forum -- (but Jim is talking about "a fee," not the specific fee in case).


P.S. the MSM seems to be eating it up again (re" craigslist proposes [my emphasis] charging the $25 fee to employers looking for workers in Sacramento, Orange County, Chicago and Portland, Ore." ; 4th paragraph... like there is any real chance they are not going to charge... -- looking at what happened in prior circumstances and at least mentioning it seems to have been too much work for them...) D.