Monday, April 30, 2007

Wikipedia page on "craigslist": millions in revenues back in 2004 --> NOT a "speculation"...

MORE: more recently, same kind of people have estimated profits to be in the tens of millions...(like $50-$70 at one point) and it seems that they keep going up at impressive rates (the places and things they charge for are increasing while the costs appear to stay about the same, no significant customer service or technical upgrading -- a hefty cash cow!) Let me know if you have the link! thanks! D.

(Craig confirmed them)

Wikipedia page on "craigslist": "Although the company does not disclose financial information, journalists have speculated [my emphasis] that its annual revenue approached $10 million in 2004."(fifth paragraph)

San Antonio Express-News, by way of "Analysts have estimated that Craigslist, which has 18 employees, brings in $7 million to $10 million a year. Newmark says that's in the ballpark."(fifth paragraph)


P.S. If Craig would have been honest when he claimed he wanted to correct inaccuracies, he would have brought up this one also... But in any case, Wikipedia should have never allowed him to make "suggestions" in the first place... and Jimmy should have definitely stayed out of it...

P.P.S. aside for Jimmy: it would be nice if I could click on particular segments of a Wikipedia entry and a window with the information on who added that info and when would pop up (just a thought...) D.

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Thursday, April 26, 2007

He still fools plenty of people...

.... and at least some of them should definitely know better! (Craig is their hero? how naive is that?)

Hi, Brad!

well... since you've asked: definitely NOT Craig!:)


P.S. anyways, take care! D.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

if it sounds like a fairy tale is... 'cause it *is*!

Ken looks like a little lamb with the right smile in the right place at the right time... to take Craig's dictation! Craig tried to feed this crap to Wikipedia but failed... So... he found someone like Ken who would just take his word for it... (or Ken found him, appearently he had no clue what he stumbled into: "Craig e-mailed me back almost immediately even though he's been traveling all week and said, "I can do that."-- about half way down the page)

But ... thank god, he is not fooling everyone! Not any more... Look at Jonathan, for instance -- his question suggests he sees right through Craig's bullshit... and if you've read this blog you probably know the answer to Jonathan's question (and I suspect he knows also...): Craig turned FOR PROFIT! that's what happened between the two events Jonathan talks about and that's why craigslist is what it is today: a hefty cash cow!

As to: "Craig said at the time, 'Some things should be about money [my emphasis], some shouldn't..." (third paragraph under the "And Craig's List grew" heading) ... yeah, right! (Craig never said he wanted to make money -- on the contrary! ; not even when he turned for profit -- he just asked the community what he could charge for to pay the bills! and instead refused to disclose his profits and got rich himself by pocketing estimated tens of millions in net profit -- money that should have been used on customer service and improvements...).

And now he's trying to rewrite history... and plenty of people still believe him -- how is this possible?


P.S. poor clueless Ken (Craig's new "friend") just doesn't see it -- he just keeps smiling away... D.

Craig's philantropy (don't hold your breath...)

MORE: but it doens't work with everybody... so there is hope!

re: Steven Pearcy:"Craig's e-mails had been 'vague, ambiguous, unhelpful, meaningless and non-responsive." (12 paragraphs up from the bottom of Mark Drollette's article)

that sums it up pretty well... and do take a look at Steven's story if you have the time (gives good insights into how Craig deals with real problems and what is his, as well as Jim's, atitude towards actually helping craigslist users that could definitely use help...) D.

Michael: "To Craig Newmark: Put ads on craigslist, change the world"


Aside from minor donations (given his estimated profits) for pet projects, there is no evidence that Craig has any “philanthropic interests” that don’t fit into his long term business plan (bottom part of that post)...


P.S. Michael appears not to know, but it is extremely easy to get vague, ambiguous answers from Craig (I'm surprised it works, but it seems to be his most efficient PR tactic... -- people are so impressed he actually answered that they forget there was no value to his answer -- Michael doesn't know anything more about the issue after he got Craig's response than he knew before... but for most people it seems to make little difference! Craig answered! ergo, Craig is a good guy! end of questions...) D.

Craig could certainly take a break from his PR gig!

his clueless "friends" are doing his job for him…

Re: Profitimo:The Web Marketing experts: “Craigslist is a free [my emphasis] classified site"


P.S. let “the experts” tell people what’s what… D.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

goofy PR: Craig beats Susan... by FAR... (*again*...)

I was going to ignore all this thing about Craig's back deck and birdwatching just as I ignored his giving lengthy details on his liver surgery... (I thought that was just distasteful... ) but look at all the positive press for craigslist!

Google news gives no less than 10 results (as of now) and they are not shabby by any means!: Wired News,, Campus Technology, Daily Californian,, PCWorld Magazine, KCBS, CBS5, (shorter version then above) and NewTeeVee California.


Craig calling for *transparency*?

how much funnier can he get? (he's been hiding crucial information about craigslist since they've turned for profit in 1999 -- like 8 years ago -- so they can continue to get free work and word of mouth -- bottom part of that post -- yet HE is calling for transparency when it comes to others...? )

P.S. come on, people, wake up... (he's been fooling you for way too long...) D.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

still... there is hope for Wikipedia...

re:" Ranma9617 : "I almost put an accuracy dispute tag on this, I've noticed that info has been added or removed without rationale in some cases and no one knows what's accurate or not"


P.S. let's hope they do something about it...

Wikipedia page on "craigslist": the truth be damned, Jimmy helps Craig...

EVEN MORE: and you don't even have prostitution listed (not even on that long laundry list of yours): just "obscene material," which may suggest pornography (although you only list "child pornography"[my emphasis]) but not necessarily prostitution...

MORE: 05/04/07: Craig (or whoever else did this) please stop screwing with the links! yes, you do have prostitution listed as prohibited on the big laundry list of things most people never read... (there's nothing "prominent" about it... just a whole lot of stuff thrown in together to protect your behinds or so it seems...).

Changing the link I gave from the actual page for "pets" where you do have the "no animal sales or breading please" (as opposed to nothing of the kind for prostitution on the "erotic services" pages) to your laundry list of forbidden things was MORE than disingenuous -- it was cowardly!(at least have the decency to come out and say whatever it is that you want to say and don't just switch the links to fit your interests) D.


re: "KSTP notes that while Craigslist does prominently encourage users to flag animal sales to discourage [[Backyard breederbackyard breeding]], it does not prominently encourage users to flag prostitution advertistements from adults"

Jimmy: "Prostitution crackdown - - rm unsourced claim"

How was this “unsourced”, Jimmy? The source given was a TV station program on craigslist on a given date (February, 27). As to what they are saying... it definitely has factual support! just check out the pages for pets (where attempts to sell animals -- pets -- are probable) and erotic services (as it is commonly known, the vast majority of those ads are offers for prostitution).

There is the “no animal sales or breading please" [the link I had here was to the "pets" page, it was changed to the general long list of forbidden items by... you guess who...] for pets and… nothing of the kind for prostitution…


P.S. I would have thought more of you if you would have helped the truth (instead of helping Craig…) D.

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Craig's slip of the tongue?

Craig: "Craigslist is for the moment, but Wikipedia is for the ages"
(third paragraph under big letter "A")

absolutely! it will start collapsing when people wake up or the real thing comes around -- but an honest to goodness people$list would have no reason to end...


Friday, April 20, 2007

Think, Craig! Think!

Craig: “I just don’t see why these guys are amassing personal, private fortunes while in office
(third indented paragraph)

You don’t! Now, that’s funny! I would have thought somebody who has gotten rich from what was supposed to be a non-profit would have no problem understanding that…


P.S. Think, Craig! Think! (You are not dumb… not that dumb…)

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

craigslist ownership: who sold to ebay?


not as clear as it may seem: Craig said it was a former employee... which one? some guessed Phillip Knowlton (who was craigslist's PR person for a while); Craig hasn't confirmed the name as far as I'm aware and some posters on the "ebay and craigslist" forum suggested Craig couldn't be trusted -- just looked at his public statements and pointed out problems with them and reasons to doubt his story -- there may be some truth to that (to get to the specific discussion forum, check out Craig's blog around the date ebay bought the shares -- there should be a link to the special forum)

If an former employee sold, I think it could have been Nancy Melone (she was definitely no fan of Craig's by that time...). Some people were suggesting Craig forced her out. Although Nancy was listed as CEO on the craigslist page, Craig has claimed she was NOT a CEO but just an employee... Well, why on earth would Craig have allowed that title to go on the craigslist page, then? I tend to believe Nancy...


P.S. I have a whirl of things going on at the moment and very little time to spend on this -- let me know if you find the things I referred to! (the link to the special forum, the thread on it pointing out problems with Craig's public statements on the issue, the article that suggests Craig forced Nancy out, the article that identifies the employee who sold as Phillip Knowlton; the article where Craig is quoted -- I believe -- to have said that Nancy was not craigslist's CEO; the archived page of craigslist where Nancy is listed as CEO -- that link should already be on this blog; archived craigslist page that shows Phillip Knowlton as PR rep or something like that). thanks! D.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

not bad, Andrew!

EVEN MORE: and no, that's no excuse for not taking responsibility for the bad things that come out of craigslist, and if you look at the facts, there are plenty of horrible things! You certainly wouldn't know that if you just listened to Craig... (I think this was Andrew's main point)

MORE: a lot of what Craig is saying can be easily understood (although not agreed with) if you think of him as a "one man PR machine" -- pretty much everything he says seems to help craigslist's interests (e.g. the vast majority of people are trustworthy; overall, the internet is safe etc. -- he may not be lying exactly, just "putting the best light on things" considering craigslist's interests... and "not mentioning" things that would go against them; that's why I think his most relevant function is "goofy PR rep" ...

a bunch of good points! D.

Monday, April 16, 2007

ownership of craigslist

EVEN MORE: yes, my math was slightly off... in the interest of clarity (consistent with the statement that his ownership went under 50%, Craig could have held just 50% before he made Jim CEO -- not 51%, as I said -- so any fraction above 25% would mean he would technically own more than Jim (and similarly more than ebay)... I just don't think it went nearly that low, but it could have had... I mean according to what I remember Craig to have said...

MORE: extra hint: look for one of Craig's public statements to the effect that Craig's ownership of craigslist went under 50% only when he made Jim CEO (so... worst case scenario, he owned ONLY 51% of craigslist prior to making Jim the CEO; it's very hard to believe he would give Jim MORE shares he would end up I said, I don't think he's dumb, definitely not that dumb...ergo, Craig owned at least 26% of craigslist right after he made Jim CEO);

of course, things could have changed SINCE...both in terms of offering shares (to other employees, maybe Eric? the CTO) or buying back shares -- this is how he could now possibly own 75% ... quite unlikely, though...and I'm not aware of any evidence that he has in fact bought back any shares

still I think it's safe to say he owns MORE shares than ebay (25%) and 26% is the minimum that would do that... again, I'm assuming he is reasonably smart (fair assumption, as far as I'm concerned)

again, that's the minimum, he likely owns MORE than that.... but either way his estimated NET profits have been in the millions for years... why is he hiding this from people? well, there seem to be a long list of reasons... none of them "wholesome"... (brought up a bunch of them on this blog)

... I know I'm behind... (was going to have some info on this sooner)

sorry, sorry... (I still don't have internet at home, hopefully tomorrow)

Well, here's the big hint: i think it's safe to say that Craig owns anywhere between 26% and 75% of craigslist

P.S. do some research..please?:) D

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

another reason why we NEED to know how much they profit...

they claim protection against the Fair Housing Act: if I remember right, the rationale of Congress giving protection to online publishers of third party content was that the internet was an emerging technology that needed protection and that such providers just couldn't afford it and thus couldn't provide the service in the first place...

well, how true are those premises for the craigslist of today?

-- is the internet still an emerging technology? (I would think not...)

-- could craigslist really NOT afford it? (depends on their profits, doesn't it?); it also depends on their willingness to do it and their moral compass etc. (why isn't anybody talking about those things? they use those claims havily as PR, shouldn't they have to make good on them? what's with all this rampant bullshit? and how is possible that the media doesn't notice this or..."forgets" to notice it?)


P.S. Maybe a lawsuit of this kind could compel craigslist to disclose their profits? (something they should have voluntarily done all along...) D.

Monday, April 9, 2007

and poor Craig... just can't afford it...

EVEN MORE: notice how this comment did double duty (damage control and appearance of Good Samaritan concerns); PR wise, as long as people continue to trust and not question him, Craig seems to be much more effective than Susan (she's doing little more than repeating platitudes, such as that the site prohibits anything illegal through their terms of use that helps much or that absolves them of moral responsibility -- how about their fabulous moral compass and the "philanthropic mindset" they claim to have, how can that be reconciled with that they are doing or rather NOT doing? -- that would take a whole lot of 'splaining...and nobody is doing any of it...) D

MORE: and... wouldn't you know it, he's gots others' interests at heart ! -- a most outstanding bullshitter and gambler (if you ask for my opinion...) D.

re: " founder Craig Newmark has spoken out on the issue, arguing that companies such as his will have to pay a premium for equal access to bandwidth."

this whole issue (of Net Neutrality) is muddy, muddy, muddy...

let the big guys and the little guys pay! he's the middleman (the P.S. to my comment to that post)... pretty hefty, actually, but so what? that doesn't mean he should shoulder any of the, does it? -- that sounds too much like a real company and those are just non-sense...


ooh...look at all the brainwashed people...

*sung on the tune of Beatles' "Look at all the lonely people"*

Donna sounds like the quintessential craigslist/Craig brainwashed gal to me: just read her articles on craigslist and on Craig (unbelievably partial and seamingly blind to the real issues -- very embarrassing, especially for somebody who is supposed to be a journalist).


P.S. Keep dreaming, Donna! ('cause you are certainly not gonna like it when you wake up!) D.

Friday, April 6, 2007

one of the dark sides of craigslist...


looks like Stephen's research made some waves...

UPDATE: Stephen, Stephen, Stephen... What have you done with Anil's comment?(yes, it's your blog, desn't mean you should disapear perfectly good comments...) D.

"craigslist kills"... and yes it's a fact of life... people do get diseases and die even without craigslist's help -- it's just sad to see that craiglslist does close to nothing to prevent this from happening especially when you consider how much they profit (they have a big hand in anything that comes out of craigslist and this is REALLY bad...); not to mention their claimed moral compass, philanthropic mindset and what not...


P.S. great research by Stephen! I just thought Anil's comment was more on point -- if craigslist was a non-lethal "virtual red light district" there would be less of a problem... D.

Thursday, April 5, 2007

craigslist going down...

in the past 3 month craiglslist's reach (down 16%) and rank (down 6) have declined -- a warm thanks to Laura! (for not taking Jim/craigslist on his word, doing the research on Alexa and finding out the truth!)


P.S. still not done with the move -- no internet at home yet! that really sucks.. (I'll try to keep posting but I'm going to be light on research for a while -- help me out and do some of this stuff Laura did....please?:) D.