Monday, December 15, 2008

(more) non-sense from Craig: helping out those who are out to make a profit...

MORE: sorry about the delay (was away fro the day)

re: "Maybe you meant to write "not-for-profit", since says they are a nonprofit?"

I'm assuming you are referring to my quote -- that was a direct quote from "A Craigslist for service" -- the link Craig provided (numeral one under what should be the forth paragraph).

If you are saying that Craig may have made a mistake and meant not-for-profit, I doubt that, for a number of reasons:

#1. craigslist is itself a *for profit* (although by using the designation -- abusively in my opinion -- makes it very difficult for plenty of people that are providing free labor in the form of flagging etc. to realize this)

#2., while itself a non-profit, gives the option of volunteering for *corporations* (which are *for profit*) --> I believe this should not be allowed under the non-profit set-up (the non-profit is basically forgoing making a profit from the free labor *themselves* but passing that profit to *the corporations* it intermediates for) and if it is not clearly spelled out at the moment, I hope the IRS is going to spell it out...


re: "If you have the time and inclination to get out, you might volunteer for an existing service organization, probably a recognized *for-profit*." [my emphasis]

then again, if you have the brains and the inclination to think... you might donate your time to those who actually *need* the help... (as opposed to those who are out to make a profit, the *for-profits*, and would be thrilled to have your free labor...)


P.S. not at all surprised to hear this sort of non-sense from you... (it's just hard to believe that people still fall for it) D.


Monday, December 8, 2008

craigslist could have turned out... better...


it may well have been a better product but probably much less profitable (may have never really worked as a for profit).


Saturday, December 6, 2008

Has Blumenthal fallen under the craigslist spell?

re: (2nd part of 5th paragraph from bottom): "We're beginning with Craigslist because it's the biggest and one of the most apparent -- and frankly, one of the more cooperative. They've been cooperative from the early stages of our investigation."

now, *that's* funny... isn't he the same guy who said: (3rd paragraph): "I'm astonished and appalled by Craigslist's refusal to recognize the reality of prostitution on it's Web site - despite advertisements containing graphic photographs and hourly rates, and widespread public reports of prostitutes using the site" also...(4th paragraph) "[craigslist] has a moral if not possible legal responsibility to assure that it avoids serving as a conduit for prostitution and other illegal activity. My office will weigh all options, including possible legal action, if the site fails to curb content clearly prohibited by its rules."


P.S. I shudder imaging what kind of response does Blumenthal get from those ... not as cooperating as craigslist... must be something like this: "Get lost, Rick! go bother someone else, ok?" :) D.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

things have changed since I started this blog...

MORE: re: "My point was that there really is not much within the "Erotic Services" category that (at the end of the day) is not prostitution. Wink wink. we all know this. Let's get real."

Hi, Johan! unless you believe Craig's "update response" *does* in fact address the very good issues you raised (I don't see how it could possibly do that), you may consider bringing these things up in other places where people may indeed care... Take care! D.
a lot more people seem to have figured things out...

e.g. Tom Barlow: (3rd paragraph)"While craigslist continues to operate with an org extension, it is not a not-for-profit, which I feel is deceitful."


things that make me think Craig is getting paid

for some of the glowing endorsements on his blog.

eg. hmmm... why would somebody who doesn't get fashion read about it? (should there be a disclosure for this glowing endorsement?) D.


Thursday, November 6, 2008

(knowledge of illegality) is craigslist legally obligated to do something?


sorry about the delay... (was away for the day)

CLuser: sorry but I do not wish to follow you anywhere or anything of the kind (I've already said everything I had to say to you)

Sarah: I think you've done pretty much everything you could have done under the circumstances (and definitely a lot more than craigslist could have reasonably expected you to do)

If you really want to do more about this, I would contact legal institutions. If you have trouble with the local ones and believe they are corrupt or non-responsive for some reason, I'd go up the ladder.

Richard Blumenthal, although not the attorney general for your particular state is very familiar with craigslist issues so he would make a prime candidate if there is a way to just drop him a line somewhere (I'd keep it short and to the point, with hyperlinks to what you see as evidence and with a short story of what you've done so far including your contacting craigslist).


P.S. OK... I'm entirely done with this topic (didn't realize it was going to get this involved). D.

Take care everyone!


EVEN MORE: CL User: as far as I can tell, if KIM is doing something illegal and posting it on craigslist, craigslist is legally obligated to remove her ads once it is made aware of the fact. I believe Sarah gave them all the information she needed to give them (they could have easily verified if KIM has a license to run a charity or not.


P.S. I believe posting on the craigslist boards regarding such things is a waste of time (look how much good it did regarding prostitution before Blumenthal got involved) D.

MORE: CLuser:

re:"Again, this is not the right place to be airing such grievances." --> I agree, Sarah would do much better to contact people like Richard Blumenthal who are in the position to *make* craigslist do something about it... (like he did re: prostitution)

what more could craigslist want Sarah to do than tell them this?:"There is a fake charity in Skowhegan ME. I contacted the Town office and Dept of State. This KIM has no license to run a charity."

all craigslist would have had to do is do what Sarah did (for *them*) -- pick up the phone and verify that KIM has no license to run a charity --> this would have taken less time and effort than emailing back and forth and demanding that *Sarah* PROVES what she just told them (how ridiculous)


P.S. they are apparently annoyed that she found out there is something illegal going on and would like her to shut up and move on... D.
(comment-138079190) CL user: you are talking like a "crazy person", yourself:)... -- "the systems" just don't work in the vast majority of cases (nowhere enough craigslist "customer service" people)


P.S. apparently, Craig & Co just don't want to spend the money so people like Sarah are just left to talk to themselves until they figure out they are just wasting their time and move on...

P.P.S. assuming Craig reads the comments (fair assumption I would think -- there really aren't that many), Sarah has publicly (on his blog) brought to his attention that something clearly illegal keeps being posted in a particular place on craigslist -- I would think that this would make craigslist legally obligated to do something about it... but I could be wrong... D.

(craigslist prostitution) Congratulations Blumenthal!

I was wondering what was going on with this! (by all indication) none of this would have happened if Blumenthal wouldn't have kept after them...D.

Monday, October 6, 2008

a breath of fresh air: William Reardon

EVEN MORE: (10th comment) I don't know if it is really disingenuity, William -- most of the articles on craigslist/Craig Newmark are just plain fiction... (and a good part of these writers appear to honestly believe the fairy tale). D.

MORE: (6th comment) he would probably say that it just *so happened*... so far:)... and it may not be untrue -- I suspect he is quite capable of switching "political sympathies" if the "price" is right: say, all in a sudden republicans favored such things as "net neutrality" (which would mean serious money for craigslist and, of course, for him, as the owner of a big chunk of it) D

Hi, William! (4th comment; #comment-16557)

I don't know if you noticed but he sort of answered this on twitter:

"I contribute to the best people,regardless of affiliation"


P.S. I don't know if you are aware (I suspect not) but he appears to have contributed to NAMBLA ( -- I wish somebody would really look into this...

P.P.S glad I came across somebody else who is not talking his word as gospel -- keep it up!:) D.

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Craig's own press: the never ending stream of naive reporters...

EVEN MORE: comic relief: (2nd comment; #comment-133645293) "*definitely*,much too "kind"... suppose she would have pointed out what would "net neutrality" mean for you/craigslist *financially* :)... (just to put things in perspective for the readers like competent reporters do...) D.

MORE: sure enough... and he does a lot more than just hope -- he uses his tech-advisor-to-the Obama-campaign position to spin things in his favor (how is it possible to just print what he says without mentioning that Craig/craigslist would financially benefit from this?) and then he gets away with having the press print his diatribe on corrupt lobbyists (6th paragraph) when he appears to do the same thing himself: claims grass root support without disclosing that he/craigslist has a big financial interest in the issue... D.

Kim Heart: (2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence) "[Craig] admits he has 'nothing to gain' from helping get Obama elected." --> well... there is a whole story behind that... Craig's choice of candidates appears to have been heavily influenced by the fact that Obama was the one candidate who said he was going to be for "network neutrality," which would greatly favor Craig/craigslist...financially... now, when it came down to voting, Obama didn't carry through... so it may be that it is true that Craig is not going to get anything out of it... but he must at least hope he can turn it around... D.

Friday, September 12, 2008

comic relief: Craig "overall, the press needs to get a bit of spine"...

... he didn't just say that! in general? ok... and when it comes to craigslist in particular...

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Craig's own press: the triumph of BS!

EVEN MORE: it is also not at all clear that the sale to ebay was not a disguised sellout D.

MORE: yes, some of that "change" was set aside for employees (and resulted in the first undisputed dilution of ebay's shares in craigslist) but it is not at all clear that all of it is accounted by the Employees' Shareholder Plan; some people have been saying that there was an early "investor" that still holds craigslist shares.

I'm always surprised how gullible and deferential these so called reporters are... so, he's done a bit of research! he knows craigslist is number 11th (not 7th)... he could not have known this if he would have just listened to Craig and Jim; I suppose that's more than plenty of others do but where are the issues? he's barely mentioning any and when he does it is so vaguely that he gives the impression that they are not issues at all -- he's actually quoting Craig/Jim in what looks like an effort to hide the issues... how ridiculous...


P.S. they guy also appears to be unable to count: if Craig owns 41% and Jim owns 26% there is good chunk of change unaccounted for (even if you know ebay owns more or less 25% -- under legal dispute at the moment); this would certainly be an issue when talking about having or not having soldout; hopefully the law suit will clear up some of these things, although craigslist has been trying to keep the truth away from the public, we should start hearing about legal developments soon...

P.S. it's all nice and dandy... right! D.

Monday, September 1, 2008

and the fairy tale keeps going on...

re: (last paragraph): " But I also have to wonder about whether Craig really thinks that the fraud squad he has deployed at the end of an email address and the warnings – posted all over his ads – about how to deal with scammers are really any solution at all. Judging from my recent experience, they’re worth a hill of beans, and that’s about all."

wonder is all these people do... (they see what's going on but somehow just can't let go of the fairy tale...)


P.S. the guy also doesn't seem to realize just how big craigslist's profits are and that craigslist/Craig continues to decline using these profits to adequately address the problems D.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

why are craigslist's "modest fees" in fact hefty?

... because they charge per post (that adds up dramatically), instead of offering a subscription like plenty of other sites do nowadays -- this allows them to claim not to be greedy, while in fact making quite a bit of money and continuing to add to the list of cities that must pay for job listings (as of now...)


P.S. people keep bringing this up when a new slue of cities are "considered" to be added to the pay list (craigslist has never concluded not to charge in any of the cities it "considered" for charging) D.

Monday, August 11, 2008

the wondrous craigslist "customer service" that people just can't get a hold of...

Now, having said this, these people deserve an entry on this blog. Not because of their main beef -- is their currently non-profit in fact a ripening pyramid scheme? I have no interest in taking up this issue, it is not relevant to this blog -- but because their experience ("all e-mail requests for assistance have had no response"; 3rd paragraph, end of first sentence), among many others, shows just how hollow craigslist's "customer service" really is..


Saturday, August 9, 2008

what does it mean when people send you press releases?

... probably nothing :) -- I just found it interesting...


P.S. Just so everybody knows, I have no interest in fighting anybody's battles for them; if I find something relevant to this blog I will write about it but not because somebody sent me their press release; please don't go to the trouble...D.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

(craigslist "success") unlikely, indeed!

this coming from business *intelligence*? (just ask Craig! and give him plenty of space to ramble on... )


P.S. I shudder imagining what the not-so-smart business interviews are like... are these people all brain dead? D.

Friday, July 25, 2008

(craigslist traffic) Jim's "selective" statistics...

again, he "forgets" to mention Alexa -- 5th paragraph-- (something they used to do all the time when things were truly going well...) as I've said before, absolute numbers are not the relevant metric (you would expect them to grow as more people go online etc.) How has craigslist been doing relative to other sites gives a much more accurate image of what's really going on: craigslist's Alexa rank has gone down significantly since I started checking it in 2006 (7th at its best, 12th at its worth; it does fluctuate a bit, of course, -- it is 11th at this point -- , for instance, but that does not change the fact that it's been a definite downward spiral... from 7th to 11th, assuming it's not going to go back to 12th and lower... -- I doubt it...).


Tuesday, July 22, 2008

(Steve Outing) interesting experiment...

Hi Steve!

I hope that after this little (apparently unintended) experiment, you will walk away with a much less naive notion of what craigslist is all about. I didn't give your letter much importance when I first saw it (although your suggestions were not bad, your characterization of what craigslist is and does sounded way to groupie-like to take seriously). I *am* pleased to see that it has gained some traction (other articles and people, such as Jay Rosen, mention it) and I hope it will be a learning experience for a lot of people.


P.S. take care! D.

Monday, July 21, 2008

is Craig planning to retire on his own island?

Although this was no at all what he asked people for when he turned for profit (he just asked if he could charge to pay the bills), you'd think at the kind of profits they've been racking in, he's made enough off of craigslist to retire a long time ago if he just wanted a regular retirement (like he implies) and..."a little bit more"... (last sentence)


P.S. at one point I really thought these guys were great... (Voice of America); now they sound like idiots... (doing little more than repeating the ridiculous PR Craig feeds them) D.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

is craigslist in a panic over their legal issues?

MORE: anonymous bellow sort of got the idea, although he is a bit confused as to what really matters -- it's NOT the size of the place, it's achieving critical mass *in a particular location* (having extremely few ads pre-charging shows it's nowhere near critical mass).

re: "Right now in Boston and Chicago, you only have half a page of jobs up. And that isn't even accurate since focus groups and egg donations aren't jobs, those should be gigs. So really, you have very few job ads up. Now imagine if you charged a fee in Denver or Houston. You would probably only have a couple of ads up right now, since those cities are so much smaller. If there's only a handful of jobs posted a day, your readers are going to go elsewhere, and with no readers, your employers are going to go elsewhere."
(anonymous craigslist poster)

intending to charge fees before hitting critical mass...


P.S. dumb idea... UNLESS they think it's closing time so they'll take whatever they can get...

Thursday, July 3, 2008

(craigslist prostitution) people worth reading and quoting

Hi, Mark! (7th comment)

Trench is not bad... I mean, back when he started his blog I was glad someone else was taking a critical view of craigslist and keeping it up but I don't find his analysis particularly insightful.

Here are a couple of people I found worth reading and quoting on the subject of craigslist prostitution: Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (the existence of craigslist's erotic services "increases traffic and generates a number of users [to the site], which in turn enhances their revenue);" Steve Diamond, business law professor at Santa Clara University ("Newmark and Buckmaster are driven mostly by self-interest") and University of B.C. associate law Prof. Janine Benedet ("there is an argument they are really sort of pimping").

Take care!


Thursday, June 19, 2008

wondering if this guy knows what he's getting himself into...

(doesn't look like it)


You sound like you are buying what I see as the craigslist BS wholesale -- I hope you understand what you are getting yourself into...


P.S. I'd definitely step back and take a critical look at it. Good luck! D.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

(prostitution: what self-policing?) police are pointing out the obvious...

re: (last paragraph) "They say they self-police, but there are times when our officers will go up there [on the Web site] and find they just aren't doing it"

Thursday, June 12, 2008

let's see what Dennis thinks...

well.... Dennis Little appears to think very little :) -- I' m assuming he read my comment and declined to post it (I've been using Linux as of late and sometimes there is a problem with the pop-up widows -- oops! windows! sticky letter "n"-- such as those that appear when you post comments)

re: "While everyone tries to figure out what makes Craigslist so successful, the answer lies in Craig Newmark's guiding principle: Give the customer what they want. Time and again, Newmark cites this secret to success in his interviews and his business has an astoundingly effective feedback loop with customers."

Hi Dennis!

How do you figure this works-out in practice? I mean... to have effective feedback you have to
have enough people working customer service, no? Craigslist has been severely understaffed and getting more so by the day (when you look at the number of customer service employees and the number of customers supposedly served), as far as I can tell... just seems that is couldn't possibly work-out, that it's just BS and gullible reporters...


Monday, June 9, 2008

why is Microsoft shutting down Live Expo?

they figured they weren't going to succeed, of course...


P.S. my belief that the only way to beat Craig (and his equivalents) at his own game is to do what he says only gets stronger as time passes... D.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

is Walmart a threat?

potentially... it's *way* to early to tell if they will make a real difference -- can they get people to pay? (that's the real test -- craigslist has succeeded in repeatedly doing this in a very unusual and difficult to duplicate way) D.

(Craig's story blows up) what if craigslist didn't "dilute" ebay in a legal sense?

doesn't matter what it's called... (the contradiction remains) D.

(Mozilla helper: (Craig's story blows up) what if craigslist didn't "dilute" ebay in a legal sense? )

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Anonymous re: Anthony Batt, thanks for commenting!

it's just that it sounds a bit libelous without giving the details... D.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

(independent observers) Janine Benedet: "There is an argument they are really sort of pimping"

re (4th paragraph from bottom) : "Craigslist itself could face criminal charges for aiding in communication for the purpose of child prostitution, said University of B.C. associate law Prof. Janine Benedet"


Saturday, May 17, 2008

craigslist's response to ebay's complaint: pretty much meaningless

boilerplate... (1st comment by Hedda) D.


P.S. I did take a quick look at some reports and got disappointed quickly (e.g. Associated Press: last line: "ebay, owns a 28% stake in craigslist?" what? how clueless is that? ebay bought 28.4 % back in 2004, got diluted to just above 25% in 2005 and subsequently further diluted to under 25% -- if AP doesn't get this, they have no business reporting on this story... pretty sad...) D.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

(ebay and craigslist) alright... the fight is on!

errata (please read!) the complaint does NOT claim that calling kijiji "craigslist killer" violated the trademark (at least not specificaly, there is some vague language towards the end but nothing specific). So what made me think that? the article! :(4th paragraph) " Craigslist accuses eBay of calling Kijiji a 'Craigslist killer' inside the company and using the Craigslist moniker to confuse the public and 'illegally divert' Internet traffic from Craigslist to eBay and the Kijiji site." --> they should have really explained how the traffic diversion was accomplished, otherwise it stands to reason that it was the result of calling kijiji a "craigslist killer" --> this was NOT done just inside the company, the press used it at the time also... alright! I need to ignore the articles and just go to the source when that is an option... D.

craigslist counter sues... some of their claims sound perfectly ridiculous! how could calling kijiji a "craigslist killer" violate their trademark? what kind of confusion could that create? who in their right mind would think... it's the same company! by the same ridiculous idea, there could be no "craigslist watch" (or "craigslist criticism" for that matter...); way to let the judge know who he is dealing with...


P.S. Jim does little more than give the laundry list of complaints this time...

P.P.S. right Jim! it was so "unfair and unlawful" that you did nothing about it until ebay sued you... D.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

(three times in a row) The New York Times misses it...*again*...

MORE: most comments appear clueles but not all...

e.g. (5th comment) Lou:" It appears that plain and simple Buckmaster and Newmark have attempted to dilute the interest of eBay, possibly to increase their share of any dividend, profit interest, or proceeds of sale of the company at the expense of eBay and eBay’s shareholders".
no mention of the first (uncontested) dilution of ebay's share to just above 25% in 2005 (one year AFTER the 2004 purchase by ebay) or the fact that ebay now says they bought 28.4% back in 2004 while craigslist/Craig has been assuring people it was ONLY 25%... D.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

(independent observers) Steve Diamond: what's *really* driving Craig & Jim?

re: (5th paragraph from bottom) "Independent observers such as Steve Diamond, a business law professor at Santa Clara University, suggest Newmark and Buckmaster are driven mostly by self-interest. If they don't care about making more money, Diamond says, why are they attending investment conferences?"

alright! maybe I finally get my wish and somebody does take this out of my hands :) ... Steven Diamond sounds like a good replacement if he keeps it up...


Saturday, May 10, 2008

(the contradiction is dispelled?) let's hope Anonymous is not just bragging...

EVEN MORE: well, you are right -- I *am* disappointed:)...


P.S. may I remind you that in 2004 when ebay acquired 28.4% of craigslist according to their most recent press release and only 25% according to craigslist/Craig, craigslist employees did NOT have stock options (the "stock incentives plan")? -- according to the footnote at the bottom of page two of ebay's complaint, stock options were given to employees ONLY in 2005, a year *after* ebay's purchase... this diluted eBay’s share to 25.01%, in a "fully diluted" form (if all outstanding options were exercised)

ebay did nothing about this dilution, the law suit was prompted by subsequent further dilution to under 25% apparently as a result of Craig& Jim issuing more shares to *themselves*...

So... the contradiction remains...

P.P. S. thanks for telling me what you thought, though... take care! D.

MORE: please read the comments to this entry!
Hi Anonymous! (1st comment)

you better know what you are talking about:) because I'm going to hold you to your end of the bargain... anyways, I can certainly tell you what got me to start this blog if you are curious -- hate to disappoint you but it wasn't anything Craig did or didn't do to me... *lol*... He just kept bullshitting all sorts of people that should have known better and getting away with it... (as far as I could see...) I thought putting down what I was seeing was going to be interesting and entertaining... and it was... (for the most part...)


P.S. your turn!:) D.

Sunday, May 4, 2008

comic relief: Craig on twitter? "Amateur Porn on Craigslist is a GOOD thing."

probably fake but pretty funny...


P.S. not much good info in his actual twitter account, except for the fact that he follows Pierre Omidyar of ebay... (I don't have a twitter account so I can't check if it is reciprocal, didn't directly address each other as far I've seen) D.

Saturday, May 3, 2008

(the story of craigslist) yes, ebay's complaint also calls into question the story of craigslist ( the way Craig told it...)

... but the contradiction is not as clear as in the case of the story of ebay's aquisition of shares from craigslist... at least not at this point... and this may well be because what we are seeing, for now, is a redacted version of the complaint done by craigslist, ebay taking no responsibility as far as the accuracy of the craigslist redacted version... (vagueness and ambiguity permeates critical portions of it)


Friday, May 2, 2008

(Craig's story blows up: the core contradiction remains) The New York Times gets it wrong... *again*!

STILL MORE: if you find that his answer below is not entirely clear (quite common) here is a more precise one: Craig: "Ebay acquired 25% of the equity in craigslist from a former employee shareholder in August of 2004. "(answer to 7th question)

EVEN MORE: the "ebay and craigslist forum" heading says a former shareholder sold but Craig has unambiguously said it was really a former employee: "I gave away some equity, some shares to a -- who is now a former employee. (...) the former employee did sell his shares to eBay." (Craig's answer to the 2nd question).



I think you have a significant error. According to ebay's complaint, ebay acquired 28.4% of craigslist in 2004. The 25.01% figure represents ebay's share of craigslist *after the first dilution* which happened in 2005 when craigslist offered stock options to employees. This is explained in the footnote at the bottom of page two of ebay's complaint.


P.S. This is very important because it contradicts craigslist's story that a former employee sold 25% of craigslist to ebay and Craig's assurance of the craigslist community on August 13th 2004 -- after the transaction was completed -- that ebay had only 25% of craigslist.

re: "On Aug. 8, 2004, eBay acquired 28.5 percent of Craigslist (25.01 percent on a fully diluted basis)."(top of 6th paragraph)

The footnote (bottom of page two) clearly explains that the 25.01% figure was NOT the percentage ebay bought in 2004, but the percentage ebay owned after the first dilution by craigslist (when it offered stock options to employees in 2005).

The core contradiction remains...


Mozilla helper: (Craig's story blows up: the core contradiction remains) The New York Times gets it wrong... *again*!)

Thursday, May 1, 2008

(ebay and craigslist) ebay's side: no justification for craigslist's poison pill...(and a whole lot of other things Craig&Jim did...)

MORE: plenty of people agree with them... e.g. John: "Last I checked you were a private company with only 3 shareholders. You can’t compare that with a publicly listed company where anybody can buy and sell.(...) In my experience as a minority shareholder of a number of small ventures, what you have done here is completely illegal."

re: "nothing explains how a poison pill would benefit a privately owned corporation where the only two board members own a majority of shares, the two controlling stockholders and Board members have a right of first refusal on each others shares (to the best of ebay's knowledge), and a single stockholder holds all the other outstanding shares" (30th paragraph)

(ebay and craigslist) Kettles and Pots?

... sounds like an admission of having been bad, doesn't it? (the title of the entry implies -- ... yeah, we did the darn thing! ... we were bad... but... you know what? so was ebay! (back in 2004) so there!...


P.S. oops! did Jim really mean to say that? sounds pretty dumb... D.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Craig's story blows up... to smithereens!

EVEN MORE: Matthew,I'm just curious... how do you suppose ebay got more than 25% of craigslist? that wasn't Craig's / craigslist's story was it? Delia

why on earth aren't people pointing this out? I mean, The New York Times, Reuters, Associated Press... they must have noticed the difference, no? D.

little detail: ebay hasn't *always* claimed they got 28.4 % (which is closer to 30% than 25%) , they initially claimed it was "approximately 25%" (ebay press release at the time), which fit Craig's/craigslist's story. I find it intriguing that according to the complaint, Craig&Jim diluted ebay to 25.01% (which definitely qualifies as "approximately 25%" as ebay initially said...) D.
just to clarify: according to ebay's complaint, craigslist did subsequent dilutions of ebay's share of craigslist: the dilution to 25.01% came about in 2005 when employees were given stock options(top of 2nd page with a footnoted eplanation); further dilution to under 25% happened more recently and prompted ebay's law suit.

MORE: Thanks for commenting, Anonymous! I didn't publish it because I really think we need to wait and see... watch the fight :)... hear everybody out... who knows, a miracle might happen *lol* (as I was saying, it should be pretty entertaining...) D.

(almost) all details -- parts are redacted -- in full glory...


P.S. it should be very entertaining to see the fallout of all this ...:) D.

(Wikipedia page on "Craig Newmark") God god! Craig is deciding what links are valid?

re: Craig: The links are valid; how does one get this corrected? (...) "Thanks, I see the correction!"

this is an embarrassment for Wikipedia and for Jimmy for having allowed it (I must assume he's well aware of it) -- might just as well save themselves some time and trouble and just plain ask Craig what would he like the page to include and not include...


P.S. hmmm... I can't help but wonder if Craig "paid up" for Jimmy's help... (the way Rachel Marsden appears to have had...) D.

Sunday, April 27, 2008

wondering if techdirt got it... you'd think it would have said...

... what was the conflict between craigslist' story and ebay's story...

techdirt: (2nd sentence) "The details of what happened were never made entirely clear (and there are some conflicting stories about those details)" [my emphasis]


P.S. did they just mean Craig's story (craigslist) and Owen's story (valleywag) were in conflict?

Friday, April 25, 2008

Wikipedia page on "Craig Newmark": is Craig's actual sexual orientation relevant to the topic?

again... he made it a public matter when he talked about it to the press; it's certainly of interest to the public if he lied about it...

the Wikipedia editor's position is bizarre... I mean, not having a reliable source would have been a perfectly good reason at this point but keeping the whole issue of Craig having lied about it - if this is what's going on -- off Wikipedia because... well... he's known for founding "craigslist"! and how would having lied about his sexual orientation help?*lol* well, it would actually hurt! both Craig's image and the image of craigslist... but what is Wikipedia? a PR-service for those profiled?

re: (under "sexual preference") It's hard to see that help the article, even if sourced. He's best known as the founder of craigslist; how would his sexual orientation benefit that? —EncMstr 01:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC) -- EncMstr


Thursday, April 24, 2008

(ebay and craigslist) ebay's side of the story

why isn't the press getting ebay's side of the story?... most articles let Jim have the last word...

found one exception

Reuters: (10th paragraph) An eBay spokeswoman said the disputed board actions concerned "corporate governance issues" and did not involve Kijiji. (this appears to be countering some of Jim's wild speculation)


P.S. Gina's article is not bad overall but she appears to be under Craig/craigslist's spell (like a whole lot of other female reporters... and not only female): (4th paragraph) "Craig Newmark, who runs the company in a famously open-minded style"--> this is a subjective, personal, take on things... (not an objective observation) so it really has no purpose in a report like this... (except to embarrass the writer... and the wire service...) D.

(Mozilla helper: (ebay and craigslist) ebay's side of the story)

(Alexa) craigslist slips some more...'s currently just 12 in the U.S (was 7th at its best)


P.S. rankwise, it is doing better around the world (45 currently, had been 65 at one point)-- was this a result of adding over a hundred sites recently? D.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

(ebay and craigslist) some of Jim's apparent ramblings start to make sense...

EVEN MORE: see comments to this entry

MORE: (4th comment to a prior entry)

re: Jim: "Ensuring the future well-being of craigslist and the craigslist community is admittedly very important to us."

did craigslist issue more shares? (and thus dilute ebay) -- if so it looks like they can't possibly win... not while raking in estimated $100 mill or so this year alone while spending precious little... (what kind of "sound financial reason" could they realistically claim to have had? -- good post otherwise...)


comic relief: (ebay and craigslist) funny thing is...

...that shaving 10% off the original 28.4% share does bring ebay much closer to ... the approximately 25% they initially said they got! (25.56%) -- actually, it would be even closer if they would give just a tinny little bit more back... *lol*


P.S. jokes aside, was this a coincidence or did craigslist plan it all along? (after the "changes" ebay's story and craigslist's story pretty much agree... if ebay would have just shut up... there would have been nothing on hand to question craigslist's story -- was craigslist counting on this?)

(ebay and craigslist) did ebay have an understanding with craigslist that it had to break in order to sue?

(to present the number of shares they acquired so that it could neatly fit craigslist's story):

is this the "hostility" Jim talks about?

ebay's press release on the deal back in 2004 said they acquired approximately 25% (which was unnecessarily imprecise, appearing to have served no other purpose than to support craigslist's story...)


P.S. ebay is currently saying the actual figure was really 28.4%...(closer to 30% than 25%) which implicitly brings Craig's story into question --> again, shortly after the deal Craig said ebay had ONLY 25% (and craigslist had said this was the percentage the former shareholder sold to ebay)

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

(ownership of craigslist) Craig's story blows up...

EVEN MORE: notice Jim's "hostile takeover" inuendo... with no basis given... D.

MORE: corrected prior mistakes (left the Forbes link in just so it makes some sense...: "Ebay holds a minority ownership interest stake of 28.4% in craigslist"[my emphasis]; this clearly implies this is the percentage ebay currently holds, AFTER the dilution if that's what happened... Jim is vague, ambiguous and melodramatic again... without giving any facts whatsoever... just take a look at Jim's "response" -- in the addendum, in the body of the entry -- to the one relevant question in the comments: did they dilute ebay's shares? "To be perfectly clear, Ebay’s stake in craigslist has not been unfairly diluted as they have claimed." ---> not at all clear... all he's saying is that ... they didn't do it unfairly... which is for the court to decide... the question had been if they diluted the shares... not if they acknowledge they did it unfairly... Alexander Muse: " Did you dilute the minority shareholders? ") D.

ERRATA (please read the comments!) :

Hi, Anonymous!

I tracked down the ebay release just before seeing your comment. (I initially thought Forbes was reliable enough as a bad!) but anyways... the contradiction remains: craigslist claimed ebay acquired only 25% of craigslist in 2004, ebay says it was 28.4%... right after the ebay acqusition Craig specifically said ebay had ONLY 25 %... this core contradiction remains regardless of the details of the dilution...


MORE: ok, I better go to bed... (sorry if it was a bit confusing -- I just tried very hard to be as fair as possible -- it should be reasonably clear by now... let me know if it's not... thanks!) D.

STILL MORE: Craig retold the 25% story less than a month ago to Sarah Lacy... (0.52 time mark: Sarah:"so ebay owns 25% of craigslist..." Craig: "yes") --> ebay says their shares got diluted by more than 10%. So how could have ebay possibly had 25% in March? NOT strictly impossible but it appears very, very improbable... (they would have had to start with 25% in August of 2004, as Craig said, recently acquire more -- Craig's been telling his story unchanged since 2004 -- than get diluted to 25% or quickly sell the acquired amount... just in time for Craig's interview... ) D.

EVEN MORE: the Chron appears to be so gullible that it makes craigslist's words fit the facts... after the fact --> "In August 2004, eBay acquired a 28.4 percent stake in Craigslist when it bought shares from a former employee" (beginning of 8th paragraph) -- if they would have bothered to check they would have seen that was not what Craig said.... they would have also noticed the discrepancy between 25% and 28.5%

MORE: The New York Time's story on the topic is, again, surprisingly shallow... D.

... and Owen's story sounds even more plausible (that Phillip Knowlton was forced to sell because Craig and Jim were squeezing him out by diluting his shares): ebay is charging that craigslist has been illegally diluting ebay's shares...


P.S. surprisingly, people -- even Owen -- don't seem to realize that ebay holding 28.4% shares in craigslist (1st sentence of 2nd paragraph) contradicts Craig's story. He said the craigslist former employee sold 25% to ebay -- Craig was also specifically asked on the ebay and craigslist forum if he sold any of his shares to ebay at the time... he said no... so... how did ebay end-up with more than 25% of craigslist? Did Craig lie or did someone else, such as Nancy Melone, also sell shares to ebay? if so... did she do it at the same time? (again, that would mean Craig lied) or later on?

(Mozila help: (ownership of craigslist) Craig's story blows up... )

what's the overall long-term impact of craigslist?

(on the state of Connecticut, for instance... but it's bound to be similar all over the place)

as far as I can tell craigslist isn't providing anything that isn't already there... it's just putting things on the internet and walks away with loads of millions (especially in the long run) -- money that isn't benefiting the state of Connecticut (or any other place where craigslist exists) at all...

don't the people of Connecticut get some free value out of it? it appears that such gains are only at the individual level -- not when considering the community as a whole -- and for trivial things (e.g. a person can get rid of a couch by posting it on craigslist instead of donating it to Goodwill; a business owner can find employees without placing an ad in the newspaper and thus helping support local journalism), and only for as long as it is in craigslist's interest not to charge... (#4)

In the mean time news organizations will be negatively impacted, crime will become easier to commit (some of it, such as prostitution, will be imported from out of state) and the back-market-like alternative to regulated business (bye bye non discrimination for instance) is allowed to flourish... --> so what is the overall long-term impact on the places where craigslist exists? I would think it's bound to be negative!


(Mozilla help: what's the long-term effect of craigslist?)

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

(prostitution) ConsumerAffairs.Com: "Blumenthal has his facts wrong, craigslist argues"... *wrongly*!

MORE: more non-sense from craigslist on the official craigslist blog (craigslist should be prevented from continuing to use the dot org domain and making it difficult for people to realize it has been for profit -- NOT a dot org -- for a very long time...) D.
re: " Craigslist is a law-abiding company that is trying very hard to do the right thing, while also trying very hard to do the right thing, and the world at large," he said. "Craigslist does not have tens of thousands of employees, as do other large internet sites. The lack of this overhead is the reason that craigslist can provide its valuable public services at such low cost and without paid advertising." (2nd paragraph under "law-abiding")

#1. "Craigslist is a law-abiding company" --> that remains to be seen, Blumenthal said he will look into legal means of making craigslist effectively control their prostitution problem and there are plenty of other legal issues that could be raised

#2. "trying very hard to do the right thing" --> by self-handicaping themselves and "saving" more or less 100 million this year??? while continuing to claim to be a "community service"? (they should have stayed a non-profit, a foundation, and used that money to address the serious problems and provide adequate customer service and improvements to the community that has built craigslist and continues to make it work)

#3. "providing a very valuable free public service for the people of Connecticut" [my emphasis] --> right! untill the Conecticut market will hit critical mass and then... they'll start charging! (for that "public service") ... just see what happened with the 11 or so cities that already hit critical mass for jobs and with New York City for real estate...

#4. "Craigslist does not have tens of thousands of employees, as do other large internet sites. The lack of this overhead is the reason that craigslist can provide its valuable public services at such low cost and without paid advertising" --> Hahaha... rather, the lack of employing and adequate number of people is the reason that craigslist can... walk away with around $100 million this year! while continuing to claim to be a "public service" and providing as little customer service and improvements as they can get away with...


P.S. I hope Blumenthal sees right through all that BS and does something about it... D.

Friday, April 11, 2008

Get off the high horse, Jim! (if you don't want to get kicked-off...)

he is calling for *others* to donate to charity? for having profited... (last paragraph) -- the profit margins of those for-profits that never claimed to be anything else are probably minuscule when compared with craigslist's... (those suckers actually have an adequate number of employees that actually get things done, you know...)


P.S. is Jim delusional or he just thinks the craigslist BS will always prevail? (2nd half of 2nd paragraph from bottom) right! the poor 25 employees that are doing everything all the time... (no matter that they cannot possibly get even basic things done (the comments)... as long as craigslist claims they do there are plenty of dummies who will print that it's true! craigslist said it! who are we to question? ours is not to question why -- ours is just to... suck-up and print! ... so why would Jim ever stop repeating that non-sense?) D.

(Mozilla help: Get off the high horse, Jim! (if you don't want to get kicked-off...)

Saturday, April 5, 2008

( Does craigslist have any claim to the *dot org* domain?


this is nuts! somebody should stop them from continuing to make it very difficult for people to realize they are for profit! if you enter the address where the official blog was started: you get a very odd message:" You've reached craigslist's nonprofit webserver." what??? on the dot com domain? and they moved the official blog to the dot org domain: -- how much more pathetic can they get? D.


Hi Tim! (1st comment)

I just thought you might want to keep in mind that craigslist has turned for profit *way back* and shouldn’t really have a claim to any dot org domain, including yours.


P.S. Unfortunately, the dot org domain is still unregulated (but this shouldn’t stop you from acquiring it before them as you did) so they get away with redirecting traffic from to continuing to give the appearance that they are still a non-profit — a whole lot of people appear to be fooled by this (just don’t know craigslist is not a non-profit and hasn’t been that for a very long time). Craigslist should have lost all claims to the dot org domain when it turned for profit.

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


Matthew, (1st comment)

Craigslist shouldn't have any claim to the domain and should have lost all claims to the domain when they turned for profit, *way back*, (unfortunately the dot org domain remains unregulated so craigslist still gets away with redirecting traffic from to continuing to give the appearance that craigslist is still a non-profit).

Why would they? They are NOT a dot org -- they are for profit, so they are a dot com; unfortunately the dot org designation is still not regulated so craigslist is still getting away with using the domain (it actually redirects the traffic from to giving the appearance that it is still a non-profit) ... but that shouldn't give any rights to the craigslist should have lost its right to the domain once it turned for profit.


P.S. Wondering if this was a consideration when EFF considered offering help to Tim White (2nd paragraph from bottom)

P.P.S. Did EFF's position caused Jim's backpedaling ?-- wouldn't be surprised... D.

(Mozilla help: ( Does craigslist have any claim to the *dot org* domain? )

Thursday, April 3, 2008

(a hefty cash cow) Valleywag's Owen

... does some more digging D.

(Mozilla help: (a hefty cash cow) Valleywag's Owen)

(Techcrunch) Beefcake on craigslistblog: "a list of press releases"

STILL MORE: Jim is backpaddling... badly... at least part of his story (having been friendly at all: 9th, 10th and 11th paragraphs) appears to be made up... Tim was also disputing Jim's claim that he took his ads off before media attention and that he intended to use deceptive ads from craigslist's competitors -- appearently, Google's Adsense decides what ads will appear on the blog with the blogger having no choice in the matter once she/he agrees to use ads (entry appears to be removed as of the morning of April 6th -- is Tim updating it?). D.

EVEN MORE: mostly very good commentary on this in the Sacramento Bee

MORE: funny thing: craigslist had to use the dot com domain name (as it would have had to do anyways if the dot org domain would be regulated, as it should be) because a guy Tim White already started a --> Valleywag has a good entry and comments on this

(Mozilla help: (Techcrunch) Beefcake on craigslistblog: "a list of press releases" )
very good observation! (again, could Michael Arrington just not get this? I find it very hard to believe given the sort of things he has been doing...) D.

(prostitution) as though Jim didn't know...

MORE: again, Michael Arrington's post is disappointing... I'm having a hard time believing he isn't getting it... is he just disingenuous? D.
what defamation?

"Blumenthal says he has yet to hear back from Craigslist since sending his letter but in response to their statement, he said the personal-ad feature 'increases traffic and generates a number of users [to the site], which in turn enhances their revenue. If they have additional information, we would be happy to review that.' (yeah, pretty much what I thought...)

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

comic relief: Craig:" remember to provide good customer service..." *lol*

STILL MORE: As far as I can tell, those are not "glitches," they are serious ethical issues: craigslist is a huge financial success *because* of those issues.


P.S. That's why it's not a true success story as far as I'm concerned -- that's why I wished you luck with your other stories... Take care! D.

EVEN MORE: (Anonymous' comment to this entry sheds more light on craigslist's customer service issues) D.


Those are not complaints, Daylle... they are just *basic facts* that shed a lot of light on just what kind of a "success story" craigslist really is...


P.S. Good luck with your other stories! D.
Hi Daylle!

re: Craig: "remember to provide good customer service" --> don't you find this hilarious coming from Craig? *I* certainly do...

Just think about it... how many employees does craigslist have? for how many users? how much money is it "saving" each year by refusing to hire an adequate number of people? where does all that money go and at what cost to the community that built craigslist and continues to make it work?

These are the sort of issues I would have loved to read about. Maybe in your next post about craigslist?:)


P.S. take care D.

(prostitution) what should Blumenthal do?

Mozilla help: (prostitution) what should Blumenthal do? (Mozilla is just crazy, looks like the title and the link must be on this blog, not a different one to work...)
(to show craigslist at fault, without any question)

take advantage of craigslist's Achilles' hill! flood the tinny craigslist staff with removal requests for a huge number of illegal ads (for prostitution, but could be other things too... as many as it would take... from different cities, also, if needed -- as long as the ads are clearly illegal, craigslist is legally obligated to remove them -- only they can't possibly do it given the tinny staff... so unless they would hire people for this purpose, they would be clearly at fault... legally...)


Monday, March 31, 2008

craigslist site in languages other than English: still not quite there...

looks like the only way to get Mozilla to post it is to provide the title AND the hyperlink to the new post, every new post -- how annoying... D.

(helping Mozilla: FYI, Explorer already posted this, way back:
craigslist site in languages other than English: still not quite there... ; there were succesive changes done to the links I talked about -- it was funny while it was happening... )

comic relief: now they got it translated in Italian for the French ...*lol* alright! I've looked enough at this... D.

MORE: they got some of the clauses traslated... here but not here, for instance...

... ok, they got some more done... still, there is more they need to do: just for the basic translation, so that foreign language speakers with no knowledge of English can at least understand how to use the site and what they are agreeing with when posting etc. -- at least some of the clauses one supposedly agrees with when posting are still in English and the detailed help page is still in English only)...


P.S. All Canadians understand English (including those living in Quebec, of course) ... it's just that they feel they should be able to use French... ; with sites like Venezia (capital of the Italian Veneto region), it's a different story altogether -- there would need to be made clear, in the particular language, that the clauses one agrees with etc. are consistent throughout the site, just translated in the local language, so a German person, for instance, could use the Italian site when in Italy having no problem understanding what she is agreeing with when posting etc. --> these are the kind of things craigslist NEEDS to hire people to come up with and do the implementation (from ideas to actual foreign language support, if they claim to provide this)... they've been for profit for a very long time (they need to stop begging people to give them ideas, do the work as volunteers etc. -- plenty of people who are asked to help and end-up helping don't know craigslist is for profit and just how profitable it really is... craigslist must be aware of this -- so isn't what they are doing fraud? aren't they deceiving these people?) D.