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.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Mozilla: anybody home?

MORE: alright! I just wanted to make sure Mozilla users got the message
you are way behind...

Thursday, March 27, 2008:
(prostitution) Jim up to his old tricks again: pulling percentages out of his hat...
Friday, March 28, 2008:
classic craigslist empty bragging: "Multiple language support on craigslist"
Saturday, March 29, 2008
is Mozilla just plain dumb?
(prostitution) yeah, they are not *directly* charging...


(prostitution) yeah, they are not *directly* charging...

... but does that mean they don't ultimately profit from the prostitution advertised on the site? apparently, the Connecticut Attorney General doesn't think so... and he may well be right...


P.S. looks like Jim's claim may be full of air again...: (2nd from last paragraph)"In the New Haven Register, Attorney General Blumenthal is quoted as saying that our company profits from prostitution;" "That is both utterly false and significantly defamatory, as 100% of our revenue comes from paid job listings and broker apartment rental listings. We certainly hope that the attorney general was misquoted or misinformed, and we look forward to an immediate retraction of this false and damaging allegation." [my emphasis] D.

is Mozilla just plain dumb?

it's now 2 posts behind... oh, well... I'd use Explorer if I wanted to keep us with this blog, but it's up to you:) D.

Friday, March 28, 2008

classic craigslist empty bragging: "Multiple language support on craigslist"

EVEN MORE: update

MORE: (31st comment)


As far as I can tell you are not a dummy, so why take such a superficial look at the issue? (I’m assuming you are not withholding from your readers things you are aware of).


...yeah, right! if you want to actually do anything on the site, you have to understand English! if you click on any categories on the Quebec site, for instance, the French evaporates once you click on "annonce," equivalent to "post" in English (even the "aide", meaning "help" in French is in...English!)


P.S. Don't tell Craig that merely translating the interface into different languages does NOT mean they have "multiple language support" (he might through a fit...) -- it merely means they finally did some basic translation... and they didn't even do it all... : they only translated the front page and the general help, FAQ pages... (classic craigslist empty bragging) D.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

(prostitution) Jim up to his old tricks again: pulling percentages out of his hat...

Jim (8th paragraph):"Misuse of Craigslist for illegal purposes is absolutely unacceptable to us. This month we implemented new screening procedures for erotic service ads, which have dramatically improved compliance with our terms of use, and reduced the volume of such ads by up to 80 percent."[my emphasis]


P.S. finally, somebody who's in position to do something about it understands what's going on...

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (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." D.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

image preview: will craigslist ban it, also? (just because...)

like it banned Listpic? and never came up with its own version although users were hurting... (they did a rudimentary knock-off on a very limited scale and then forgot about it... well, the community hasn't! just see the first comment) D.

Friday, March 21, 2008

again, were are all those millions going?

instead of being spent on finding ways to prevent horible things like this... D.

silly Mozilla: won't post my last entry...

MORE: alright! it's posted now... (looks like all I had to do was cuss at it...) D.
the March 18th one... (Explorer showed it right away... I posted it a couple of days back ) D.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

(valleywag): come on Owen, you can do much better than that...

I know you can:) -- do some more digging of your own, will you?


P.S. netvet has a great hint for you!

P.P.S. you also appear to have missed Craig talking about monetization! as just being in tension with "community feel" (3.42) --> whatever happened with "we are a community service and only do what the community asks as to do?" D.

Saturday, March 15, 2008

fair housing: clueless is as clueless does... (they were *ads*, NOT forum posts)

EVEN MORE: bye bye non-discrimitation laws... and who knows how many other good things? things are just going to move online --it's just a matter of time -- and the clueless legal system is just rolling over... and this is happening in the US! D.

there goes my belief that the legal system has half a clue...

"The ruling is a victory for Internet companies such as Craigslist, ebay Inc., Inc. and others by protecting companies that provide online forums for users' speech." (4th paragraph)--> the forums are auxiliary to what craigslist does: advertising! (pure and simple) and the offending ADS were in the ad section...


Wednesday, March 12, 2008

the never ending fairy tale

MORE: Jim sounds sedated in this interview -- download link at the end of second paragraph -- (I wonder if he was...) -- and was it an interview? sounds like a monologue... on and on he goes... (mindlessly repeating the craigslist BS ad nauseam... or so it sounds to me) : we are doing a marvelous job with the impossibly tinny stuff... it really makes no difference to us that the minuscule staff couldn't possibly meet the needs of the community... we just keep repeating that it does! so... they can go ahead and print it already! -- that's all that counts, doesn't it? D.

Hi, Rory! (the guy apparently declined to post my comment, I did receive a confirmation that it got submitted; as of Friday morning all 7 comments he accepted are positive ones -- my my, I used to think highly of BBC journalism -- ; again, no big deal, he had to read it to decline to post it so he's got the message...)

re: "Craigslist is one of the few survivors of the early idealistic days of the web."

well, I wouldn't be so sure...

If it's *ever* been truly idealistic -- and that's a question in itself -- it certainly looks like it's been moving in the opposite direction: just look at things like the rate of profit increases (profits that are not spent on serving the community like they were supposed to be) and loss of transparency.


P.S. take care!

Sunday, March 9, 2008

Mark Pesce answers

STILL MORE: looks like I'm not the only one who got his last name wrong... D.

EVEN MORE: why I spelled it wrong the first time around? I remember checking to see if it was Mark with a "k" (and not Marc with a "c") and I suppose by the time I got to the last name my mind was already set on "k," not "c" so Pesce go to be Peske... D.

MORE: how is Mark Pesce's last name supposed to be pronunced? (2: 50 time mark); I would guess it's Italian at origin (meaning fish) ... then again, I'm a fine one to talk:) given that I initially spelled it wrong... D.
(here: 1st comment)

Hi, Mark!

Welcome to my blog! I certainly hope I didn't offend you in any way... Just so you know what this is, it is mostly a record of my thoghts on the topic (stream of consciousness style).

Regarding your last name: sorry I got it wrong the first time around, I did correct it as soon as I realized and well before I saw your comment on March 9th, 7:30ish A.M. (also before you submitted your comment at 12:23 AM, March 9, 2008 ; I was away for most of yesterday)

1. real estate costing money and why

As far as I can see (again, these are just my thoughts on the topic), your statments on charging for real estate not only contradict each other but are so far appart that you appear to make one claim at one point and the opposite many paragraphs down without any attempt of reconciliation.

I also see no explanation for the reason you give -- the why -- (you appear to simply repeat what craigslist says and present it as the truth --> the comment I left for Liz may be helpful here)

2. Alexa ranking at the time when you wrote it and the importance of telling the reader what had been prior to that (that it went down to 10th, it had been 7th at its best)

I thought it was great that you used Alexa as your source and your figure was correct! (I was very pleased with that --> that's what initially got me to write about your article and what prompted the title of the entry: "Mark Pesce got it right!")

However, I believe that giving the rank just at the particular time is not putting things in perspective for the reader and does not give an idea of how craigslist has been changing and I believe that we cannot understand what is going on with craigslist without knowing how it's been changing.

I hope you find my comments helpful and sorry if posting my raw thoughts gave the impression I was "going off."

I do wish you all the best! Take care!


Friday, March 7, 2008

Craig's ruthless damage control: she's probably just a kid...

alright... I've had enough of this non-sense: If you want to get a good idea of how he drops in attempting to "fix it" when people are not quite saying what he would like them to say just search for his comments D.

EVEN MORE: he's drawing the words out of their mouth when they don't sing their praises clearly?

MORE: well... looks like he gets what he deserves (at least on occasion...)

re (2nd comment; Craig's was first -- notice all the PRish talk: "the site is almost completely free"... so on and so forth...)

zoomplanet: "Craig on the other hand at a LOW ESTIMATE is making roughly (5million/year on manhattan proper craigslist apartment ads ALONE!! -- AND THAT IS AT THE CHEAPER BARGAIN PRICE!-(how do I come up with the $5mill number. well as of 11:59pm Nov 1, I counted 25 pages (with 100 NYC ads per page) advertising in different areas of the city (west village soho, chelsea, upper west ...etc.... -that calculated per year, knowing that it cost $10 PER AD to post on craigslist, ( though $6 if you buy in bulk) ( THIS IS NOT THE NY TIMESor NY post) just an online search engine......) --that gives Craig a nice cushion to start his year off with more than $5million JUST ON NYC rentals advertising ALONE.....---and is managing to destroy many an honest broker and or sales agent in the process. Yes there are other places to post for free, though they have been tested, and unfortunately no one reads them, so brokers and sales agents have no choice but to post on the monopoly of craigslist and ultimately lead to high fees for the clients due to absurd prices to post craigslist ads, that quickly become obsolete as the competitor post their ads. So all of you who are seaching for apartments in NY. They exist, though it is too costly on craigslist to advertise them all now. Thanks craig. enjoy the easy 5 mill. you are pocketing every day. at the expense of many a newyorker. :)

I hope it makes you happy."

(yet Craig is out there doing damage control)

Hi, Liz! you are way ahead of the pack:)

re:”The interview has one very credible source on the subject of Craigslist, but at the same time is questionable because that person has a personal stake in the company, and is likely to be biased. His statements also aren’t checked or backed up with sources.”

take care! D.

Ebay overtakes craigslist? no so fast...

EVEN MORE: looks like they are hiding the numbers of ads everywhere now... -- this is a good example of why you need to know how craigslist is changing to understand what is going on; they were completely transparent in this respect earlier on -- you could see these numbers in all cities and all categories... by's the opposite!).

MORE: I think the best way to judge who's ahead is to compare the number of paying ads --> looks like Craig (of Jim or whoever it was) figured this out early on because the number of ads in a place are hidden once they start charging --> doesn't mean you can't find it out -- it's just more work...) D.

they may well have the traffic, but they haven't made the transition to asking for the money -- THAT'S the tricky part... craigslist has successfully done that in 2 categories and keeps adding cities to the pay list (for jobs, as of now...)


P.S. also, comparing ebay-properties traffic and craigslist traffic (at this point, when they are not asking for money), may not say much -- I suspect a good part of their traffic in the US is just duplicate ads that are also on craigslist...(abroad may be less the case) D.

growing sources of profits: #3. allowing Skype conections on the site?

I'm having a hard time believing they are not getting any revenue out of this...( yet when they talk about sources of revenue they don't mention it...)


P.S. this is sort of an ad for Skype... (well, lots of them!)

P.P.S. again, charging or raising money in other ways is not necessarily bad, NOT using it for what it was supposed to be used (serving the community) is the problem... D.

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Mark Pesce got it right!

EVEN MORE: how can he not know that craigslist has been charging for real estate in NYC for years?

re:(5th paragraph, 2nd sentence): "The only thing Newmark ever charged for was job listings..."

he also appears to have no understanding of how craigslist changed (it's like he has a few snapshots in his mind and is just roughly connecting the dots --> if this is what's going on I'm not surprised he gets such a distorted view... he really needs to have the image in motion to understand what's going on)

MORE (10th paragraph): "It’s estimated that upwards of one billion dollars a year in advertising revenue is being lost to the newspapers because of Craigslist. This money isn’t flowing into Craig Newmark’s pocket – or rather, only a small amount of it is." [my emphasis]---> right!... it's been tinny and getting tinnier by the day...*lol*

I don't know what's wrong with these people... they certainly seem smart enough, otherwise... (it's just that when it comes to craigslist a bizarre malaise seems to hit them and they can't put two and two together...)

he said it himself:" Although it is still privately owned, and profits are kept secret, it’s estimated that Craigslist earns as much as USD $150 million from its job listings – while, with a staff of just 24 people, it costs perhaps a few million a year to keep the whole thing up and running."(second half of 8th paragraph)

re (8th paragraph, 2nd sentance):

Mark Pesce on craigslist: "It is now the 65th busiest website in the world, the 10th busiest in the United States"

still, he doesn't seem to realize that craigslist has been going down to 10th from 7th


P.S. I would have left him a note but he's making it a hassle to do it..."you must be logged in to comment" --> alright then, no hint for you:)... D.

just giving a hint...

Hi, Henry! (4th comment)

I suggest you check Alexa for the relevant metrics (craigslist has been going *down* for a long time... it's merely 10th for US as of now... used to be 7th; 65 overall... used to be 60 no too long ago).


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

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

forget all you've heard about craigslist

MORE: this didn't get posted (as of the morning of March 9th) but I'm also not sure that I submitted it correctly (it was a bit confusing, I thought I did submit it... but there was no message confirming... ) D.

Hi Glyn,

re: "I have been a technology journalist and consultant for a quarter of a century, covering the Internet since March 1994, and the free software world since 1995."

Great! I suggest you forget all you've heard about craigslist, step back and take a critical look at it. Since you liked that article so much, I'd start with things like this:

Mark Pesce: “Although it is still privately owned, and profits are kept secret, it’s estimated that Craigslist earns as much as USD $150 million from its job listings – while, with a staff of just 24 people, it costs perhaps a few million a year to keep the whole thing up and running.”

Good luck!


P.S. take care! D.

will craigslist go public?


I think they will have to seriously worry about fraud charges if they do but the way Jim talks about it makes me think they hope they can get away with it and they are slowly preparing the public for it...

re: (about 2/3 into the interview)

Q: you have absolutely no plans to ever go public? (great question, BTW! and very well asked it's just that Jim is vague and ambiguous and she appears to fall for it... why no follow up questions?)

Jim: (notice how he breathes heavily before he begins his answer -- he does appear much more uncomfortable than Craig delivering all the BS, he may be a decent guy that just got caught up in this and feels like he has no choice but to follow Craig's BS lead; Craig, on the other hand, appears to enjoy fooling everyone from friends, such as Dan Gillmor -- although it looks like he might be waking up for good -- to foes... no to mention "the girlfriend," poor Eileen...)

"Well, in our view we have no advantages of doing that, at least from what we know now..." --> of course there is a heavy dose of ambiguity and confusion that follows that statment

Jim:(...) "somehow it doesn't seem appropriate that we would be managing things like investors' expectation about future revenews and profits"

--> that's the inappropriate part??? NOT the fact of going public after making people believe they would never do that and continuing to receive volunteer resource and benefit from word of mouth etc.? (this should have never been a question ... but then again, they should have never turned for-profit, definitely not without voluntarily disclosing their profits -- thekeran's link; 8th comment -- so people could see what they are made off...)


P.S. No Jim... it just seems appropriate that you would forget about investors! (and continue to make untold millions after millions after millions yourselves! while still claiming to be a "public service" and continue to ask for and accept peoples' help -- now, isn't that much much better? if you are not completely rotten, get out of this mess while you can...) D.

craigslist BS: all that irrelevant growth

are Craig& Jim straight out lying when they say craigslist has been growing? ... not exactly, they are just ambiguous and misleading and they only have to fool the first dummies -- the subsequent ones will just quote the first...


P.S. craigslist has been adding sites (like hundreds)... so it would have to flat out collapse not to show decent growth when they are expanding that much! -- Jim just said they were going to add another hundred! ; so absolute numbers (pageviews) is not the relevant metric (before they started slipping up on the relevant metrics they were quoting Alexa all the time, they stopped once the problems started...) D.

thanks Google! (well... it's not really gone...)

EVEN MORE: they guy is actually running one of those "ad sites" people get suckered into while claiming to be "his blog" (has that in the url -- pretty sick) ; if you know how to make him stop... I'd appreciate it! thanks! :) D.

MORE: unfortunately, it's back, first name was Stephen (not John) -- please ignore his site, I really don't like what he's doing...(although it was a bit flattering, it's pretty pathetic when you think about it)-- again, I thought "the omniscent Google" just picked up on it somehow... D.

I was both flattered and annoyed: a "craigslist alternative" by a guy named John something somehow managed to show up in the Google blog search as "craigslist criticism" -- as the second hit, after my blog, when searching for "craigslist criticism" (I didn't know if he was violating something or it was just one of the loopholes): it's gone now...


P.S. I am not associated with and I do not endorse any "craigslist alternatives" (I've been keeping some otherwise welcomed comments off this blog because it looked like they were attempting to promote specific "craigslist alternatives") D.

Monday, March 3, 2008

craigslist BS: Craig lets Jim do the dirty work for him...

EVEN MORE: Jim appears to have some difficulty with spewing all that BS (his voice is wavering in places) but he manages...; Craig is just having a grand old time... towards the end of the video (at the begining he is just his ususal boring self) --> a sucker born every minute when it comes to journalists, is it not? (and not ONLY journalists...looks like VCs too...)

MORE:(towards the end of the interview) "So then, do you have employees that speak those languages?" -->HAHAHA; shows you just how credulous she is... (craigslist's touted "Spanish language support" is ONE volunteer out of Spain...) and of course Jim is just confusing the interviewer some more ( "we do have coverage of a few languages" --> like what? spanish and...English! *lol*) and leaves it to that... he even had her giggling at one point -- where do they find all these groupies?); just listen to that interview it's riddled with this crap... from begining to end... "that puts us, I think, in the top 7 as far as traffic in the English language world" --> the worst thing is that this keeps being presented as a fact by other "journalists" without ever checking... (and missing the fact that craigslist has been going down in traffic rank, reach, and pages views per user for a long time...used to be 7 in the US, its been 10 for a long time; overall its fall has been even steeper, its 65 now and it was 60 last time a checked...
(and Jim doesn't skip a beat)

Jim (1/5 into the interview): "back in 1998 when the site had no revenew whatsoever, Craig went to the users to ask how he might raise some money to offset costs, which were becoming considerable and which were coming out of his pocket since he was running craigslist as a hobby..."

--> well, see for yourself! (in 1998 craigslist was "List Foundation" -- a corporation -- you have to incorporate first and then get the tax exemption if you operate as a non-profit foundation and had sponsors listed on the website, on top of what people where pitching in in terms of time and other resources, formally and informaly and had done so for a long long time...)

--> so in 1999 they "forgot" about the non-profit thing --they just let their non-profit classification lapse -- and became "profitable"? what? how do you get from asking the community that built craigslist for some way to offset costs to being a for-profit that keeps getting fatter and fatter... while providing as little customer service and improvements as they can get away with? and more importantly, how do you get the media to eat all the BS and keep regurgitating it ad infinitum? (this is the story of craigslist and a very embarrassing moment for journalism...)


Saturday, March 1, 2008

(valleywag) you are wasting your time Owen...

MORE: (16th comment)

That part is entirely their business as far as I can see: I believe they should have been able to end up together POST Jimmy's official involvement with her Wikipedia entry as a matter of personal freedom (but nothing should have been going on *while* he was officially involved --> this wasn't so if that transcript is not made up). D.

MORE: (14th comment)

re: "My understanding is that that exchange occurs later in the relationship"

yeah, that's the thing!: Jimmy said there was NO relationship while he was officially involved with the edits (that transcript contradicts his story -- well, *more* than just contradicts it... adds insult to injury since he is actually cracking jokes re: his conflict of interests; Valleywag pointed that out very well....) D.

MORE: (12 comment)

what's subtle about this, Seth?

" right so the way it is told now, hang on a second *let's actually do this right now* because the last thing I want to do is take a break from fucking your brains out all night to work on your wikipedia entry :)" [my emphasis]


P.S. I believed Jimmy until I saw this (his story was that whatever he had going was *post* his official involvement -- this proves otherwise -- IF it's not made-up, of course...)

P.P.S. now, if NOT subtle for you would mean that he would have had to just tell her out of the blue: "by the way, just so you know, I'd be so much more help to you with your Wikipedia entry if you would just sleep with me... I'd use my power and influence as much as I possibly could..." --> he didn't *have to* say it in these words, did he? He *showed* her by arguing in her favor and getting others to help, WHILE talking about having sex with her... this is NOT subtle to me...(but I could be wrong...) D.

STILL MORE: (10th comment) Seth: to me, trading edits for sex is the ONLY part that matters, what happened to her page *after* the break-up is not exactly Jimmy's doing (unless he continues to edit her page through proxies -- I doubt it -- , Rachel is just saying that he removed his protection so... it all went to hell... not at all unexpected) D.

EVEN MORE (8th comment): Seth, as I already told you (in a prior post here), I think Dave Winer got it right re: trading sex for edits (and this is the only part of the affair that is newsworthy, as far as I can see) *providing* Rachel didn't make the stuff up... and it looks like pretty much everybody thinks you just can't make this up...

Rachel's last post on Wikipedia (which got her banned, so she says) clarifies the issue even more:

"You couldn't have cared less about my Wikipedia entry until we started sleeping together, Jimmy. At that point, it was nicely cleaned up and taken care of through your proxies here on the site, as per your instructions (and it's not the first time an article has been cleaned up through a proxy, as per your orders...this kind of stuff, contrary to popular belief, doesn't just happen "magically" here on Wikipedia). Now that we're not sleeping together and since you so publicly broke up with my here on this website, the page about me has turned into a complete free-for-all."

MORE (8th comment): Seth: well, it's a whole lot of stuff in that comment so I guess it wasn't easy to see what I meant. Here's something a lot more to the point (although it doesn't have the detail his other comment had):

Dave Winer: "They got a good story because Wikipedia, the publication that Wales runs, has rules that prevent people from editing stories they have an interest in. Wales was trading edits to Rachel Marsden's profile for sex. They got him, and had they left out the parts you don't like, it wouldn't have been clear that they did."

P.S. (9th comment) he is assuming those transcripts are real (as far as I can see nobody is debating that) D.

MORE: Seth's pointing out other issues, also... (4th comment)

Seth, I don't know if you've seen Dave Winer's take on this but I think it's the best around:

(55th comment to Arrington's TechCrunch entry):


P.S. I do agree with what you are saying (that sounds pretty bad also) D.

EVEN MORE (comment 55): more detail from Dave Winer

MORE: yeah... unfortunately (for Jimmy) Dave is right! it's just that it wasn't Owen alone (that didn't seem enough to me) but Owen + Jordan is hard to dismiss... D.

UPDATE: well, looks like Jordan has the proof that this is newsworthy! (I actually gave Jimmy the benefit of a doubt and, absent proof to the contrary, believed him that whatever he had going was POST his official involvement and disclosed to Wikipedia administrators)

P.S. still, it would be nothing compared with bringing to light what look like Craig's dark secrets... (which could very well prove to be more than just newsworthy...). D.


so Jimmy's personal life is a train wreck... that's probably true for half of the people around and I'm not at all sure you are not among them -- you want something that's not a dime a dozen? look into Craig's NAMBLA thing... (if you have the balls to get to the bottom of that you deserve to stand next to Stephen Colbert)