meaninglessly high search numbers for craigslist

EVEN MORE: twitter

@jzawodn jeremy, was there something you wanted to say or... should I take it as no comment? ~Delia re: (http://bit.ly/90Sfz8) about 11 hours ago via web

@jzawodn re: http://bit.ly/dlxigZ Jeremy, you asked me to expand on what I had originally wrote in that entry and that's what I did (MORE).. 15 minutes ago via web

@jzawodn re: http://bit.ly/dlxigZ the main paragraph did nothing but fully explain what I had already written (MORE)... 14 minutes ago via web

@jzawodn re: http://bit.ly/dlxigZ Jim' s entry on the craigslistblog was what prompted the whole issue so I felt I had to address it... MORE 14 minutes ago via web

@jzawodn re: http://bit.ly/dlxigZ I did not necessarily expect you to address what Jim said, although it is definitely related; no big deal! 15 minutes ago via web

twitter: (craigslist search) discussion with craigslist's Jeremy Zawodny --craigslist criticism blog (http://bit.ly/90Sfz8) feel free to join! ~Delia half a minute ago via web

MORE: email exchanges published with the permission of craigslist' Jeremy Zawodny

As far as I can see, a comparison of search providers based on the number of search inquiries only makes sense if search efficiency is comparable. I don't believe that is the case: craigslist search is much more inefficient than google search, for instance, even when just searching craigslist -- because there are much fewer parameters available for the craigslist search when compared with google advanced search (you can't search in more than one location, for instance, even if you'd be willing to drive well outside of your own city and plenty of people do), one needs to perform a lot more search inquiries to get the same information that could be obtained through just one search using google. And plenty of information that google easily gives through a single inquiry could never be obtained by using craigslist search.

My suspicion has been that craigslist keeps its search (and the rest of the site) antiquated, barely changing things, at least in part because it makes the numbers look better, it looks like there is a lot more activity on the site and in fact there is, it's just that it is meaningless activity... frustrated people spending way more time on getting things done than they would really need to be spending.

Delia

P.S. also, I have no idea where Jim Buckmaster got his numbers and have no way of checking as long as he gives no references, the march 2010 report he refers to looks very different than his numbers... I find it strange that he gives no link to the source:
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/4/comScore_Releases_March_2010_U.S._Search_Engine_Rankings/(language)/eng-USD

I also find it deceiving that he claims Comscore has ranked craigslist number 5 when, apparently, it has done nothing of the kind -- the designation is really Jim's... re: "Here are the top 5 search providers, as ranked by Comscore for March 2010" D.


----- Original message -----
Sent: 2010/06/05 21:27:24
Subject: Re: Re: [craigslist criticism] New comment on meaninglessly high search numbers for craigslist.

Sure.

Jeremy

On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 04:27:13PM -0400, dperiod wrote:

re: Can you expand on that a bit? Or email me: jzawodn@craigslist.org


Thanks,


Jeremy



sure... is it ok to post our email exchanges in the body of my blog entry you commented on? ~Delia


(http://blog.craigslist.org/2010/05/mere-happenstance/#comment-163874) twitter

Jeremy: my impression is that there is a whole lot of useless searching on craigslist (which meaninglessly bumps up the numbers) because the search function continues to be archaic and inefficient (apparently on purpose)

Delia