DELIA: oh... I believe you! It was just very confusing given that I *knew* I saw the word "will", otherwise I would not have given it much importance ("could" is very weak as far as I'm concerned) D.
ANONYMOUS:
I can assure you that the version submitted to the court was the "could" version and you can seek a copy from the court if you wish.
Posted by Anonymous to craigslist criticism at September 24, 2009 10:50 AM
Twitter: @agaricus got it figured out, Gary! ~D.14 minutes ago from web
DELIA: found the other version! it was at a slightly different url address:
http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/Craigslist%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20Website.pdf
as opposed to:
http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/Craigslist%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20August%202009%20.pdf
sorry about the confusion! (the argument section -- see table of contents -- has A through K subsections as opposed to 1 through 3 in the other version)
MORE: Twitter
(Dart v. Craigslist) CATW's amicus brief Did anybody followed the link to amicus brief on CATW's site last evening or before? please help!2 minutes ago from web
@agaricus Gary, I could really use your help! did you follow the link to the amicus brief on CATW's website before contacting Peter Zollman?2 minutes ago from web
DELIA: that's wild! they are the same NOW (just looked), although as recently as last evening the two links had different versions. The initial one I first saw may have been a prior draft but that's the one CATW linked to when the item got on Google news so I suspect plenty of people saw that and went with it), not only for the spot I referred to -- they had a different organization for the arguments (the sentence I pointed out was not at all *the only* difference)
ANONYMOUS: "I am sorry but that just is not true. The brief that was submitted to the court says "could" as does the brief on CATW's web site at:
http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/Craigslist%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20August%202009%20.pdf
Posted by Anonymous to craigslist criticism at September 24, 2009 8:56 AM
DELIA: yeah, those are the links and... it's NOT the same stuff...
the passages talked about, although worded identically otherwise are qualitatively different where it counts, as I explained bellow.
1). II. ARGUMENTS OF AMICUS CURIAE
K. Craigslist's Profitability, Power and Corporate Responsibility
(end of 1st paragraph of subsection)
"Projected over a year it is fair to estimate that craigslist's global profits from its adult/erotic services ads *will" constitute over half of its profits" [my emphasis]
http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/Craigslist%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20August%202009%20.pdf
2). II. ARGUMENTS OF AMICUS CURIAE
3. WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE TRAFFICKED FOR PROSTITUTION THROUGH CRAIGSLIST, WHICH PROFITS
(middle of last paragraph on 2nd to last page of that subsection)
"Projected over a year it is fair to estimate that craigslist's global profits from its adult/erotic services ads *could" constitute over half of its profits" [my emphasis]
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/Craigslist%20Amicus%20Brief%20Aug%202009.pdf
STILL MORE: thanks! got two anonymous comments, the second shortly after the first; it's unclear if it's the same person or two different ones (I wish anonymous posters would be given numbers such as Anonymous 1, Anonymous 2 etc.)
(1st comment)
This is the brief that was submitted to the court:
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/Craigslist%20Amicus%20Brief%20Aug%202009.pdf
This is the Sheriff's complaint from March:
http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/cookcounty_craigslist_090305.pdf
Posted by Anonymous to craigslist criticism at September 23, 2009 7:14 AM
(2nd comment)
The brief posted on CATW's web site is the correct version submitted to the court Aug. 6, 2009
http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/Craigslist%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20August%202009%20.pdf
Posted by Anonymous to craigslist criticism at September 23, 2009 7:17 AM
EVEN MORE:(Dart v. Craigslist) CATW's amicus brief - which form was actually submitted? what was the exact wording?help! (http://tiny.cc/kPi0F) ~Delia3 minutes ago from web
MORE: if anybody else is confused about it, it's unclear to me which version of the amicus brief did CAWA submit: there is a significant wording difference ("will" vs. "could") between the one posted on their website (which I linked to and was familiar with) and the one anonymous linked to. "Will" is a very definite statement, while "could" is as weak as it can get (I mean, pretty much *anything* could be the case...)
As I told Gary Wolf, I don't think we'll really know what's going on with craigslist until their books are open to the public. The host of issues brought up by the AIM's group estimate of craigslist's revenue reinforces this belief.
Again, I have not been able to take a look at the report myself so I don't really know all that is in it. I would hope an explanation of its great limitations is given upfront -- in fact, I believe these limitations should be pointed out to anybody interested in purchasing and/or using the report. I somehow assumed that such a report would go through the equivalent of a pier review but that does not seem to be the case.
And anonymous is right to point out that Peter Zollman has expressed personal opinions that appear to make him a less than ideal person to do the counting -- maybe he should have recused himself?
If anonymous is correct and Chicago alone brings 1 mill a year, the whole thing would, at first, seem to be bogus (if the numbers given by Peter Zollman cannot be trusted). But when were the two different countings done? If one (for the Dart v. Craigslist law suit) was *before* the changes and beginning to charge and the second - Zollman's -- *after* the changes they could both be accurate.
Another problem is the fact that I would not expect the number of ads in those category to be constant from month to month: there would have very likely been a drastic drop right after changes were implemented, and a steady growth thereafter.
Aside from this, if the AIM group is estimating *the 2009 calendar year revenue* for craigslist (which appears to be the case), it seems to mistakenly treat the adult/erotic as bringing in revenue for *12 month* (Peter Zollman quote towards bottom of previous entry on this blog)-- craigslist has not been charging in that category from the beginning of the year so craigslist's revenue for 2009 would be overstated by a significant amount.
Now, if we are concerned with the adult/erotic *share* of craigslist's revenue, you would have to look a year out at least from *when craigslist started charging*, otherwise the comparison with the total revenue for a year would be deceiving. A much more accurate estimated would probably be obtained if the "transition period" would be thrown out of the calculation altogether.
Also, I have no clue why did Peter Zollman count automotive ads (quote towards the end of my prior entry on this blog, when he talks about why the estimate was conservative) -- although craigslist has been steadily adding to the jobs-pay-list in recent times, it has not charged in the automotive categories *anywhere*, nor is it reasonable to believe it will by the end of the year. So how could those numbers be at all relevant?
re: craigslist profiting from erotic ads even before they were charging... yeah, I thought so too, especially when I saw the first evidence of just how important a share of craigslist's overall traffic was brought by those ads and more recently when I saw Jim Buckmaster seemingly unhappy about loosing those ads to other sites...
Delia
P.S. As always, further comments are encouraged from all parties and all points of view! D.
Showing posts with label Gary Wolf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gary Wolf. Show all posts
Monday, September 21, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Did CATW misrepresent the AIM group's findings about craigslist revenue from adult/erotic services?
MORE (Peter Zollman's hint to Anonymous and reasons why the AIM group's estimate is conservative)
EVEN MORE: Twitter: @ptrueman Patrick, I'm wondering if you can help -- Gary Wolf of Wired says
CATW was wrong in the amicus brief (http://tiny.cc/hmVY9) D.1 minute ago from web in reply to ptrueman
STILL MORE: got an anonymous post -- take it with a grain of salt; thanks, anonymous!
The AIM Report estimates that erotic earns $2,550,000, a month, and adult similarly earns $2,550,000 per month. That this will amount to over 60 million a year, not taking into account the explosion in the number of ads in cities all over the map, means that it is a fair estimate.
Posted by Anonymous to craigslist criticism at September 15, 2009 8:29 AM
EVEN MORE: now *that* didn't work... I mean I got an answer last Friday --sorry about the delay --(thanks if anybody helped out with that) but no useful info; just to clarify for everybody I derive no profit from my online presence, so I do not intend to spend money on gathering info nor do I advise anybody who is just curious about craigslist to do it...D.
MORE: Twitter: Did CATW misrepresent AIM group's findings about craigslist revenue from
adult/erotic services? --please help! (http://tiny.cc/313js) ~Delia 2 minutes ago from web
If so, I will not use them as sources in the future; it was brought to my attention by Gary Wolf (part of his first comment, well, actually second comment but 1st published within my prior entry on this blog) although I took his giving 120 million as craigslist revenue (60 mill times two) when Peter Zollman's article was talking about craigslist hitting 100 mill in revenue as a red flag that Gary may have been mistaken himself in some way.
To clarify things, I tried to contact Peter Zollman directly but so far no luck.
Here's what my request was:
"Hello!
I'm hoping you could clarify something for me. Did CATW misrepresent your findings about craigslist revenue from erotic/adult services in their amicus brief? Or were they correct?
re: "Projected over a year, it is fair to estimate that craigslist's global profits from its adult/erotic services ads will constitute over half of its overall profits"
(end of 29th page of the brief)
http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/Craigslist%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20Website.pdf
Thank you!
Delia"
if anybody can help out and bring this to his attention I'd appreciate it D.
EVEN MORE: Twitter: @ptrueman Patrick, I'm wondering if you can help -- Gary Wolf of Wired says
CATW was wrong in the amicus brief (http://tiny.cc/hmVY9) D.1 minute ago from web in reply to ptrueman
STILL MORE: got an anonymous post -- take it with a grain of salt; thanks, anonymous!
The AIM Report estimates that erotic earns $2,550,000, a month, and adult similarly earns $2,550,000 per month. That this will amount to over 60 million a year, not taking into account the explosion in the number of ads in cities all over the map, means that it is a fair estimate.
Posted by Anonymous to craigslist criticism at September 15, 2009 8:29 AM
EVEN MORE: now *that* didn't work... I mean I got an answer last Friday --sorry about the delay --(thanks if anybody helped out with that) but no useful info; just to clarify for everybody I derive no profit from my online presence, so I do not intend to spend money on gathering info nor do I advise anybody who is just curious about craigslist to do it...D.
MORE: Twitter: Did CATW misrepresent AIM group's findings about craigslist revenue from
adult/erotic services? --please help! (http://tiny.cc/313js) ~Delia 2 minutes ago from web
If so, I will not use them as sources in the future; it was brought to my attention by Gary Wolf (part of his first comment, well, actually second comment but 1st published within my prior entry on this blog) although I took his giving 120 million as craigslist revenue (60 mill times two) when Peter Zollman's article was talking about craigslist hitting 100 mill in revenue as a red flag that Gary may have been mistaken himself in some way.
To clarify things, I tried to contact Peter Zollman directly but so far no luck.
Here's what my request was:
"Hello!
I'm hoping you could clarify something for me. Did CATW misrepresent your findings about craigslist revenue from erotic/adult services in their amicus brief? Or were they correct?
re: "Projected over a year, it is fair to estimate that craigslist's global profits from its adult/erotic services ads will constitute over half of its overall profits"
(end of 29th page of the brief)
http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/Craigslist%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20Website.pdf
Thank you!
Delia"
if anybody can help out and bring this to his attention I'd appreciate it D.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Gary Wolf tells the truth but holds on to many assumptions
MORE
EVEN MORE: As promised, I read your follow-up post. I continue to be very disappointed. As I do not find that your follow-up comment adds to the discussion in any way, I'm sorry but I don't see the point in publishing it or continuing any of this -- Good luck & good bye! D.
MORE: my answer
Gary,
re: "I've committed myself in writing to the story as I understand it."
That would have been perfectly fine, would you have written it as such. That's not at all how your article reads -- at no point is there any hint that this may not be what is actually going on. That's why I thought that pointing out those assumptions would be really helpful.
But I'm really disappointed if you don't even realize those are important assumptions at the core of your article -- you are kidding yourself if you truly believe that you were able to "confirm" those things or that those things are "known" or knowable at this point. (e.g. "Newmark was wedded to the idea that craigslist was a community service." 2nd page, middle of 4th paragraph) There are strong reasons to believe they are false and I explained as much as I could in a short post but the truth of the matter is that we don't really know at this point -- we can't! unless you have some way to read Craig's mind and I'm sorry but I don't believe that you do. As I said before, you appear to just believe him! That's fine, I suppose, as long as you acknowledge it.
"The remainder of your post has a lot to say about what the real intentions of craigslist are. But how, in good conscience, can I take this speculation as anything but one person's unsupported opinion?"
I'm not sure what you mean by "the remainder of my post" : I listed eight core assumptions -- that was it! Gary, you presented the intentions of craigslist in your article -- without indicating any doubt! You apparently got those things straight from the horse's mouth...sorry, Craig's mouth. Whether it was directly from him or by believing many others that just believed him is irrelevant. So how can you in good conscience present Craig's story as "the truth"?
Regardless, I do believe you deserve a lot of praise for the things you got right (three major ones!)
Delia
P.S. If you ever change your mind about the things we disagree about, I'd love to hear about it! D.
EVEN MORE: Gary's comment
Delia - A lot of reporting goes into a story that is not described in the piece. It would be very boring to into detail about who I talked to and what they said, when the upshot was to confirm a lot of what is already known (or, as you say, "assumed"). I've committed myself in writing to the story as I understand it. I think if you are going to tell me I'm wrong, you ought to say what, exactly, I'm wrong about, and how you know I'm wrong. I'm willing to be corrected, if you have anything to offer. But all I see here is a set of leading questions that imply nefarious goings-on, unsupported by facts or evidence. The exception is your assertion that more that half its profits (I think you meant revenue) come from the adult/erotic ads. I did not talk about this in the story, but I'm going to publish the correct estimate when I have it.
The remainder of your post has a lot to say about what the real intentions of craigslist are. But how, in good conscience, can I take this speculation as anything but one person's unsupported opinion?
Posted by Gary Isaac Wolf to craigslist criticism at August 31, 2009 3:41 PM
STILL MORE: @agaricus Gary, just read your comment for my blog --I'll have an answer for you tomorrow evening; wil publish bot comments at the same time
MORE: Twitter: @agaricus Gary, here's the list I promised (http://tiny.cc/yiymq) ~Delia
Gary,
As I already told you (on Twitter) , I believe you did a marvelous job figuring out the truth about craigslist's "customer service." You also did a very good job on describing the retarded development of the site and the modus operandi -- "low-key dictatorship." Not surprisingly, you got plenty of criticism from "Craig's friends."
Anyways, here is the list of assumptions I promised:
#1. Craig's story of craigslist is true (you appear to just believe it, I see no evidence of any doubt on your side at any point; much of the article, aside from your accurate description of the customer service, underdevelopment of the site and the mode of operation, should really be prefaced by "Craig sez")
#2. Craig's persona is authentic (it is funny and entertaining at times but it's very hard to believe it's real -- again I see no evidence of doubt on your side)
#3 craigslist is on solid legal footing (even though more than half of its current profits come from adult/erotic ads (http://tiny.cc/BgGeR) -- many of them illegal --, the law requires craigslist to remove ads once they are made aware they are illegal and craigslist has nowhere enough employees to be able to do this)
#4 the craigslist profits are really sitting in the compay's accounts waiting to be used for expansion -- adding more cities -- (although craigslist is quietly and steadily adding more cities to the pay list even though current profits would more then suffice for offering a craigslist site for each and every city in the world)
#6 "the ambiance of neglect is not a way to extract more profit" (although this is the undeniable direct effect)
#7 the intention is not to maximize profits in the long run by keeping expenses as low as possible while expanding as much as possible and quietly and steadily adding cities to the pay list
#8. it would be no problem if craigslist got sold at some point (although craigslist was really built by the community under the constant assurance that it would not be sold)
Delia
EVEN MORE: As promised, I read your follow-up post. I continue to be very disappointed. As I do not find that your follow-up comment adds to the discussion in any way, I'm sorry but I don't see the point in publishing it or continuing any of this -- Good luck & good bye! D.
MORE: my answer
Gary,
re: "I've committed myself in writing to the story as I understand it."
That would have been perfectly fine, would you have written it as such. That's not at all how your article reads -- at no point is there any hint that this may not be what is actually going on. That's why I thought that pointing out those assumptions would be really helpful.
But I'm really disappointed if you don't even realize those are important assumptions at the core of your article -- you are kidding yourself if you truly believe that you were able to "confirm" those things or that those things are "known" or knowable at this point. (e.g. "Newmark was wedded to the idea that craigslist was a community service." 2nd page, middle of 4th paragraph) There are strong reasons to believe they are false and I explained as much as I could in a short post but the truth of the matter is that we don't really know at this point -- we can't! unless you have some way to read Craig's mind and I'm sorry but I don't believe that you do. As I said before, you appear to just believe him! That's fine, I suppose, as long as you acknowledge it.
"The remainder of your post has a lot to say about what the real intentions of craigslist are. But how, in good conscience, can I take this speculation as anything but one person's unsupported opinion?"
I'm not sure what you mean by "the remainder of my post" : I listed eight core assumptions -- that was it! Gary, you presented the intentions of craigslist in your article -- without indicating any doubt! You apparently got those things straight from the horse's mouth...sorry, Craig's mouth. Whether it was directly from him or by believing many others that just believed him is irrelevant. So how can you in good conscience present Craig's story as "the truth"?
Regardless, I do believe you deserve a lot of praise for the things you got right (three major ones!)
Delia
P.S. If you ever change your mind about the things we disagree about, I'd love to hear about it! D.
EVEN MORE: Gary's comment
Delia - A lot of reporting goes into a story that is not described in the piece. It would be very boring to into detail about who I talked to and what they said, when the upshot was to confirm a lot of what is already known (or, as you say, "assumed"). I've committed myself in writing to the story as I understand it. I think if you are going to tell me I'm wrong, you ought to say what, exactly, I'm wrong about, and how you know I'm wrong. I'm willing to be corrected, if you have anything to offer. But all I see here is a set of leading questions that imply nefarious goings-on, unsupported by facts or evidence. The exception is your assertion that more that half its profits (I think you meant revenue) come from the adult/erotic ads. I did not talk about this in the story, but I'm going to publish the correct estimate when I have it.
The remainder of your post has a lot to say about what the real intentions of craigslist are. But how, in good conscience, can I take this speculation as anything but one person's unsupported opinion?
Posted by Gary Isaac Wolf to craigslist criticism at August 31, 2009 3:41 PM
STILL MORE: @agaricus Gary, just read your comment for my blog --I'll have an answer for you tomorrow evening; wil publish bot comments at the same time
MORE: Twitter: @agaricus Gary, here's the list I promised (http://tiny.cc/yiymq) ~Delia
Gary,
As I already told you (on Twitter) , I believe you did a marvelous job figuring out the truth about craigslist's "customer service." You also did a very good job on describing the retarded development of the site and the modus operandi -- "low-key dictatorship." Not surprisingly, you got plenty of criticism from "Craig's friends."
Anyways, here is the list of assumptions I promised:
#1. Craig's story of craigslist is true (you appear to just believe it, I see no evidence of any doubt on your side at any point; much of the article, aside from your accurate description of the customer service, underdevelopment of the site and the mode of operation, should really be prefaced by "Craig sez")
#2. Craig's persona is authentic (it is funny and entertaining at times but it's very hard to believe it's real -- again I see no evidence of doubt on your side)
#3 craigslist is on solid legal footing (even though more than half of its current profits come from adult/erotic ads (http://tiny.cc/BgGeR) -- many of them illegal --, the law requires craigslist to remove ads once they are made aware they are illegal and craigslist has nowhere enough employees to be able to do this)
#4 the craigslist profits are really sitting in the compay's accounts waiting to be used for expansion -- adding more cities -- (although craigslist is quietly and steadily adding more cities to the pay list even though current profits would more then suffice for offering a craigslist site for each and every city in the world)
#6 "the ambiance of neglect is not a way to extract more profit" (although this is the undeniable direct effect)
#7 the intention is not to maximize profits in the long run by keeping expenses as low as possible while expanding as much as possible and quietly and steadily adding cities to the pay list
#8. it would be no problem if craigslist got sold at some point (although craigslist was really built by the community under the constant assurance that it would not be sold)
Delia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)