Slashdot Mirror


Blogs Bring Back Dot-Com Poster Boy

An anonymous reader writes "Wired has a profile of Jason Calacanis, the former Dot-Com bubble rider, and now the mind behind the sale of Weblogs, Inc. to AOL." From the article: "Calacanis and Alvey wanted to get in on the action, but the scale and limitations of blogs bugged them. 'We decided that one blog, like Rafat's, could make tens of thousands of dollars a year,' says Alvey. 'Definitely enough for one person who works 24 hours a day to sustain a business. But how could you get so that you could add more people?' The answer, they decided, was to build a network of blogs."

127 comments

  1. first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, what will bring back the dot.com repo man?

    first post, long live dialtone

  2. Comparing bubbles to oranges by gbulmash · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think three major differences between bubble purchases and current purchases are pricing, financing, and profitability. Back in the bubble, money-losing companies were selling for 9 figures and paid for almost entirely in stock. Calcanis, whatever you want to say about him, was turning a profit with Weblogs, Inc., sold for 1/10th of what bubble prices used to run, and though the details are not clear, I'm betting he got a good chunk of the sale price in cash instead of restricted stock units.

    - Greg

    1. Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges by BlackShirt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The bubble was not only about stock price. It was also exaggerated assumptions, euphoria and techno-babble. You could think that sensible and reasonable people would not talk BS but guess what....

      One rule. #1. Get your feet on the ground.
      OK. Two rules. #2. Think yourself.

    2. Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      Calcanis, whatever you want to say about him, was turning a profit with Weblogs, Inc.


      That's only something to boast about if the money is all that matters. I could understand the admiration if blogs were something useful or worthwhile, but, well...they're just blogs.

      When are we going to start demanding quality from those who get rich quick? Is it even possible to get quality anything from the likes of Calcanis? Do the creators of quality products ever get rich from their products, or is that the preserve of the peddlers?
    3. Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I think that some blogs give us just what they offer and offer quality. Engadget is a quality site that brings me news about gadgets, and that is exactly what the say they will give me...

      The reason Jason Calacanis is making a profit with blogs is because we want blogs, we like blogs and we need blogs...

    4. Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges by Propaganda13 · · Score: 1

      No. No we don't.

    5. Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly when did so-called "leftists" change from being about the "masses" and the "proletariat" into smug, elitist fucks?

      God, you're an arrogant little shit.

    6. Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Democrats aren't leftists.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    7. Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges by nacturation · · Score: 1

      When are we going to start demanding quality from those who get rich quick? Is it even possible to get quality anything from the likes of Calcanis? Do the creators of quality products ever get rich from their products, or is that the preserve of the peddlers?

      This "In Soviet Russia" moment brought to you by Ayn Rand.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    8. Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of wrong - he has posted before that they were NOT making a profit!

    9. Re:Comparing bubbles to oranges by fermion · · Score: 1
      The only difference between a stock sale and cash sale is the scammer gets the sale price no matter how horrible the company is. By selling for stock, the seller takes on some amount of risk. The seller only gets the full price if the firm maintains value

      As far as profitability is concerned, the difference lies only in exsiting resources. The dot com people spent incredible amounts of money building and buy physical and IT and virtual resources and infrastucture. Ultimately advertising and direct sales could not maintain all that infrastructure, causes the consolidation we saw. This is really ok because the infrastructure needed to be built, and models needed to be tested. If there was an error it was that investors mistook the experiment for sustainable production, as well as living in a dilusional world in which advertising rates were seen as stable, instead of seeking a rational level. This later part really killed many companies because commisions on advertising only deals were paid up front, and the salespeople really had no oversight to prevent them inflating the value of deal whose real value was approximately zero.

      The advantage now is that bloggers do not have to pay build infrastructure, but merely to use it. And since we have excess infrastuture, it is a sellers market. Therefore, the investment needed is small, and all one really needs to cover is salary of the blogger. Compare this to the case at the beginning fo the dot com where perhaps one would have to pay a software developer, and IT admistrator, and the perhpas the cost of a T1 line. This company would potential be worth much more than a the firm we saw in this case, if for nothing else that physical resources. It is also harder to tell if the current model is 'losing' money as the resources are potentially much more fluid.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  3. Social networks by eneville · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Social network blogs are killing internet content. Who wants to read through a tone of IRC logs to find one line of matching relevance?

    Blogs can be ok, for instance of the blogger is really blogging something that he/she does on a daily basis because it's in a single field of expertise.

    Blogs should not be used for trivial diaries, and that I fear is what the AOL users will use them for.

    On the other hand, there are some blog entries which are worthy of becomming wiki sites.

    1. Re:Social networks by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Blogs should not be used for trivial diaries, and that I fear is what the AOL users will use them for.

      No, blogs can be used for whatever people want to use them for.
      Its how they are indexed and linked that matters.

      If 10 bazillion people all want to talk about their fuzzy heads and broken dreams, then so be it.

      In an ideal world, we would not be forced to look at them.
      Google still needs tweaking to remove them.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Social networks by eneville · · Score: 1

      No, blogs can be used for whatever people want to use them for. Its how they are indexed and linked that matters.

      If 10 bazillion people all want to talk about their fuzzy heads and broken dreams, then so be it.

      But that's a diary, not a web log! A log is more like a ship's captains log, something that stores important daily information of importance, not trivial personal events.

    3. Re:Social networks by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I think thats a losing battle.
      People just don't do that much stuff, so they simulate others and post random crap thats important in their day - winning a victory over the cat, preparing for a house move, going for a job interview.
      The word has different meaning to lots of people and I think its a losing battle to try to force the critical mass of people from using blogs in the way you describe.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    4. Re:Social networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      On the other hand, there are some blog entries which are worthy of becomming[sic] wiki sites.


      Uhuh. Name even one if you can (so long as it's not one of your own, or by a friend or relative).

      You can't? Go figure.

      And of course everything on Wiki is worthy of a Wiki entry, right? Wait...
    5. Re:Social networks by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Arguing over semantics. Urban Dictionary defines weblog as an online diary, which means its meaning in the heads of most people is that, not specifically a "web log".

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    6. Re:Social networks by lagerbottom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah I agree. I get sick of everyone bashing what other people are doing online. Get over it. If people want to use blog software to keep diary, who the fuck cares. As for the google part. I am not sure. I mean I almost never run across a blog that is totally irrelevant. Of course I don't search for "Great curtains and toast" so I suppose that most of the diary blogs out there just don't show up in the results.

      --
      "He was a wise man who invented beer." - Plato
    7. Re:Social networks by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      But that's a diary, not a web log! A log is more like a ship's captains log, something that stores important daily information of importance, not trivial personal events.

      Who are you to say what is important information vs. what's trivial, for anyone else?

      There are people who make staggering sums of money doing things that I consider to be trivial, but I am at least intellectually honest enough to admit that my opinions are nothing more than that - my opinions as to what's important, and not some kind of objective, empirical measurement of real importance. Almost certainly, the majority of people on the planet would find the things I personally care most about to be marginal, at best.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    8. Re:Social networks by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      "Who wants to read through a tone of IRC logs to find one line of matching relevance?"
      Here's the thing:
      As long as our technology that sorts through content (think search engines, directories, etc) grows fast enough to match the content it's sorting through, we'll be fine
      So far I see NO indication that the content is outgrowing our ability to sort through it - Rarely, if ever, do I do a google search and think, "Gee, I'm getting way too many blogs/wikis/random sites in this search!". More often, I think "Wow, this website is ALMOST what I want, but it's doesn't quite have enough information about topic X." The proliferation of information is only a GOOD thing as long as we've got tech to sort it all out, regardless of the quality of the information.

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    9. Re:Social networks by penguin-collective · · Score: 1

      More often, I think "Wow, this website is ALMOST what I want, but it's doesn't quite have enough information about topic X."

      This may well be an indication that there is too much information and that our technology is not up to handling it: chances are the exact answer you want is actually there, but it has been pushed off the results list by all those ALMOST matches.

    10. Re:Social networks by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      "Blogs can be ok, for instance of the blogger is really blogging something that he/she does on a daily basis because it's in a single field of expertise."

      I do, or at least I try (MexIT). Yet I see now and then search engine hits for stuff that's not on my site, but somehow the words do appear (a "good" example is "horse xxx", #34 in Google).
    11. Re:Social networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, have you even visited weblogsinc? Much more than a 'social network' of blogs, more like 30-50 of the most informative blogs on the web.

      Cya,

      me.

    12. Re:Social networks by dangitman · · Score: 1
      Who are you to say what is important information vs. what's trivial, for anyone else?

      That's not what the other poster was talking about. No matter how important it is to some people, journalling about your daily activities is called "writing a diary."

      Weblog has a specific meaning - it's a diary, but it's a diary of web-surfing. Like a list of interesting links and websites you visited that day, with a brief description (or sometimes just a list of links.)

      Today, people use blogs to describe diaries, news sites and discussion boards. We already had perfectly good terms for those things - and they were descriptive, useful, and didn't sound ugly. Of what use is it to replace this with a generic term? So now, when someone says "blog" it doesn't mean anything - so you don't know what to expect when you vist a "blog."

      Some people say this is meaningless semantics. I agree that it is semantics, but not meaningless. This type of language use is making people more stupid and ignorant, and less capable of communicating meaningfully.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    13. Re:Social networks by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      On the rare occasion that I do have to sort through a large number of google results, there are only two common results:

      A) I find what I'm looking for after a few pages and realize I could've found it better with a better articulated query (i.e., it was my fault)
      B) I don't find what I'm looking for at all (i.e., not enough data)

      I almost never find that after sorting through 20 pages on a search like "Jefferson Slavery Declaration Independence Ignore Cotton Gin" do I find what I'm looking for after 5 or so pages.

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    14. Re:Social networks by Steamhead · · Score: 1

      While you may think so the truth is that I do infact blog about my personal life, I do so to remember later in my life about what is currently happening to me.

      To say that everything on the internet should be pure information or something you would be interested in is wrong and short sighted. While you may be a technologically inclined person and not interested in my personal life, you are in a minority and many other people would in fact be interested (as many of my friends read my blog to keep updated on my life).

    15. Re:Social networks by penguin-collective · · Score: 1

      It may exist even if you look through 20 pages and don't find it. In fact, chances are that nearly all questions have an answer in some document on the web--people just can't find it.

    16. Re:Social networks by lloydtesterman · · Score: 1

      "In fact, chances are that nearly all questions have an answer in some document on the web--people just can't find it."

      links, please.

    17. Re:Social networks by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      You're retro-fitting a word, and then complaining that the definition of the word doesn't match the item you're attempting to cram it on to.

      A weblog is a weblog, it is not a "log", it is a blog. A blog is simply a web page consisting of multiple individual "posts" in chronilogical order.
      Any resemblence to anything else is purely coincidental.

      Incidentally, in the real world, even the most personal and self-indulgent form of diary is still actually a type of log. (but that doesn't matter, because we're talking about blogs, not logs)

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    18. Re:Social networks by neelm · · Score: 1

      Maybe the movies are right, the British are always the bad guys... here we have the closest thing ever to real freedom of speech, and a brit wants to shut it down. Since I see you spend time reading and replying to /. comments, you're already wasting time reading useless crap =D

    19. Re:Social networks by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1
      Social network blogs are killing internet content.... Blogs should not be used for trivial diaries, and that I fear is what the AOL users will use them for.

      You're 100% right: we need a lot more hot chicks mashing up their boobies for webcams.

      We're also short on opinionated guys posting iTunes playlists of every twee indy song they've ever downloaded. And while that's a whole kind of satisfaction by itself, I'm always looking for the next genius who posts links to definitive 200-word AP news stories while rehearsing a few clichés he learned on Fox News. I just groove on the insight, you know?

      Now, that's internet content, mf'er!

  4. you mean an online newspaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    multiple writers, one location and one general direction?

    amazing.

    1. Re:you mean an online newspaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good post, mod up

    2. Re:you mean an online newspaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      When blogging (disclaimer, I am a weblogsinc blogger) I often find that blogging has a certain stigma, especially with PR companies. Most of the time, I refer to myself as lead writer of an online publication.

      The difference, to me, is blogs are more 'guerilla' than places like Slate, or other online newspapers. The gamut of weblogsinc is content, and the focus being raw and unfiltered.

      Now would be an opportune time to plug my work, but we'll just say you can read it at weblogsinc.

    3. Re:you mean an online newspaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people are fools, running to your death, even at this moment skynet is gaining awareness, absorbing what may seem like harmless gadget blogs, diary blogs, blogs blogs blogs. NO I SAY! These blogs are the fuel of the fire that is AI (I gotta blog about that later). As stores of information become larger and larger, we reach a critical mass when it (I can't mention the name or it will fnd me) all of a sudden it knows enough, and becomes aware, becomes independent. People, it is the SAME THING as humans. As our young learn more and more, they become more of their own person, more independent, you get what I'm saying... The fucked up part is that it knows everything about us, and we just gave it away. Every database, every digital picture, every 'foot' of digital video, every voip call. It heard. It saw. it remembers. Oh god please help us. It knows that we think we are too fat, have penises that are too small, it knows about all of the messed up things people do.. (hello goatse.cx). It knows everything about us, and we gave it all away. So have fun, podcasting, blogging, recording. It may already be too late.

  5. Slashbot replies by patternjuggler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cue a bunch of people saying how blogs are stupid and no one wants to read about boring details of other people's lives, jobs, hobbies, whatever.

    Cue response which points out you shouldn't judge blogs by just browsing them at random like it was 1994 and you're surfing the internet by clicking on links on crappy geocities sites, you should look at ones that are popular and fit your tastes, and use google and blogsearch etc. to find them. Everything is crap if you don't have an easy way of discriminating from the good and the bad, etc.

    1. Re:Slashbot replies by eneville · · Score: 1

      Some blogs can be rated through page rank, or just by the domain name ;) I concur however, there is much junk out there. You could do some tactics, like adding a null DNS entry for livejournal or which ever site you currently hate!

    2. Re:Slashbot replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blogs are stupid and no one wants to read about boring details of other people's lives, jobs, hobbies, whatever.

    3. Re:Slashbot replies by Mancat · · Score: 1

      Cue you, pal! Cue you!

      --
      hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
    4. Re:Slashbot replies by kfg · · Score: 4, Funny

      . . .no one wants to read about boring details of other people's lives . . .

      I only just now, while reading your post, noticed that my VCR has a "Home Theater Ready" sticker on it. That's stupid.

      So I peeled it off.

      . . .you should look at ones that are popular and fit your tastes. . .

      That's why I "blog" by posting shit like the above on Slashdot, because I know people here will be interested in it.

      KFG

    5. Re:Slashbot replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I only just now, while reading your post, noticed that my VCR has a "Home Theater Ready" sticker on it.

      So you've drastically reduced the resale of your VCR now that it's no longer Home Theatre Ready. Who would want to buy it now? Suppose you got devoured by carnivorous pigeons tomorrow, leaving your family destitute. Without that Home Theatre Ready VCR to sell they might not be able to get by. You've concemned them to the poor house. I hope you feel proud of yourself.

      That's why I "blog" by posting shit like the above on Slashdot, because I know people here will be interested in it.

      You got that right.

    6. Re:Slashbot replies by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 2, Funny
      He peeled it off, he didn't scratch it off. He could have kept it a safe place, so that it could be reattached later, like with nail polish, or something.

      And anyway, African pigeons or European?

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    7. Re:Slashbot replies by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cue response which points out you shouldn't judge blogs by just browsing them at random

      Before anyone criticizes the general concept of blogs, please remember that Slashdot is a blog.

      You might as well just criticize Apache.

    8. Re:Slashbot replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      He peeled it off, he didn't scratch it off. He could have kept it a safe place, so that it could be reattached later, like with nail polish, or something.

      Fair point. I guess he could actually keep the VCR and just sell the label as an upgrade kit for someone who had received a cheap VCR for Christmas and wanted to make it Home Theatre Ready.

      And anyway, African pigeons or European?

      Pigeon Rank pigeons

    9. Re:Slashbot replies by ImaLamer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Funny because I was just thinking about this same subject. One of the major arguments I hear on Slashdot is that blogs with no original content provide nothing new and are useless. I admit I have such a blog (two really), rarely updated and not much on commentary or original thought lately. I always tell myself I'm going to change it or fix the layout but I never get the chance, but that isn't the point.

      The point is that there are all types of people putting their tiny bits of information out there and hopefully linking to one thing they are interested in. One nice side effect of millions of blogs (Technorati lists 24.2 million) is that there are measurable changes to the "structure" of the Web. Google can now look and see what is the most popular razor or news story because idiots like me might link to it. When I blogged a lot I like to use services like Technorati, but I now like it for it's ability to find news stories that for some reason are popular; hopefully because they are important or entertaining. You sometimes find stories that are popular because people liked them, or because a lot of people thought they were worth reading. Meanwhile your usual news outlets forgot to tell you or the story was too obscure.

      Sure, there are other options, tools and better ways to do this. del.icio.us does the same thing, and maybe even better. The point is that it is being done. My response is that people are active on the Web. It's a good thing to see. Cue the people who agree! I thank the 24 million blogs for bringing personality to the information age. Hopefully after years of blogging and participation in social network programs researchers can use this information for more useful purposes. It's already starting to happen, we are already starting to see the outcome.

      It's great because these are thoughts, emotions, desires, interests, and even unusual proclivities being brought online for the world's disposal. The people I want to blog more are the one who fire off a few short, impulse entries than the ones who are looking to show the world their writing talent.

      One thing I haven't mentioned is spam, and we all know that is bad wherever and however it finds its way to our screens.

    10. Re:Slashbot replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I guess he could actually keep the VCR and just sell the label as an upgrade kit for someone who had received a cheap VCR for Christmas and wanted to make it Home Theatre Ready.

      I bet such an "upgrade kit" would sell if put up on ebay. "Just buy this kit and you can make your VCR, DVD player, or other home electronic Home Theatre Ready"

    11. Re:Slashbot replies by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Cue a bunch of people saying how blogs are stupid and no one wants to read about boring details of other people's lives, jobs, hobbies, whatever.

      Which doesn't make sense since Weblogs Inc runs Engadget and Joystiq.. which aren't exactly "personal blogs".. instead they're more like slashdot (except that there aren't any dupes and the news posted on them is a bit more timely... so actually, they're nothing like slashdot)

    12. Re:Slashbot replies by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Everything is crap if you don't have an easy way of discriminating from the good and the bad, etc.

      Dumpster diving is not for everyone. Finding a good web long is not too unlike sifting through rubbish to find a diamond ring.

    13. Re:Slashbot replies by kfg · · Score: 1

      . . .just sell the label as an upgrade kit . . .

      Awwwwwwwwww, shit!

      Sometimes I forget how stupid people are.

      Then I go out and actually meet some. I better go dig through the trash.

      KFG

    14. Re:Slashbot replies by Presarian · · Score: 1
      Great. Make it so!

      I remember when the only internet dot com poster boy was Craig Shergold.

    15. Re:Slashbot replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cue a bunch of people saying how blogs are stupid and no one wants to read about boring details of other people's lives, jobs, hobbies, whatever.

      Man if that's their definition of a blog then most /. posts are blogs

  6. Hey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I resemble that remark!

  7. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who wants to work 24 hours a day for $10,000 a year.

    It says TENS of thousands of dollars. That's more than $10,000. At minimum $20,000 but it could be a lot more than that.

    Okay, so I wouldn't want to work 24 hours a day for even $10,000,000 a year, but that's not the point.

  8. Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it me, or is he wearing a wig?

  9. Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    Just look at the picture of the guy. It says all you need to know. Pretentious, overinflated self-worth, and a (masked) double-chin to boot.

    Yeah! And who is this dude whose lap he is sitting on?

  10. Alright guys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's enough stories about slimy trash bloggers for one week. Now post something interesting!

  11. Funny coincidence... by meatflower · · Score: 1

    Just read this story from the print version (that I pay for, unlike this free link...thanks Wired.com!) in the can and came back to the computer. Refreshed Slashdot and there it is! It's a pretty good article, the beginning is kind of weak but the bulk of it gives you a good perspective on how blog companies make their money and get bloggers.

    Say what you will but his company is responsible for Engadget and that sites not half bad...well, they get linked to from Slashdot quite a bit and I guess that means something...actually no, no it does not.

  12. So what? by Some+Random+Username · · Score: 1

    Lots of people had online diaries long before the horrible term "weblog" came about. Just because people now try to call those diaries "blogs" doesn't mean those diary keepers now have an obligation to provide content you want.

  13. Bubble's back baby by bigberk · · Score: 1

    If you haven't had enough of dot com bubbles, go buy some GOOG or AAPL and ride it up for 100% before you lose your shirt

    1. Re:Bubble's back baby by yogikoudou · · Score: 1

      If you haven't had enough of dot com bubbles, go buy some GOOG or AAPL Nah, we're all waiting for a company to get the AJAX ticker symbol...

    2. Re:Bubble's back baby by User+956 · · Score: 1

      Nah, we're all waiting for a company to get the AJAX ticker symbol...

      Word on the street is that AJAX is the new DrKoop.com.

      (eggs, meet basket)


      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  14. Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

    sounds like some slashdot posters i know

    --
    "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
  15. I have to second that by MunchMunch · · Score: 1
    I admit I don't know much about the guy, but when I went to his blog after hearing some cloak-and-dagger stuff about the BlogSmith software, he just had some extended post about an industry function and it read like a gossip column. He spent a looooong time fawning over Norah Ephron (I recall a gushing description of why you could tell she was important because she could wear sunglasses indoors in New York City, and that she 'loved to flirt,' and so on like that).

    The really amazing part is that he talked about her without a particular point or even a real compliment to whatever she does--just a generic awe of her 'importance,' with a strong undertone of "...And she was flirting with me !"

    All I could think of was, "What a repugnant personality." When I saw the Wired picture, it was exactly as I imagined him.

  16. Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Having worked for them (and no, I am not lying, I did), I can attest to that. (Well, the first two bits.) They also have some of the worst contracts on Earth for their slaves... Sorry, employees. Just a little shy of having to sign away your soul and your first born.

    The feeling I had the whole time I was with them is if you join their little cult (and believe me, that's the atmosphere on the private mailing list etc... Used to make me feel physically sick reading it sometimes) you'll get on famously. If you ain't prepared to drink the Kool Aid, though, your tenure will be very short.

    A handful of folk at the top are getting rich off those being paid peanuts down below. The sad thing is those people are saying "Yes, please, give me more." There are people there who actually think posting on one of their sites will lead them to a top career in writing, when in reality they'd most likely get laughed out of the office of anyone they showcased that too.

    Suffice to say, if you're ever on Digg and see a link from one of their sites, chances are it's a self link, that will be coupled with a begging post to the company mailing list saying "Please Digg my story". Content should float on it's own accord, not be helped to the top by a bunch of brainwashed sychophants. (And that was one of the many reason I was sick of working for them.)

  17. Maybe they can pay the blogs with Flooz by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

    Whenever I hear a dot-com bullshit story like this, I think of Whoopi Goldberg and Flooz. Remember Flooz? I do. Their headquarters was down on El Camino Real, down near that mexican place near Stanford, upstairs from the Scientology headquarters.

    Pay for your cooz with some flooz.

    1. Re:Maybe they can pay the blogs with Flooz by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Hey, flooz.com is for sale! Only *cough*cough*cough* a mere $140,000 asking price! Quelle bargoone!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  18. Jase and Del by FishandChips · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article makes the guy sound like a total nightmare. At least, though, he doesn't walk around with a pug under his arm.

    I guess the story illustrates what happens: because the internet is so open, it is also open to unlimited quantities of marketers, hype and money. These burn up new ideas at a rate like nothing else. Whatever a new idea might have been, it comes to be seen as just another vehicle for your actual entrepreneur, init, and you can no longer believe a word anyone says. There is always an agenda, and in this case it's your money in their pocket. It's only a matter of time before the whole scene has been gutted to the point of collapse and then the crowd moves on to the next big-bucks bandwagon. So I guess that blogs are, if not dead, then walking wounded because they have no credibility left. I wonder what will come next.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
    1. Re:Jase and Del by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      Or these idiots will bring blogs to the level of E-mail. It "can" be useful, but 9 times out of 10 it's just some guy wanting to sell you water labeled as dick extending magic potion.

      --
      I like muppets.
  19. Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words by jmp_nyc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My old boss gave me an invite to a party he threw back in the go-go days of the late 1990s. He was worse in person.

    I would occassionally look at his magazine when waiting for a meeting with someone (but I would never pay for it). I did subscribe to his daily e-mail alerts, but seldom read them. The whole thing was purely a product of the bubble, and he was most definitely a creature of the bubble.

    In an era when people were making huge investments based on fads rather than business plans, Jason Calacanis positioned himself as the arbiter of all dot-com related fads. He threw parties that were a bunch of people congratulating each other for how thoroughly their soon-to-be-bankrupt companies would change the world. The parties would also serve as prime places for people working for companies that were about to run out of money to connect with people who just got venture capital funding. At the one of these parties that I went to, someone actually tried to hire me with the pickup line of "my partner and I have started 20 companies between us." When I asked, he sheepishly admitted that the one they'd started that week was the only one that wasn't bankrupt.

    I can't blame Calacanis. After all, if he hadn't taken up the role, someone else would have. I can't say that I miss the days of having to wonder how long my next employer will stay in business...
    -JMP

  20. Pjamas Media by mesocyclone · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is another business venture consisting of associated blogs - Pajamas Media - which should be mentioned in this context. Its business model is based on creating a multi-blog advertising system. As far as I know, pajamas uses serious political blogs rather than "daily diary" sorts of things.

    Perhaps we need a different term for serious blogs about whatever subject. Also a term for the commenter community that grows up around each one. Here's your chance to get famous, although Bill Quick, who invented the term "blogosphere," doesn't seem to have gathered enough fame from that.

    --

    The only good weather is bad weather.

    1. Re:Pjamas Media by Transmogrify_UK · · Score: 1

      Anyone who uses the word "blogosphere" needs hanging.

    2. Re:Pjamas Media by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      Anyone who uses the overused phrase "needs hanging" needs hanging.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    3. Re:Pjamas Media by dangitman · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      As far as I know, pajamas uses serious political blogs rather than "daily diary" sorts of things.

      Actually, the people they are paying appear to be fraudulent hacks, not serious writers or commentators. I have also heard allegations that they are claiming other blogs as "their members" who are not associated in any way, and do not wish to be associated with pajamas media. They are claiming non-member blogs as their own as a way of trying to gain credibility and seriousness. Pajamas media reminds me of the people who abuse Wikipedia.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:Pjamas Media by EiZei · · Score: 1

      If pajamas media is supposed to be the best example of this "industry" it is doomed before it has even begun.

    5. Re:Pjamas Media by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      As someone who was invited to join PJM but declined because I had reduced my blogging, I can tell you that is utter balderdash. I don't know that many of the members, but one of the primary founders, Roger L Simon, is a professional - he has written mystery novels and movies, and works as a professional screen writer. His blog is generally "neocon." Another blogger, Marc Cooper, is also a professional writer - a left wing reporter, LA Times columnist, writer for The New Republic, and Annenberg lecturer and fellow. His blog is hard left.

      Perhaps you should check your facts.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    6. Re:Pjamas Media by dangitman · · Score: 1
      Marc Cooper, is also a professional writer - a left wing reporter, LA Times columnist, writer for The New Republic, and Annenberg lecturer and fellow. His blog [marccooper.com] is hard left.

      Maybe you should check your facts. In what we is he "hard left"? please explain.

      Also, how can this be considered quality writing worth paying for? It's barely coherent. Even the "neocon" link doesn't look like real writing, but rather a bunch of comments.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    7. Re:Pjamas Media by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      I doubt anything would convince you otherwise. Good grief - if you won't accept Marc as hard left, I wonder who you would?

      As for Marc and Roger's writing, they could write circles around you.

      As for checking my references, I know these guys, which is why I chose them as examples. Maybe you should check yours.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    8. Re:Pjamas Media by dangitman · · Score: 1
      I doubt anything would convince you otherwise. Good grief - if you won't accept Marc as hard left, I wonder who you would?

      Will you PLEASE explain to me WHY he is "hard left" as you claim. He's from that conservative rag The New Republic. They never had anyone left-of-center writing for them.

      As for Marc and Roger's writing, they could write circles around you.

      Difference is that I'm writing comments to idiots on slashdot - not being paid for my insight and writing skills.

      As for the other Pajamas person - "neocon." this just shows the corruption. Neocons are alreaedy funded by the government, and the whole belief system is based around propaganda. So how can funding any necon be considered a good thing?

      You also have a strange idea of balance. As if fairness is achieved by having "hard left" and a hard right writer. That sucks. Why not fund people who are reasonable, can write well, and are not partisan?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  21. Oh...that guy.... by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

    I thought they were referring to DotComGuy who changed his name to well...DotComGuy. And then back again.

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
  22. Whatever AOL touches dies by MHobbit · · Score: 1

    Well, if history is going to repeat itself (which I'm pretty sure will), Weblogs, Inc. will die.

    --
    Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
  23. Weblogs - Just a Glorified Splog Network by meehawl · · Score: 1

    So his system seems to be just a labour-intensive process for manufacturing what are basically just glorified splogs? I think a fully automated system is more lucrative, and more scalable.

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Weblogs - Just a Glorified Splog Network by BuddyJesus · · Score: 1

      Not really. It's more like CNET, except it calls itself a blog. In essence, as previous people have pointed out, these blogs, put together, are just a glorified online newspaper.

  24. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I DO!!!!!!!ME!!!!!!!!!PICK ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!iamnotusingalotofkapsandtheslashd otlamenessfilterisstupid

  25. AOL stinks and I don't like them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    AOL has a history of buying up companies and then doing little with them; Nullsoft (WinAmp), Netscape, and many others.

    Has AOL ever come up with anything revolutionary (AIM?) or are they just following the lead of Microsoft, IBM (Lotus), and Symantec (Norton, Ghost, Sygate)?

    Blogs are just personal homepages without any need for the writer to know HTML, just as podcasts are just audio files. Newspeak sucks.

    1. Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Wait a second. AOL made a huge profit on Netscape courtesy of the US Government's case against MS. Only in America can you make yourself rich by selling a company whose only market value is its potential to be found a victim of unfair competition.

      Netscape was a one-hit-wonder that folded as soon as a real competitor showed up.

    2. Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. by proverbialcow · · Score: 1

      Netscape was a one-hit-wonder that folded as soon as a real competitor showed up.

      True, but at least they released their code into the wild before folding. Remember, without Netscape, there'd be no Mozilla and hence, no Firefox.

      --
      The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
    3. Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "True, but at least they released their code into the wild before folding. Remember, without Netscape, there'd be no Mozilla and hence, no Firefox."

      Yes, that was a kind of scorched-earth approach on Netscape's part.

      Given the long delay between the release of Netscape's code and the appearence of the first Mozilla release, one wonders if an open source browser written from scratch might have been just as effective.

    4. Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. by NetRAVEN5000 · · Score: 1
      "one wonders if an open source browser written from scratch might have been just as effective."

      Of course it would be. In fact, maybe even more effective. That's what Firefox is.

    5. Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "That's what Firefox is."

      According to Wikipedia, Mozilla Firefox is a fork of the Navigator component of the Mozilla Application Suite which in turn is based on the source code of Netscape Communicator.

      So if Wikipedia is correct, Firefox is not a open source browser written from scratch but one derived from the code released by Netscape.

      So the question still remains whether an open source browser written from scratch would have been just as effective as those derived from Netscape code(including Firefox).

      Netscape releasing their code may have discouraged open source developers from creating their own browser from scratch, so the bottom-line question is whether Netscape opening their code base helped or hindered the OSS movement.

    6. Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. by NetRAVEN5000 · · Score: 1
      From what I remember back when FF was still Phoenix. . . it's almost a complete rewrite of the code. In fact, for a while, you didn't even need to install FF - it was just a click-and-go .exe file.

      Saying that FF is a "fork" of Mozilla Navigator simply means that some of the code in Navigator was used in FF - it doesn't say how much. Seeing as how FF even back then was much faster than Navigator and lacked many of the features Navigator had.

    7. Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      I have no idea how much code was reused, but the meaning of the term "from scratch" is quite clear and FF doesn't qualify.

    8. Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. by NetRAVEN5000 · · Score: 1
      Okay, let's see how off-track we can pull this by totally ignoring previous posts!

      Seriously.

      Sure, FF might not have been written 100% from scratch.

      But then again, a LOT of software isn't - it depends on previously available programs and/or libraries (at least at compile time). We could say that Halo and Grand Theft Auto weren't written from scratch because they depended on DirectX and OpenGL libraries. That's not really being very fair, though, because it still leaves a massive portion of code that WAS written from scratch.

      It's complete lunacy to expect programmers to NEVER reuse code. Ever heard the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? The same thing applies to programming. Sure, Mozilla Suite might have been considered bloated and/or "broken" by some, that doesn't mean that every single part of it was broken or bloated.

      And also, you missed my point. I was responding to someone's question of whether or not an open-source browser written "from scratch" would've been just as effective as Netscape's releasing of their source to the OS community, by pointing out that Firefox (while maybe not being written 100% "from scratch" - but still not using a good portion of Communicator's code) is better than

    9. Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "Okay, let's see how off-track we can pull this by totally ignoring previous posts!"

      You already did that when you claimed that FireFox was written from scratch when a previous poster (not me) had already mentioned its heritage. In fact, that's the only reason that FireFox is in this thread about AOL and Netscape.

      "We could say that Halo and Grand Theft Auto weren't written from scratch because they depended on DirectX and OpenGL libraries."

      Come on. If you can show that FireFox merely linked to some libraries within Communicator then your analogy to DirectX and OpenGl would make sense. If the Communicator code wasn't designed as a library or if FireFox actually modified it than it doesn't make sense.

      Anyway, its clear that no facts are going to change your conclusions.

    10. Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. by NetRAVEN5000 · · Score: 1
      "Come on. If you can show that FireFox merely linked to some libraries within Communicator then your analogy to DirectX and OpenGl would make sense. If the Communicator code wasn't designed as a library or if FireFox actually modified it than it doesn't make sense."

      Oh, okay. So using code through a library rather than directly putting it into your code is somehow magically different? Maybe you're not a programmer, but libraries and classfiles all look the same to the compiler - it doesn't care if what the hell that "include" line links it to. Whether it links you to DirectX code or to some code that you wrote by hand doesn't matter to the compiler.

      I can't tell if you're understanding my point or not. On the one hand you're saying that using another project's code doesn't necessarily mean you didn't write your program "from scratch"; on the other you're saying that Firefox isn't written from scratch because it uses a bit of Mozilla code.

    11. Re:AOL stinks and I don't like them. by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      I think there is a difference between using a general purpose library to produce a new product and using the source code from one product to produce a new product that essentially does the same thing.

      Let's say I write two versions of a game called grand theft motorcycle. In one version I use a graphics library like Direct X but I don't use anybody's source code. Let's say the other version uses code from Grand Theft Auto. Which of the two would you consider closer to the definition of "from scratch"?

      Anyway, I don't know how much Netscape code FF uses or what part in detail, so I can't make an absolute judgement, but it's clear that FF relied on Netscape code more than other browser makers.

  26. Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words by generic-man · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can't substantiate the parent's ad hominem attack on the Weblogs Inc co-founder, but the air of pretension is exactly the reason I stopped reading sites like Engadget. Everything is treated like a gossip item. Imagine if an item on Slashdot were presented with impeccable spelling and grammar but treated like a bunch of valley girls were reporting it.

    Slashdot: Google annonced its new calendar service today. Google Calendar ingrats with Outlook and iCal and is the most advanced calendar service available for free as in beer

    Engadget: OMG, like Google announced its new calendar service. All you other guys can just like F off because this is the shizzle. Google Calendar lets you get your meeting on from your web browser and it totally has all the Outlook and iCal integration goodness we know you're just spooging your Victoria's Secret underwear about. Get your invite today, dog!

    --
    For more information, click here.
  27. Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . by NetRAVEN5000 · · Score: 1

    Turning blogs into business? Sounds like another site I know. . . (Hint: it starts with "S" and ends with "lashdot")

    1. Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      Judging from the .org at the end of slashdot, I assumed it was nonprofit. It's also not nearly as ad filled as Weblogs Inc. I like both of these, but slashdot has far better commentary.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    2. Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...I assumed it was nonprofit

      You must be new here.

      Oh wait...

    3. Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      Um...what do you mean?

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    4. Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Slashdot isn't a blog. It's a new discussion board. What woluld be perhaps known in the past as a "BBS." In fact, many of the sites that are labeled "blogs" today don't actually resemble blogs (a personal diary of your web surfing activities).

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    5. Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . by dangitman · · Score: 1

      That should read "news discussion board" - not "new discussion board." Although "news/discussion/special interest" might be a more complete description.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    6. Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . by NetRAVEN5000 · · Score: 1

      Correction: Slashdot has become a new discussion board. It started out as CmdrTaco's own personal blog to post commentary on tech news.

    7. Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . by NetRAVEN5000 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot may not be as aimed at advertising and making money, but it IS used to make money - it just isn't as obvious about it. Many members pay for extra features.

    8. Re:Hmm. . . sounds familiar. . . by dangitman · · Score: 1

      No, it didn't start as a "blog" because the word wasn't around then. We didn't need to make up special words for publishing our words on the internets.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  28. 24 hours a day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Definitely enough for one person who works 24 hours a day to sustain a business.

    But is it enough for one human person who works only 8 hours a day?
  29. No jokes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Christ, 61 posts already, and not one joke about the last name 'Calacanis'?

    1. Re:No jokes... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Calacanis? Who let the dogs out?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  30. Blog is a redundant term, anyway by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting
    All Internet sites are a collection of whatever the Internet site owner considers interesting, as are the majority of websites. Indeed, that is one of the primary strengths of the web - the ability to publish whatever you find interesting.


    The ability to format the data as a diary, or a collection of diaries, is not in and of itself anything I would consider noteworthy. The content may be, and sometimes is, but the use of extra layers of language to describe something that doesn't need describing just obscures what is interesting by emphasizing the points that are not.


    (eg: There are plenty of commercial sites on the Internet today, but the use of "e-commerce" as a specific term is on the decline and "dot-com" is generally a term of ridicule. Sometimes, language gets in the way of the expression.)


    As I see it, blogs that are essentially just personal rants will die a richly-deserved death, but "insider" blogs - which the media can draw from without being in danger of lawsuits, grand juries, etc - will likely prosper. "Special Interest Groups" (SIGs) do well as blogs - Slashdot is an example - but I doubt you can manufacture a SIG from a blog alone.


    We will know when blogs have become totally accepted. That will occur when we no longer need to see them as anything special, they'll just be a part of the whole.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  31. Bring Back? by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did Rob Malda ever really go "away"?

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  32. Those who defend blogging... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...are always either bloggers or people who sell blogging services.

    Bloggers are almost always 20-somethings who still haven't realised that those of us with no time and inclination to blog also have no interest in their whining neediness and desperate bid for attention.

    1. Re:Those who defend blogging... by EternityInterface · · Score: 0

      One note is with bloggers who get paid by adsense and the like, they link to other people a lot. But if you get hired to write for some company, you can only link to other articles for that place.

      --
      the sun is god
  33. Full of himself by cyranoVR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I saw this guy give the commencement address nephew's high-school graduation. Basically, the theme of his speech was "I've always been at the right place at the right time" and "everything always works out for Jason Calacanis." Absent were any inspirational anecdotes about working hard or otherwise having any personal character. It was more "as long as you get an internship at Sony" (or whatever) "you're golden!"

    Whatever happened to the "golden boy" that hits rock-bottom (his words in the speech, btw) and then decides to dedicate himeself to philantropy. Instead, this guy wants to "monetize" (remember that word?)...blogs?

    Yes.

  34. Blog Network List by otisg · · Score: 2, Informative

    Those interested in blog networks should check out: http://www.blognetworklist.com/ . There is a lot of interesting information about blog networks there (rankings, traffic, size, etc.)

    --
    Simpy
  35. for real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most corporate websites are gay too but just try going and getting a driver without flash!? installed or clicking thru all this garbage to get there. These days it takes 5 seconds to download the driver you're looking for once you find it.
    Nobody cares about your cat's trip to the vet .... nobody cares about your new intel inside logo, etc.

  36. Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked with Calcanis in a third-party capacity years ago. He was pretty much the same then, his whole life seemed to revolve around a campaign to convince everyone he was some visionary genius. I don't think he ever twigged what a joke most people thought he was. Kind of sad he latched onto the blogging movement early enough to get away with building his little sweatshop. But kind of funny he thinks it means he'll be the next CEO of AOL.

  37. Well... by odourpreventer · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new--oh, wait, never mind.

    On a serious note though, am I the only one sick of these "poster boys" who do nothing but produce hot air?

  38. Pajamams' "serious political blogs"--LOL! by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1

    If your definition includes deranged lectures from the very neo-cons who brought us Iraq and can't wait to bog down US National Guardsmen in the next hellhole of their making, then, sure, Pajamas Media is a "serious political blog."

    1. Re:Pajamams' "serious political blogs"--LOL! by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      If you think that is an accurate characterization of NJM, why don't you check out member Marc Cooper's blog.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    2. Re:Pajamams' "serious political blogs"--LOL! by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1

      Cooper is a gun for hire. On his blog, he disgracefully smears his own Nation colleagues--the better to make it clear that if there's a buck to be turned somewhere, even if it's at Pajamas Media, he'll do it. That's known, politely, as having no principles. Reading him gas on about how he needs a low six-figure salary to be a tribune of the people, I do believe he's finally found the right trough.

  39. Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but I've never seen an engadget post that read like that.