31–40 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Redistribute under the terms of the GFDL." Let me guess... Linux distributions are "stealing" Firefox? Oh, there isn't some holy war against that, so it's a good thing. Right.
Do Linux distributions take Firefox and laden it with advertisements?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Nobody would ever have heard of him or Mahalo if it hasn't been for people whining about him" Except maybe people completing a Google search looking for meaningful information, and finding a MFA page with minimal or no content.
Fair enough, but if I do a total reversal of my Canadian Socialist morality and play free market advocate, isn't this a problem that the market for search engines can solve? Why can't Bing show off how their search engine ignores mahalo and other wikipedia scraper sites and thus provides a more useful experience?
Why should I care about this? Because right now, I don't, and I'm about ready to start flagging any article that mentions Jason Calacanis. If you hate someone and what they do, don't give them reams of free press! Nobody would ever have heard of him or Mahalo if it hasn't been for people whining about him/it on their blog... Also, the GFDL, one of Wikipedia's licenses, says you can "copy and distribute the Document i…
"Nobody would ever have heard of him or Mahalo if it hasn't been for people whining about him" Except maybe people completing a Google search looking for meaningful information, and finding a MFA page with minimal or no content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm kind of ambivalent on that point. Part of me suspects that bad things happen when good people just stand by and watch. I also think each of these is another data point in a Google discussion, more than about Jason.
I don't understand the "bad thing" which is happening here. Are we supposed to be so thoroughly invested in the quality of Google search results that it's a personal affront when someone games the system?
Calacanis' fantasy all along was to own Wikipedia but fill it full of ads. He used to rant endlessly about how much money they'd make if they monetized Wikipedia. Mahalo is his attempt to make a seedier low-brow version of Wikipedia that's ad-laden. This move should not be a surprise. That's just my opinion though.
Calacanis' fantasy all along was to own Wikipedia but fill it full of ads. He used to rant endlessly about how much money they'd make if they monetized Wikipedia. Mahalo is his attempt to make a seedier low-brow version of Wikipedia that's ad-laden. This move should not be a surprise. That's just my opinion though.
Kinda off topic, but I think he's right about wikipedia serving ads. They have so many page views, they could put up a couple of image or text ads on the side and make it look very tasteful--unlike mahalo and the other ad filled pages of the internet. Expanding on that, maybe they could only serve non-profits, giving them ridiculously low click or view rates. How could Jimmy Wales not be interested in that?
Calacanis' fantasy all along was to own Wikipedia but fill it full of ads. He used to rant endlessly about how much money they'd make if they monetized Wikipedia. Mahalo is his attempt to make a seedier low-brow version of Wikipedia that's ad-laden. This move should not be a surprise. That's just my opinion though.
Kinda off topic, but I think he's right about wikipedia serving ads. They have so many page views, they could put up a couple of image or text ads on the side and make it look very tasteful--unlike mahalo and the other ad filled pages of the internet. Expanding on that, maybe they could only serve non-profits, giving them ridiculously low click or view rates. How could Jimmy Wales not be interested in that?
Then advertisers will start demanding from their sales people that certain content be changed or taken off "or I will remove my ads."
So it should only be considered as a desperation move if their donations plummet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm kind of ambivalent on that point. Part of me suspects that bad things happen when good people just stand by and watch. I also think each of these is another data point in a Google discussion, more than about Jason.
So, let's badger Matt Cutts, Googles mr. anti-spam until he gives an official position on this instead of discussing the same stuff over and over again.
It should be about how do we persuade Matt Cutts through facts and oratory to enforce the rules.
We really need to stop putting Calacanis discussions on here.