In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture
11–20 of 54 posts
Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture
#12Stupid pay wall.
To view any WSJ article, search Google News for the exact title. WSJ has a deal with Google to let visitors view the entire article.
Deal? Or is this an artifact that Google doesn't index content behind a paywall so WSJ has to display the whole article to the Google spider and anyone who's refer is Google. If WSJ (or anyone else) doesn't want to lose the search engine traffic they're force to do this.
Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture
#13Interesting. Kind of touches close to a thought I had when I first heard about the deal... Board aside, what kind of signal did the acquisition send to Facebook's rank-and-file?
There's plenty of extremely talented people who joined the party too late to have any significant options. Now everywhere they go (including home, private, and social lives...) they can't escape hearing about the gold mine that was just dropped on Kevin and crew.
You literally can't escape this news in the connected world. Can't help but wonder if that's weighing on morale at all in there.
Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture
#14"Mr. Systrom was just hours from signing a deal for a $50 million venture-capital investment that would put a $500 million value on his company"
So this started before the deal was closed. Did the funding round close?
Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture
#15Full article: https://www.google.com/search?q=In+Facebook+Deal%2C+Board+Wa...
Doesn't work for me; WSJ must have shut it down.
Though Google cache pulled through, at least for now:
Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture
#16"Mr. Systrom was just hours from signing a deal for a $50 million venture-capital investment that would put a $500 million value on his company" So this started before the deal was closed. Did the funding round close?
Yes, the round closed the day before the acquisition, iirc.
Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
To view any WSJ article, search Google News for the exact title. WSJ has a deal with Google to let visitors view the entire article.
Deal? Or is this an artifact that Google doesn't index content behind a paywall so WSJ has to display the whole article to the Google spider and anyone who's refer is Google. If WSJ (or anyone else) doesn't want to lose the search engine traffic they're force to do this.
Right, and as of right now (past midnight MT) that trick isn't working any more.
Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
To view any WSJ article, search Google News for the exact title. WSJ has a deal with Google to let visitors view the entire article.
Deal? Or is this an artifact that Google doesn't index content behind a paywall so WSJ has to display the whole article to the Google spider and anyone who's refer is Google. If WSJ (or anyone else) doesn't want to lose the search engine traffic they're force to do this.
No, they don't have to do this for anyone who's referer is Google. They could do it for just the Googlebot.
Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture
#19[deleted]
Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture
#20I would really be surprised if this didn't affect the IPO. Why would people put money into a business with corporate governance this poor?