Some things need to change • Hacker News Board

Re: Some things need to change

#11

Post by jaspertheghost » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 9:17 AM UTC

axod wrote: post #8

zhyder wrote: post #2

This is terrible, worse than people speculating about Steve Jobs' health, as an example of how low folks in our industry can go. (I know they're unrelated but the 2 evoke the same emotions in me.) I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well, but I still can't understand those that threatened or spat on him. Michael, I hope you return to regular writing after Feb, but if you don't, thanks for all…

I agree, it's a sad state of affairs, but "I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well" I don't really get this... startups don't fall or succeed based on tc coverage. It might spike traffic for a day with some geeks. That's all at the end of the day. Seems like some of this is TC's own doing - they have made people believe you have to get techcrunched, or you won't succeed - which is completely…

I don't think it's TC own doing. It might be a result of mismanaging TC's community, but I think it's largely disgruntled entrepreneurs that don't get press coverage.

Re: Some things need to change

#12

Post by ghshephard » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 9:17 AM UTC

It's times like this that make you feel a bit better about living your life out of the spotlight. I wonder how people like David Pogue, or Walt Mossberg deal with this type of attention. Come to think of it, they cover higher profile companies, and probably don't have to deal this this kind of crap. Most of the time.

The only equivalent I can think of would be the reporters at papers who cover the shady-side of the business world. David Baines (Vancouver Sun) was the target of a lot of threats and innuendo during his coverage of stock-scams in Vancouver, to the point at which he just stopped working in that space for a while.

Sounds like Arrington has come to that place. Let's hope he comes back from it.

Re: Some things need to change

#13

Post by litewulf » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 9:19 AM UTC

axod wrote: post #8

zhyder wrote: post #2

This is terrible, worse than people speculating about Steve Jobs' health, as an example of how low folks in our industry can go. (I know they're unrelated but the 2 evoke the same emotions in me.) I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well, but I still can't understand those that threatened or spat on him. Michael, I hope you return to regular writing after Feb, but if you don't, thanks for all…

I agree, it's a sad state of affairs, but "I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well" I don't really get this... startups don't fall or succeed based on tc coverage. It might spike traffic for a day with some geeks. That's all at the end of the day. Seems like some of this is TC's own doing - they have made people believe you have to get techcrunched, or you won't succeed - which is completely…

I've had three things I've worked on get posted to TC, and it was totally useless. Traffic had minimal stickiness (lots of clicks to the frontpage and nothing else), and when I think about my behavior when I read TC, it definitely makes sense.

And yet, for all of those startups, getting the TC story was a milestone of sorts.

Its like getting your first hundred users, it doesn't define your success or failure outright, but its a big psychological hurdle I think.

Re: Some things need to change

#14

Post by zhyder » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 9:19 AM UTC

axod wrote: post #8

zhyder wrote: post #2

This is terrible, worse than people speculating about Steve Jobs' health, as an example of how low folks in our industry can go. (I know they're unrelated but the 2 evoke the same emotions in me.) I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well, but I still can't understand those that threatened or spat on him. Michael, I hope you return to regular writing after Feb, but if you don't, thanks for all…

I agree, it's a sad state of affairs, but "I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well" I don't really get this... startups don't fall or succeed based on tc coverage. It might spike traffic for a day with some geeks. That's all at the end of the day. Seems like some of this is TC's own doing - they have made people believe you have to get techcrunched, or you won't succeed - which is completely…

No TC coverage is not on the top of the list of things I'm desperate for either. I'm just generally desperate for a lot of things ever since I started up.

Re: Some things need to change

#15

Post by hk » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 9:24 AM UTC

Spitting in his face is going a bit far, but it's pretty difficult for me to feel sympathy for the guy. I struggle to think of a more dislikable, arrogant jerk. This belated plea for human-to-human sympathy falls on deaf ears, for me at least.

In my group, Arrington symbolises everything we hate about the "Web 2.0" greed culture. He's relentlessly promoted himself as the gatekeeper to this bullshit world of easy VC money, now crashing down around him. Good riddance.

If it hadn't been something as revolting as spitting, and instead say a nice cream pie to the face, I'd be delighted.

Re: Some things need to change

#16

Post by pavelludiq » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 9:27 AM UTC

I don't like techcrunch, and i don't like Arrington, but i can't understand why all the hate? Spitting on people is not cool, and threatening their lives is even not cooler. The worst i ever did was just ignore all the techcrunch links here, i think that was enough.

Re: Some things need to change

#17

Post by froo » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 9:28 AM UTC

litewulf wrote: post #13

axod wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, it's a sad state of affairs, but "I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well" I don't really get this... startups don't fall or succeed based on tc coverage. It might spike traffic for a day with some geeks. That's all at the end of the day. Seems like some of this is TC's own doing - they have made people believe you have to get techcrunched, or you won't succeed - which is completely…

I've had three things I've worked on get posted to TC, and it was totally useless. Traffic had minimal stickiness (lots of clicks to the frontpage and nothing else), and when I think about my behavior when I read TC, it definitely makes sense. And yet, for all of those startups, getting the TC story was a milestone of sorts. Its like getting your first hundred users, it doesn't define your success or failure outright…

but its a big psychological hurdle I think.

Completely agree, something I was involved in was on wired last year (twice) and I must admit it was a good feeling, but thats about it.

If anyone sees getting on TechCrunch as the goal of their startup rather than using it as a tool that can help them reach your goal, they have probably already failed - they just don't know it yet.

Re: Some things need to change

#18

Post by jdvolz » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 9:33 AM UTC

This kind of reminds me of the T-Shirt Hell guy's entry a couple of days ago. Basically, everybody is just tired of the crap and they are taking time off or quitting. You shouldn't be assaulted for your opinion (and spitting is assault in the US AFAIK).

Re: Some things need to change

#19

Post by rantfoil » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 9:34 AM UTC

litewulf wrote: post #13

axod wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, it's a sad state of affairs, but "I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well" I don't really get this... startups don't fall or succeed based on tc coverage. It might spike traffic for a day with some geeks. That's all at the end of the day. Seems like some of this is TC's own doing - they have made people believe you have to get techcrunched, or you won't succeed - which is completely…

I've had three things I've worked on get posted to TC, and it was totally useless. Traffic had minimal stickiness (lots of clicks to the frontpage and nothing else), and when I think about my behavior when I read TC, it definitely makes sense. And yet, for all of those startups, getting the TC story was a milestone of sorts. Its like getting your first hundred users, it doesn't define your success or failure outright…

Our experience has been contrary to what others have said about minimal stickiness -- Techcrunch coverage has precipitated blog coverage and attention that each time has resulted in a new bar for traffic and retention. -- YMMV

Regardless of how valuable TechCrunch is to us or any other startup, the fact remains that violence and threats of violence against bloggers is utterly unjustifiable. People act like Michael Arrington owes them something, and that's the fundamental problem underpinning the latest attacks.

Re: Some things need to change

#20

Post by axod » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 9:34 AM UTC

zhyder wrote: post #14

axod wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, it's a sad state of affairs, but "I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well" I don't really get this... startups don't fall or succeed based on tc coverage. It might spike traffic for a day with some geeks. That's all at the end of the day. Seems like some of this is TC's own doing - they have made people believe you have to get techcrunched, or you won't succeed - which is completely…

No TC coverage is not on the top of the list of things I'm desperate for either. I'm just generally desperate for a lot of things ever since I started up.

yup point taken... Press coverage is always nice, but not strictly necessary.