Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

monkeymace.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 176 posts

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#121

Post by kika »

latch wrote: post #115
kika wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't do a qualified research (I would have told that otherwise) so I can tell for myself. I personally don't use CL exactly because of that - I look at the website and understand that nobody gives a fuck about me here. Not because it doesn't use CSS3, but because it's barely usable. I seriously used CL twice - once I've rented a condo through it (using early PadMapper) and bought a pair of speakers from some loca…

I'm not nervous. I'm _upset_. For two reasons. First and foremost because you make wild assumptions and accusations. They don't give a shit about users? Have you talked to the Craig? What about other employees? You are throwing a company under the bus because you don't like its design and don't like them controller their API. I hate their decision with respect to PadMapper, but I reserve doesn't give a shit about use…

Wow, just wow. I was born in the USSR and I feel "comfortably" at home now.

> you might not feel like they don't give a shit about you

May I, nevertheless? Thanks in advance!

What's the difference between CL and Monsanto (Philip-Morris) in this context? All these companies sell something which is legal and have a demand. Users pay for the goods (seeds, listings, cigarettes). Users appear to be happy. Users want to get some extra value out of the goods/services (put the PadMapper on top of CL, breed their own seeds from Monsanto modified plants, dunno about cigs, though :-)). Oops, lawyers abound! Now Monsanto owes something to farmers, but CL doesn't owe anyone anything. Hmmm. You're throwing Monsanto under the bus because you side with farmers. That's okay. But who told you that you're absolutely right?

I can easily deal with CL not owing me anything - I don't do anything on CL.

Please, calm down.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#122

Post by emmapersky »

vacri wrote: post #109
emmapersky wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, this is really interesting. If a free newspaper did start repulishing ads and the primary paper cut them off, the ad posters would be up in arms because their audience is now reduced. Its a loose loose scenario, much better to allow the reproductuon for everyone.

Don't forget that screen-scraping doesn't work in print journalism - transferring the ads is labour-intensive. But even if the labour was free and paper B was willing to print ads/classifieds for no money, it's still a drain on paper A's resources - running a classifieds department required staff taking calls for placed ads, plus editorial work and similar. If paper B takes those ads and sells them at a lower price,…

Paper B is not selling ads, nor are they making money from them, they provide them as an alternative means of access to the ads from Paper A.

Advertisers are still paying paper A, so there is no loss of revenue.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#123

Post by sliverstorm »

josh33 wrote: post #106
sliverstorm wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what are we supposed to do? Seems like the only options are: A) destroy the network effect with legislation. (How is this good?) B) select another company The Board feels has a better platform, crush CL with legislation, and establish the new company with legislation. (How is this good!?!)

Why the references to legislation? The free market can fix this IF the Craigslist experience really is bad. You might not be able to grow organically like Craigslist did but it is totally possible. Pay listers to post on your site. Offer something unique to the listers Craigslist can't.

Why the references to legislation?

I presume that is what we are talking about, when people here complain that nobody has been able to defeat Craigslist and that Craigslist ought to die (in so many words).

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#124

Post by jacoblyles »

bigiain wrote: post #103
jacoblyles wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how Craigslist refusing to better themselves justifies the millions of hours wasted by their customers using their shitty UI. What a strange sense of justice. If you value users, don't hurt yourself to show it. Rather, don't shut off sites that save them hours of their limited and precious lifetime.

It's pretty easy to assert that Craigslist is somehow disrespecting their users - perhaps by having poor UI - but it's harder to prove that assertion by setting up a competing service with your idea of a "better UI" for the users. It seems abundantly clear to me that the assertion that "A competitor to Craigslist who got $x right would easily get all Craigslist's users", for any of the usually mentioned values of $x…

Do you understand the concept of "monopoly power"? It sounds like you do not.

I, personally, save several hours every time I look for an apartment by using padmapper over Craigslist. Aggregated, that's human lifetimes of time saved every year by padmapper.

UI isn't about round corners and fancy color schemes. It's about using computers to automate repetitive behaviors. Newmark's defenders tell me what I really want is to waste my limited lifetime clicking manually through entries on his shitty site. But no, I really don't.

Fuck Craigslist. Seriously.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#125

Post by sirclueless »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #91
sirclueless wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the value provided by alternatives to CL were as superior as most HN readers believe them to be then END USERS would see that as well and migrate just like MySpace users migrated to FB. That's not necessarily true. I see network effects as something of a negative externality, one that is hit particularly hard by the tragedy of the commons. The problem is that even if every single person on Facebook decided that Yo…

That's not necessarily true. I see network effects as something of a negative externality, one that is hit particularly hard by the tragedy of the commons. The problem is that even if every single person on Facebook decided that YourBookSpace was a better website that provided more value, no one would leave because until everyone else followed, your network wouldn't be there. This type of dilemma is known as a collec…

Agreed. My argument was perhaps a little strong. Craigslist is far from a monopoly and people can and do successfully list their apartments in all sorts of places.

I do think there are web companies who could really do some anti-competitive things that we should watch out for. Facebook is probably the most capable, or maybe Google if they went off the deep end and started holding companies hostage through their search. The argument still stands, I think, even if it doesn't justify intervening on behalf of a company that wants to improve Craigslist search.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#126

Post by dedward »

prostoalex wrote: post #50
heliodor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Craigslist values us, the users, more than most companies. You know how? By leaving so much money on the table that you can't help but love them! Craigslist is a breath of fresh air in a world where everything is optimized as much as possible to part us from our money!

That is not strictly true. A better search would save the users time, compared to clicking through CL pages, which for popular categories could be overwhelming.

But if that doesn't matter to Craig & co, and people still use the site, revenue still stays as expected, they can just NOT mess with it and go play video games or whatever.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#127

Post by waterlesscloud »

angryasian wrote: post #119
waterlesscloud wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rand would say that both parties in a transaction have the right to negotiate the terms of said transaction.

both parties would be craigslist and its users in this case. Which craigslist does allow users to post their information where ever they want.

The users are also within their rights to request that Craigslist share that information with third parties via an api, or by scraping for that matter.

The point is that Craigslist is not the only side in the transaction and should not be presumed to be able to set the terms on their own.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#129

Post by dedward »

zacharypinter wrote: post #21

Let's play around a bit with this mentality: Google: man up and build your own database of everything. Stop indexing our data when we already offer our own search mechanism. I get that everybody wants to build ajax web apps and ios apps and android apps and so on, but what's the point of the internet except for being the default client-server protocol if we can't create mashups? The whole point of the internet is tha…

There are tons of reasons why Craigslist, as a business, may have taken this road, from a simple "less hassle for us" down the road to "we're building our own stuff" to. who knows. They're a private business - they can do what they want - we don't get to demand insight.

The vast majority of their users don't give a hoot about whether or not other parties have a way to wrap up craigslist data and do stuff with it.

The whole point of the Internet is that it's a collecation of independently run networks that can communicate. The point of the WWW is to serve hyeprlinked pages to people. There IS NO POINT to the internet - it just happened, and here we are.

Re: Craigslist, LinkedIn, Netflix, and others don't owe us anything.

#130

Post by politician »

monkeymace wrote: post #32
davidw wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Craigslist has is what economists call "positive network externalities" or network effects. Which just means that it's a really valuable service because tons of other people use it . Buyers go there because lots of people are selling, and lots of people selling go there because they know lots of buyers visit the site.

This is the perennial frustration with the immense power of the network effect, a power that all start-ups live and die on. Unfortunately, us humans have a hard time banding together and forming enough consensus to 'jump ship' enmass to a new service. Especially, when the a lack of 'innovative features' on a given service barely registers on the pain scale. Look at the internets SOPA protest, the entire integrity of…

Sometimes the companies do it to themselves: Digg succeeded in defeating the network effect. CL is certainly aware of that fiasco.
Post reply on HN