Marksonland

Greg Sterling wrote an interesting piece on how blekko's slashtags make life difficult on the content farms. McContent is definitely in our crosshairs. Anyway, check out his write-up here.

Our core value is that we are finally giving users a direct say in what their search results look like. A simple slashtag appended to a query (/techblogs, /videogames, etc.) lets users slash the crappy sites out of their results and only search the good sites. Sometimes the real power of search is in what you don’t search, not what you do.

Check out our search results for a gamed health query like “avoiding swine flu" - blekko shows results from trusted sites like WebMD, CDC, Healthline - these are the sources you want to see:

The SEO gamers, content farmers and link shoppers are not going to be happy. These guys are flooding the web with content designed to turn a profit, not inform, and the searcher pays the price. One company alone generates literally tens of thousands of pages every day that are solely designed to make money from SEO traffic. Slashtags are the perfect way to bypass them and search only the sites you like.

One more reason the content farmers aren't going to be happy: we're opening up all the data that is the core foundation of their business. Link data, site data, rank data - all there for everyone to see. In one fell swoop the playing field just got leveled. Pretty cool, eh?

Drop me a line if you’d like to get an invite to the beta when it is available.

Facebook: NY; Google: LA

The 2 most important, most trafficked sites on the web are the two largest, most important cites in the US - and they're as opposite as NY and LA are to one another. Facebook's social approach to the web is as foreign to Google as a good steak house is to LA.

MySpace: Detroit

Used to matter, not anymore - just trying to survive the exodus.

Yahoo: Boston

At one time this was the hub, not so much anymore.

Twitter: Miami

Lots of flash and celebrity power, keep this one a favored destination.

AOL: Chicago

This is where real people live: i.e. flyover country.

Wikipedia: San Francisco

Lots of smart folks working together communally to make the world a better place. Not to mention a few bad apples making the world a more difficult place.

TechCrunch: Austin

Small, but very influential. Where the movers and shakers all start.

CraigsList: Las Vegas

Sin city - what happens here stays here (hopefully).

Ebay: Phoenix

Old school, literally.

Did I miss any?

When we launched Topix in 2004 Google AdSense was a God-send. Here we were, 5 guys in crap office space above a trophy shop, launching a news aggregator with 200,000+ pages/ topics - how on earth were we going to monetize these pages? Turns out this was easy - we flipped a switch, Google spidered the site, matched ads to the content and voila, we we're pulling in revenue from day one on almost all our pages.

Eventually we worked with Google to program the ads on the site ourselves via access to the xml feed of their ads - and this lifted performance tremendously. From time to time others would approach us to be our ad partner, but it never made sense to do so.

Fast forward to 2005. We sold the site to the 3 newspaper companies (Knight Ridder, Tribune and Gannett). Together we we going to cut a single deal with an ad partner for contextual ads across all of the properties of all 3 sites. Time to get serious.

So, we headed down to LA and get the full dog and pony show from Yahoo on the Publisher's network. During that meeting they proceeded to tell us that their plan was to manually match the ads to our site. Excuse me? At that point we had 400k+ pages on Topix alone. How was that going to work? And btw, isn't Yahoo supposed to be a technology company?

On top of that, we actually ran some tests with Yahoo ads. We got the xml feed of their ads and automatically programmed the ads on each of our pages exactly the same way we were doing with Google. Even copied the AdSense ad unit pixel for pixel.

Guess what? Yahoo ads performed at 20% of what Adsense did. I don't know if it was the lack of coverage, the quality of the advertiser, or maybe even the "Ads by Google" delivers a more trusted experience which leads to more clicks. Whatever, doesn't matter. Google trounced Yahoo with respect to performance.

I can't imagine our experience with the Y! publishers network was unique. That's why i was surprised that anyone would choose it over Google. Which is a shame - given the opaqueness of Adsense, some competition would be a good thing for publishers. Here's hoping Microsoft does something interesting with respect to contextual ads.

Worst case: it is a time/cash-suck that produces little to no results. Best case: you get some valuable insight/ knowledge/ perspective from an expert in a specialized field (law, PR, marketing, design, UX, etc.). Every case: you end up spending too much money.

With that, here are 5 hard and fast rules I have about consultants:

1. Don't plan on outsourcing your business decisions to them. Use consultants for the specialized knowledge they bring to the table - nothing more, nothing less. PR firms are great for PR matters - not for product design or feature development. Lawyers are great for legal advice, not exit strategy consulting or valuation exercises. Focus the consultant on what they bring to the table.

2. Usually, the best work from a consultant comes in their initial gig. The first time you hire a consultant, they are not only earning their money, but also trying to earn your respect and future business. The 2nd through n time you hire that same consultant, that is not the case.

3. Consultants are generally not a substitute for in-house talent. The way a consultant works is that they come to your office, pick your brain for a few hours, go back to their office and then two weeks later present you with the answer. The problem with this is that often times the most important part of the process is the two weeks they are completely removed. In house talent is jut that: in-house. You can chat with them, make suggestions, argue, etc. during the entire process. Usually produces a better result.

4. Consultants are a great way to manage down-side. If a project a consultant is working on screws up, it's the consultant's fault. If a project you are handling screws up, its your fault. Which sounds better?

5. Referrals are the only way to hire consultants. Everyone is motivated by a good referral. This effectively gives the refer-ee two people to answer to: you and the person that refered them. If you grab someone off of google or craiglist without any other personal connections you just eliminated 50% of the folks they answer to. Not a good idea.

I've had many good experiences with consultants - including of course all of the ones that are reading this ;) - and a few not so good ones. Remembering these rules is a good way to help insure a good experience.

What this means is that when things don't go well, it's your fault. Didn't get that round of financing? Don't tell me the VC's are idiots or didn't "get it." You didn't pitch it right. Or you went to them too early. Or too late. VC's fund companies every day - they didn't fund your company. That's your fault. How are you going to fix it?

Same thing with customers/ users. Not getting any traction? That's your problem - not the PR firms fault, or the economy or the sales team. It's yours. You hired the PR firm - they screwed up because you let them. The sales guy didn't close because you allowed him not to. Great products with real customers are born every day - so far yours isn't one of them. That's your fault. How are you going to fix it?

The real trick is not to give the "it's my fault" attitude lip service, but to actually believe it and live it. Never let your guard down. No whispering to friends/ family that "if only so and so did this" or "if only that hadn't happened...." Always blame yourself. Its the only way your problems get solved.

Or if I did use a resume, I'd think about it like a pitch deck: who's my audience? what's the problem I am solving? Why am I uniquely situated to solve it? etc. And if I couldn't answer those questions, I probably shouldn't be applying for the job in the first place.

i was talking with a friend the other day who was thinking about joining an early stage start-up. He's a smart guy who has a good job with a big company but wants to get involved in an earlier stage venture.

Long story short, he found a company that looked like a good fit (product, financing, team, etc.), but he was hung up on some of the comp numbers. My advice to him: forget about the comp numbers (sure, negotiate but don't let it drive your decision) and think long, not short.

His goal is to move into the start-up world, get to know the VC's, other entrepreneurs, gain some early stage experience. Learn how to build a company. This gig does all those things. Sure maybe he could squeak out another .25% of stock, but is it worth it?

The company he's joining probably probably won't turn him into the next Larry or Sergey - most don't. But the experience he gets there will make an excellent slide in his personal pitch deck. It makes finding his next start-up gig even easier to find (as an employee or even a co-founder).

Any start-up investor will tell you one shot deals are hard to find. You got to play the numbers - invest in 10 and hope one hits. As founders and employees we should think the same way. Don't play for the one shot - build the personal pitch deck that's going to give you lots of swings at the plate.

It's an interesting strategy for the company. They lost the search wars. Their brand doesn't mean anything in the marketplace. But they have gobs of traffic. Users that continually come back to the site for a handful of core services.

So rather than spending money maintaining a bunch of services users don't primarily use Yahoo for, they outsource/ EOL them. Search? An ancillary service, not what draws users to the site - and very expensive to maintain. Outsource it to Microsoft. Cloud services? Some potential there, but it doesn't drive page views. Cut it. Shopping? Same. etc., etc.

Email, news and finance are what drive the page views, so those they keep. (Although for news and finance those are already pretty much outsourced to the AP, Reuters, AFP and the other syndicated content providers. Note to AP: given this direction it would be a good time to cut a new deal with Yahoo.)

From an innovation standpoint, this means Yahoo is done. Sure, they might make some incremental changes to the products they hold onto - but the days of Yahoo being a tech product leader are over. They are the online equivalent of a paper box manufacturer - they have an established product in an established industry and their job is to monetize it with the largest margins possible. Meet your numbers, don't take chances.

On one hand, given their rich history as tech leaders, its kind of sad to see. However, on the other hand, it takes some incredible self awareness for a product focus tech company to recognize their failures and focus on their strengths. If you would have told me 5 years ago, that by 2010 Yahoo would be a pure sales and marketing shop that sits on top of an IT group, I wouldn't have believed you. But that's where we are. Let's see if it works.

Really? Ok, so you like cookies. I get it. But you had to stop whatever you were doing (presumably eating said cookie) to tell me about it? You were that enthusiastic about a cookie? A child is head over heels giddy when they get a cookie and that's awesome.

But you’re an adult. You’ve had 1,000 cookies. Your enthusiasm must have waned. And here's the rub: I don't actually believe that offline that you are dancing around about your cookie. Sure, you’re mildly pleased no doubt, but you’re not shouting from the mountaintops about it. But online you carry on like you hit the lottery? Why the difference?

A person’s online presence is the broadcast of himself or herself, presumably one that is supposed to put them in a positive light. Why do people think acting like an enthusiastic 6 year old about an uneventful occurrence puts them in a positive light?

Tell you what: want the world to see you positively? Act like an adult. Say something funny, witty, creative, smart or just honest. Don't take some silly every day occurrence and post something that makes you sound like an 8 year old. That doesn’t make you look positive.

Some people theorize that Americans are being infantilized by the powers at be. This includes the government and employers. Take care of our creature comforts and we will pledge our loyalty. Perhaps the childlike online persona is really who we are - I sure hope not.

With that in mind, here's where I got my valley news over the past week:

1. Techcrunch. Not by design or even by habit, just found myself going there first for news. If I didn't check Techcrunch I didn't feel like I knew what was going on in the Valley.

2. Techmeme. My second stop in my news tour. While Techcrunch was my must read, I was fine with getting the rest of my valley news through techmeme.

3. Hacker news. The other tech aggregator in my tour. Techmeme was great for showing me the buzz in the tech world, while Hacker News let me crawl into some of the crevices of my industry. The stuff I read on Hacker News is more becuase it interests me and less to stay informed.

4. Drudgereport. A quick scan of drudge let me know what was happening in the world. It's amazing to me, his page has pretty much not changed for more than 10 years have gone by and it's still the most easily scan-able page that quickly informs me of the world news.

5. ESPN.com. I would go to the worldwide leader not for there articles - they don't have any anymore - but rather for scores.

And that was pretty much it. Notably absent from that list is the perennial time-suck Twitter. I only checked Twitter once or twice while I was away (and tweeted one uninspired tweet). I typically check Twitter a few times a day normally - but when I limited myself to only a short window for online news/ activity, it fell completely off the map. Facebook too fell by the wayside, although I usually check that less than I do twitter.

i don't know what this says about twitter, facebook or the blogs i typically read, but one thing is for sure: I didn't miss them.