mathewingram.com/work

As I mentioned in my recent Globe and Mail column on the Facebook IPO rumours, I don’t think there has been so much frenzy around a tech startup and its valuation since the Google days, although the debate over YouTube’s value (thanks in large part to the always game Mark Cuban) runs a close second. We now have valuations that run anywhere from a mind-boggling $10-billion — and this is for a company with annual revenue of about $100-million, at last estimate — all the way to zero. The big debate lately has been whether Facebook’s poor performance on the advertising front makes it worth less (or worthless), or whether it just means that advertising isn’t the route to profit for a social network, as my friend Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0 describes here. I, for one, hope that Facebook does do an IPO so that we can let the market decide what the company is worth. Sergey Brin says he’d be happy to talk to Facebook but isn’t planning to buy it, and thinks it is building a great company on its own.

Like most bloggers, I think I tend to take the power of the link for granted. I write things, I link to other bloggers and to websites, etc. etc. — that’s how it works, right? Carry on — nothing to see here. And yet, every now and then something comes along that reinforces just how powerful a simple link can be. The latest example was a post I came across at The Blog Herald, written by Jason Kaneshiro, who writes a blog at Webomatica.com.

Not to get too self-referential or anything, but Jason talks in the post about how a link from me helped inspire him in his early days as a blogger, a topic that he arrived at after reading a similar post by Lorelle Van Fossen of WordPress, called “Changing a Life With a Link.” I have to say that Jason’s post means a lot to me — in fact, his post may even have as much significance to me as my original link did to him. And yet, I gave virtually no thought to the link when I posted that original item to my blog. I had no idea who Jason was, or what his blog was all about (although I did check out a few of his posts to get a sense of who he was). I just thought he had made a good suggestion, so I linked to it. End of story — or, as it turned out, beginning of story. Apparently a link I gave him made a difference to The Last Podcast as well.

As I mentioned in a comment on Jason’s post, that’s what is so great about the blogosphere. Who Jason was — or how long he had been blogging, or what his background was — was of no interest to me. It was quite literally irrelevant to whether his post made sense or not, just as it was irrelevant to me who Tony Hung was when I first started reading his blog at Deep Jive Interests (Tony is also the editor at The Blog Herald now).

And if nothing else, Jason’s story has reinforced in me the desire to link to as many different voices as possible. I already do my best to find new blogs and links, instead of always linking to TechCrunch or CNET or places like that, but I could do better. I remember my blog friend Kent Newsome (who got mad at me recently for a link I inadvertently removed) had a project called “Second Opinion,” in which he tried to get bloggers to link to new voices, and I thought it was a great idea — and still do. Links are powerful things.

Fresh from his financing round for Ning, former Netscape creator and new blogging superstar Marc Andreessen has a great list of eleven lessons he has learned since he started his blog a little over a month ago. Most of them are excellent, including the one where he admits he was wrong about blogging (when he said it required too much “time and ego”) and says:

“It is crystal clear to me now that at least in industries where lots of people are online, blogging is the single best way to communicate and interact.”

He also notes that in his experience “original content is what generates readership” (although I think it helps if you have a track record like Marc does) and that while he gets hits from Digg.com and so on, a surprising amount of traffic comes from StumbleUpon.com, which is something I’ve heard many times from other bloggers as well. But Marc also says something I’m not sure I agree with: he says he has turned off comments on his blog because he doesn’t have time to moderate them, and in any case that he sees the existence of blogs and trackbacks and search mechanisms like Technorati.com and Google’s blog search as an effective replacement for comments.

It’s ironic, in a way, that Andreessen also says he doesn’t feel he has to have comments on his blog because he can find other blog posts that refer to his — and then post a comment on them. If they also turned off comments, of course, that wouldn’t work. But would it be enough for everyone to have a blog and just respond to each other in the same way Marc describes?

I think there are a couple of problems with that, and it’s something I’ve thought a fair bit about and posted on in the past (raising the ire of Dave Winer, among others). The first is (obviously) that not everyone has a blog, or wants to have a blog. I have some persistent commenters whose opinions I value who don’t appear to have blogs at all — they blog by commenting. Last Podcast makes a similar point, and I see that Fred Wilson agrees with me too.

The second problem is that not everything requires a blog post. Just today, I came across a mention on Jeremy Liew’s Lightspeed blog about my post on Facebook hiring Chamath Palihapitiya, in which Jeremy described me as “questioning the hire.” Not a big deal, but I posted a comment saying I was just having some fun with the AOL connection, not questioning his abilities. Not something that would require a whole blog post, but enough to clear up a misunderstanding (I hope).

I’m only using that as an example. And I see Marc’s point about the difficulty of moderating comments, and looking for other solutions (such as a Meebo plugin, etc.). But why not allow users to moderate their own comments? I don’t know if Typepad has something like that, but WordPress does. Robert Scoble, ever the enterprising blogger, has even offered to host Marc’s comments.

Those of you who subscribe to my Twitter feed will have seen this already, but I just had to blog about something that happened on Friday on the way up to a friend’s cottage in northern Ontario — we stopped for gas at the local Esso station and here is what I saw (click the image below for the full-sized version):

It’s a Windows XP error that says: “The file or directory C:\XPE_ROOTsystem32 is corrupt and unreadable. Please run the Chkdsk utility.” Luckily, I was still able to get gas 🙂

A quick check of Flickr shows that there is a universe of similar shots, including this one and this one and this one — and for some Canadian content, this one.

I’ll say this for Marc Andreessen: he knows how to make a splash. First, he writes a whole series of excellent (and lengthy) blog posts with advice for startups — so excellent that my friend Paul Kedrosky jokes about how he’s making the rest of us look bad — and then he announces a blockbuster financing round of $44-million for Ning, which values the company at something north of about $200-million and has got everyone talking.

My friend Rob Hyndman, a lawyer who advises technology startups, says he is skeptical of Ning’s ability to justify that kind of money, and so is Rob Hof at BusinessWeek — who draws a comment from the man himself by comparing Ning to Facebook. Don Dodge says that he doesn’t think Ning’s revenues will scale. And Umair comes right out and says Legg Mason’s investment in Ning is an example of dumb money. But is it really? I think some of those criticisms miss the point about what Ning is trying to do. Whether it will succeed or not remains to be seen, but I think Ning is trying to become the “Intel inside” for social networks.

In some ways, Ning’s strategy is the opposite of Facebook’s. Whereas the Mark Zuckerberg show is all about bringing people — and eventually transactions — to Facebook, and becoming a platform in that sense, Ning wants to be the plumbing for any kind of social network. The company is even happy to help you turn your soc-net into a widget that you can then embed in Facebook.

I used Ning to set up an ad-hoc social network for a class reunion I was involved in organizing, and it was easy enough to use that even the ancient classmates I was dealing with could figure it out. I think Ning’s vision is that instead of everyone going to Facebook or MySpace, there will eventually be hundreds of thousands or even millions of social networks, all tied in to each other in some way (through Google’s SocialSystem perhaps?).

Ning clearly wants to power that explosion — and the way it has been configured is easily powerful enough to do that, I think, given enough horsepower and resources to allow it to scale. Will it succeed? I haven’t a clue. But I think the strategy is an interesting one.

There’s lots of skepticism out there about stodgy venture-capital fund Bay Partners creating a special investment vehicle for Facebook apps, called AppFactory. Om’s post is entitled “Bonkers By The Bay,” which pretty much sums up his point of view on the idea — that it’s a dumb move by a VC firm that has been swept up in the Facebook hysteria, and that it’s dumb in part because it means building a business on a proprietary platform.

Others are similarly skeptical — Ashkan Karbasfrooshan of HipMojo, for example, can barely contain his derision for the idea. And the biggest criticism centers around whether Facebook apps are monetizable at all, something that venture capitalist Andrew Chen talked about in very skeptical terms in a recent interview with Inside Facebook. But Mike Arrington, who has no small amount of experience in the startup game himself, seems to think that building apps based on the Facebook platform isn’t such a bad idea at all, since it allows a startup to build and test something relatively quickly and cheaply (the guy behind the Bay venture, Salil Deshpande, responds multiple times in Mike’s comments).

For what it’s worth, I think Bay Partners is making a smart move. We’re talking about a relative pipsqueak of a fund in dollar terms — up to fifty investments worth $25,000 to $250,000 (but most likely far less). That’s pretty close to a rounding error in VC terms. Will any of them work out? Who knows. But it’s possible that one or two could become something real, using Facebook as a springboard, and that seems like a small chance worth taking, along the lines of what Google Ventures and Y Combinator are doing.

Howard Owens has a great list of mistakes that newspapers have made when it comes to online, including three of my favourites:

1. Newspapers were slow to embrace blogging.

2. Fear kept newsrooms from allowing comments on stories.

3. Newspapers did not want to believe that the web was pull rather than push.

Go read the whole thing. Nice job, Howard.

Wired magazine is running some of the stories that have been produced by Assignment Zero — the first “crowdsourcing” journalism experiment from Jay Rosen’s NewAssignment.net and Wired writer (and mesh panelist) Jeff Howe — and one of the first is a piece by Anna Haynes about just how difficult the entire process has been. As she describes it:

“The results of my efforts were mixed. Some parts were rewarding: I enjoyed digging to uncover lobbyist connections to earmarked appropriations in the Earmarks Project, plus there’s a certain satisfaction in publicly exposing stonewalling, and a different satisfaction in finally getting an answer.

But I contribute to crowdsourced journalism because I want my work to yield a high “social good” return, and by that metric, overall, the experience has been frustrating. With some of these projects I ended up with nothing to show for the time I put in.”

In the end, however, Anna says that she believes it was worth it — and that more of it needs to happen:

I did it, and will continue doing it, for the same reason that you keep going out on dates even though the first six guys didn’t measure up — you know there’s potential to the form, you want that potential to be realized, and you’re pretty sure that, if you keep plugging away and you put the word out, in time that potential will blossom.