Mike Miller tagged me in the Next 5 Stumbles Meme.  The idea is to list your next 5 stumbles using StumbleUpon.

One of the biggest spankings I’ve received in the blogosphere was over my failure to pick StumbleUpon as a winner in Round 20 of my Web 2.0 Wars.  I’m still smarting over that one.  But I’ll tell you a little secret- other than to check it out during that round, I’ve never used StumbleUpon.

Until now.  I installed it the day I got tagged and have been using it for the past few days.  I’m not going to say anything that might get me clobbered again in the comments.  Such as, for example, that I like it OK, but don’t love it.  Or that I’ll probably uninstall it in a few days.  No sir.  Not going to say anything like that.

What I’m going to do is list my 5 stumbles and then tag some people.

My Stumbles:

1. The Size of Our World.  I didn’t realize that Earth was so much smaller than Jupiter and Saturn.  Some funny astronomer named a star after Beetlejuice.  If I had a star, I’d name it Patrick.  My kids would like that.  I once had a cat named Stevens.  Get it?

2. Pandora.  Man, maybe there’s something to StumbleUpon after all.  I love Pandora.

3. HassleMe.  Because sometimes in life, you just need to be nagged.  I have a team of people who do that for me every day.

4. BugMeNot.  I use this application all the time to avoid having to register with those stupid registration required newspaper sites.  There’s a nifty Firefox extension.

5. Nick Brandt.  Never heard of him before, but I like the photos.  A tad on the artsy side.

And now, I’ll tag the following StumbleUpon fans, who defended it so well in the comments to my prior post:

Sam
Mike
Shamir

I need two more.  A quick search for the stumbleupon tag at Technorati mandates (mandates I tell ya) that I tag Gabrielle of the Tech Chick blog.

And last, but not least, Joy, of the Blog of Joy, because she likes StumbleUpon.

I just tagged 5 people, none of whom I know.  I wonder if that’s cool or uncool?

Thanks to Mike for tagging me!

And thanks to Richard for commenting on my last post.

Look at all these rumors
Surrounding me every day
I iust need some time
Some time to get away from
From all these rumors
I can’t take it no more
– Timex Social Club

TechCrunch has a screenshot and some information about my blogging buddy Guy Kawasaki‘s pending Web 2.0 entry- Truemors, which is apparently a rumor reporting bulletin board with Twitter and Digg-like capabilities.

Where to start….

First of all, I suspect they are going to have an epic spam problem.  Sure, they can approve entries, but I bet that’s not their plan.  It would be a ton of work and would delay publication of what they probably hope will be time sensitive scoops.  There will be the traditional spammers, and the disruptors who just want to post absurd things and make trouble.

I also wonder how many people are going to happily populate Guy’s site with juicy content they could post on their own blogs, web sites, etc.

Finally, I wonder how many people are going to choose to get their gossip news at Truemors, as opposed to other news and quasi-news sites?

The screen shot shows rumors about Phil Mickelson switching golf instructors, Paris Hilton whining about jail, Scarlett Johansson visiting Austin and the Spurs winning a basketball game.  Not exactly edge of your seat stuff.

Based on the screen shot, it looks to me like a Digg clone more than anything else.

We have to wait for the public launch to see what Truemors is made of.  But based on what little I know right now, I’d have to say the early line is leaning towards a yawner.

Hey Guy, my private beta invite must have gotten lost in the mail.  Want to hook me up?

Thanks to Earl for linking to my last post.

You’ve got a way to keep me on your side
You give me cause for love that I can’t hide
For you I know I’d even try to turn the tide
Because you’re mine, I walk the line
-Johnny Cash

Blonde 2.0 has a great summary and discussion of the Digg censorship business.

The challenge for any web community is to give the users who create the content a sense of ownership and investment in the community, without getting sued or letting your community descend into chaos.  Users who populate a community acquire a sense of ownership.  A sense that grows stronger over time.  This is a good thing, as it creates loyalty and nurtures organic growth.  Once a community grows to a certain point, however, a couple of things happen.  One, you start making a little money.

Two, you have to walk a fine line between being too restrictive and too permissive.  A lot of users want a no-rules policy.  A lot of users will leave if chaos and conflict are completely unconstrained.  It’s a fine line, and you simply cannot make everybody happy.  You have to figure out what the largest percentage of your audience wants and then try to maintain it without being autocratic.

On ACCBoards.Com and the other web communities I developed, our mission statement from the first day has been to create a “family friendly” environment.  We did this because we knew that the majority of our target user base would be more comfortable in that environment.  It was about growth more than morals.  Over time, the moderators’ standard became “if a young person shouldn’t read it, you can’t write it.”  We made some people mad.  We made more people happy.  It’s math.

Sports, like technology, is a passionate topic for many.  To address this, we make a distinction between the message and the way the message is delivered.  I have been consistent that almost any opinion is OK as long as it is delivered and defended properly.  No personal attacks, and no extreme language (although we have filters to take care of most of that).  It can be hard to police that standard, because there is a significant sub-group of users who interpret a contrary opinion as an act of aggression.  They cannot separate the message from the writer, and all hell breaks loose.  I almost always side with the contrarian in those cases, and tell the others to stop attacking the opinion and refute the opinion.  I believe that someone who attacks someone for their opinion generally does so because they are psychologically bound to their position and, when they lack the ability to logically refute a contrary opinion, they have a psychological panic attack.  But that’s a topic for another day.

The point is that community leaders have to walk the line, so users feel like peers, not subjects.  I think we’ve done a pretty good job at ACCBoards.Com, as evidenced by the fact that a newish moderator tried to kick me off the site I created the other day, because he didn’t like something I said.  I honored the community by telling him that I’d stop posting for a while, as opposed to reminding him of the history of the site.  The rest of the community largely took my side in the argument.  Self-policing resolved the issue, which is what you want to happen.

Then there’s the intellectual property problem.  I get emails every couple of weeks complaining that some photo is being used without permission, that someone is stealing bandwidth by linking to images or that someone is being mean (those who haven’t talked to a lawyer) or committing libel (those who have).  I generally try to mediate the problem, and most times people are cooperative.  What I try hard not to do is go on the boards and start issuing mandates.  I learned a long time ago that when I do that, I soon have a mutiny on my hands.  Kevin Rose learned that this week.

But (and this is important), if I felt I had to choose between taking something down without discussion or betting the company on a case I might lose (either by losing or by cost attrition), I’d do it.  In a second.  A Digg with no encryption key posted is better than Digg out of business.  An hysterical group of users is never going to conclude that- the combination of anonymity and human nature won’t allow it.  It’s up to the community leaders (read owners) to make that hard decision.

For these reasons, I don’t think people should be so hard on Kevin and the other Digg folks.  Granted, they would likely do things differently if they could start over.  But getting demand letters from big operations with a pile of lawyers behind them is no one’s definition of a good time.  When you’re walking that line, sometimes you wander on one side and sometimes the other.  A nasty letter can blow you off course.  Users have to understand that.

I agree that there’s a lesson to be learned here.  Hopefully, it will be a lesson for owners and users alike.

Thanks to Guy and Jim for commenting on my last post, and to TDavid for linking to it (and getting my back).

Is the sound of Web 2.0 sucking, at least according to Charlie O’Donnell.  Charlie has a list of 10 reasons why Web 2.0 sucks.  Go read his post for the full list, but here are my 2 favorites.

4. Web 2.0 is a conversational vacuum

No matter how many times people say it’s not, we all know it is.  The effort it takes to engage the so called thought leaders in conversation is second only to podcasting in the Sisyphusian Hall of Fame.  I have always thought, and written, that the semi-closed blogosphere is a function of the cross-motives between those looking for cool and those looking for dollars.  I also think it’s because blogging is a very inefficient way to carry on a conversation- Twitter notwithstanding.

10. MySpace is the most popular social network

No kidding.  If MySpace is the crown jewel of Web 2.0, then the whole movement is doomed.  As I have said many times- MySpace is Geocities II.  It was the playground of kids and amateurs the first time around, and it still is.

A lot about Web 2.0 does suck.  But it doesn’t have to.  It’s all in the perception and the spin.

Most of Web 2.0 has a lot more in common with fun and games than it does with big business.  Social networking, for example, is very distinct from business networking.  I realize this is semantics, but names are often descriptive.  Those who try to put Web 2.0 on the business side of the equation are forgetting the fact that fortunes are made every day on the fun side.  Just look, for example, at the top ten holdings of the Baron Partners fund (one of my favorite mutual funds; DISCLAIMER: I am a shareholder).  For archival purposes, the top 3 holdings right now are gaming companies.

You can make a lot of money being fun and cool.  Sure, people have come to believe that Web 2.0 is supposed to be free.  But it doesn’t have to be.  People will pay for fun- just look at Second Life.

Web 2.0 would suck a lot less if it didn’t have to wear and coat and tie and try to sneak into the big business party.

I noticed that Tabblo is one of Techmeme‘s sponsors this month.  Tabblo has a blog where you can learn more about it.  Since I am an avid user of Techmeme, I want to support the service by checking out its sponsors from time to time.

So here goes, in real time.  I do real time reviews by writing them as I go.  If I miss something, it gets missed in the review just like it does when I’m using the product.

First, Tabblo has a Web 2.0 sounding name, which I don’t like.  But it’s “blo” name allows for less abuse than Weblo.  So it has that going for it.

Signup was as easy as possible.

Now I have to fully understand what Tabblo does.  From the FAQ:

A tabblo is a collection of photos and words brought together by a stylized template that can be customized to your heart’s content. A tabblo lives at a permanent URL and can be private, accessed by whoever you invite, or public for the whole world to see.

Tabblo doesn’t have ads, which is wonderful.  The FAQ says they make money by selling the posters and other stuff you can buy (more on that below), and that Tabblo will introduce premium services in the future.

We went to the Texas Renaissance Festival a few weeks ago, and I took a bunch of photos.  Sounds like a good subject for a tabblo.

There are a bunch of ways to upload your photos- browse (slow, as always), a Java uploader, a Flash uploader and, oh happy day, an integrated Flickr import.  I’ll eventually use the integrated Flickr tool the most, but let’s try the Java uploader.

The Java uploader seems pretty quick, but there’s no way to view your photos as thumbnails.  Let’s try the Flash uploader.

It seems ever faster, and it allows you to see the thumbnails.  The box is tiny on my computer which makes it hard to select the best photos, but it works well enough.  I wish you could drag and drop from Windows Explorer, but you can’t.  I uploaded 18 photos in about 23 minutes.  You can set the privacy levels and tags before you upload.

All in all, the uploading functions are pretty good.  Since I will likely use the Flickr import function more than the direct uploading, my uploading experience will probably get easier in the future.  I wish Tabblo had a Zooomer import feature.  Thomas Hawk had pretty good things to say about Tabblo.

Now to make my tabblo.

When your photos are uploaded, you are prompted to make a tabblo out of them.  I named mine “Texas Renaissance Festival.”  I had to log back in to see the results, but once I did, my photos showed up in the work space.  The first step is to pick the photos for the tabblo.  Since I did that after the upload, my photos were already in place.  You can drag the photos to reorder them.

Then, you click on “Make Tabblo” and are prompted to select a style.  There are several to choose from.  I chose Magnolia.

Next you get an opportunity to edit your tabblo.  You can add and edit captions.  I didn’t like the way they looked, so I chose not to show captions on my first tabblo.  I like the way it looks when you add text to a separate area better.

After all was said and done, here is my first tabblo.

Update:

After you make a tabblo, you can purchase posters, postcards and prints from Tabblo.

I configured a 16″ x 20″ poster for my tabblo, which I can buy for $19.95.  In the preview format, my text runs over into the photos below, likely because of the text size I use in Firefox, so this probably doesn’t occur on the final product.  The preview box says “posters have been scaled for viewing on this page,” but it was still a little disconcerting not to know for sure whether the text would display properly on the final product.  In the interest of fairness, many, many pages on the web display goofy when you increase the text size beyond a certain point.  I have a 24 inch monitor running at it’s native 1900 x 1200, so I use the excellent Text Size Toolbar extension to jack up the text size.  You can configure a poster of the photos only, which solves the problem, to the extent one exists.

I have ordered posters from QOOP, via Flickr, and have been very impressed with the quality.  If the Tabblo posters are of similar or better quality, then most buyers will be delighted.

My initial impressions are that Tabblo is a pretty cool application, that likely has more features than I have discovered so far.

I’ll play around with it some.  Will it become a regular tool for me?  It’s too early to tell.  But so far I like what I see.

Mirriam-Webster defines puffery as “exaggerated commendation especially for promotional purposes.”

As I mentioned earlier today, the manufacture of slogans and phrases are, unfortunately, central to traditional marketing theory, and I don’t sense that is about to change.

Mike Arrington says puffery is a recipe for being ignored.

For as long as I can remember, likely due to my mathematical approach to most things, I have been irritated by hype.  Even my kids know that I call out for a footnote every time I hear an ad claiming to be “America’s number one” this and that.  Not only do I ignore unsubstantiated claims, I mentally penalize the offender.

But I also know that my complaints are drowned out by decades of marketing where the lack of hype is seen as doubt.  Lots of purchases are emotional ones, and a scientific study is less emotional that an authoritative voice telling you what to do.

So can we collectively demand a higher standard in the Web 2.0 space?  Certainly Mike can as far as TechCrunch goes (and that’s not an insignificant hammer).  Sending out a reconstituted and hype infested press release as an email seeking coverage is ineffective and disrespectful to the recipient.

I’m not selling anything, but if I were, here’s how I would approach bloggers and other web authorities.  I’d simply tell them what my product does, factually and briefly state what distinguishes my product from other similar products, give them a link, and ask them to take a look.  If I wanted to go into more detail, I’d put it onsite, in a guided tour or tutorial.

Oh, and I would avoid stupid, Web 2.0 sounding names, but that’s a topic for another post.

The winners and losers get separated for many different reasons.  You only have one chance to get someone interested in your project- don’t blow it with bullshit.

Tags: web 2.0, marketing

I have been consistent in my criticism of the combination of the traditional VC mindset and the Web 2.0 developer.  The traditional VC mindset has been furiously trying to stuff Web 2.0 into the framework of the 1990s.  These Web 2.0 developers, most of whom are not MBA types by training, are all too happy to have someone try to turn their glorified high school science projects into a billion or so dollars.  It’s hard to blame them for dreaming.

The problem, of course, is that those billion or so dollars have to come from someplace.  And one of the likely places is our pockets via IPOs that should never happen.

The result is that you have some old school VCs trying to find a billion dollar exit strategy where one doesn’t exist.  Their efforts are, in turn, supported by a bunch of nincompoop bloggers, many of whom have skin in the game, talking about how many billions of dollars this site or that is worth, in the hopes that enough people will start believing their bullshit to cause Google to stupidly throw away more of its money and buy it.  The fallback plan of course being to toss an IPO out there in the hopes that you and I, or more likely the people who manage our investments, will bail them out and make them richer and us poorer.  That plan worked in the 1990s, when the average investor got caught up in the greed and hype of Bubble 1.0.  Now, however, we have realized that the internet is not quite the evolutionary force we thought it was going to be, and that everything that touches the internet is not necessarily gold.

In sum, it is a system that may have worked in the 90s, but thankfully doesn’t work now.  It’s a greater fool game without scale.

Today, Fred Wilson has a post about the future of the VC business.  He asks “is the traditional VC model broken?”

His conclusion is that the VC model of the past will not work in the future.  The business model is not broken he says, but it certainly needs to be modified in light of the changing technology business.

Fred understands that part of the problem was caused by the VC industry during Bubble 1.0:

The IPO market certainly isn’t what it used to be, because of Sarbanes Oxley, because of the really bad companies we in the VC industry foisted on the public markets in the late 90s and the long memories of institutional investors.

Part of what’s needed, according to Fred, is a little scale.  Something I have typed about until my fingers hurt.  Fred says:

Maybe they can’t get us the valuations “that venture investors expect”, but that is the venture industry’s fault because we’ve overfunded our companies to the point where we need a half billion dollar exit to produce a decent return.

Fred suggests a few tweaks, including that the VC industry figure out how to make great returns on $100 million to $250 million exits and limit IPOs to the very best companies.

All of that sounds like inspired gospel to me, even though I still think $100 million to $250 million is too rich for 98% of Web 2.0.  Still, I wish I read more stuff like this in the blogosphere and less psychobabble about how valuable the latest YouTube clone or MySpace wannabe is.

The ironic thing is that the cheerleaders and con men who keep spouting off about billions and zillions and YouTube and MySpace and all that nonsense are doing the Web 2.0 space a lot more damage than good.

Good is smart and logical and reasonable.  With a plan that actually makes sense.

That’s what Fred is talking about.  And to that I say amen.

Tags: web 2.0, venture capital