[Search-l] "directory" vs. "search engine"

[Jason Calacanis]

On 6/3/07, Seth Finkelstein <sethf at sethf.com> wrote:
>         Ah, but I think the key difference in Mahalo vs DMOZ is
> in a halfway reasonable monetization strategy (cream-skim the
> top search terms). This is not *comprehensive* coverage of the Web,
> which I think is tripping people up when it comes to discussing
> directory vs. general search engine. Rather, it's *focus*, on the
> specific segment likely to be most profitable. Yes, it's really
> more of a "directory", not a "search engine". But the other side of
> that is it's a directory which is optimized to work both "in" and "out"
> with a search engine, and an eye towards profitability. Which is something
> of a twist on the usual directory concept (which usually starts from a
> taxonomy and concerns itself with breadth).

That is a very astute point Seth. We are doing the top 10,000 english
search terms, and we are using a search format/metaphor/design. We do
have categories, and you can navigate in a DMOZ-like way, so I like to
call Mahalo.com a "search service."

> > it. Working for free as a hobby is fine (ie wikipedia), but why
> > anyone would work for free to make venture capitalists and ceos
> > right is beyond me.
>         For the joy and happiness, the *community*, of course. I think
> part of what Y. Benkler is analyzing in his infamous book, though not put
> so bluntly, is this: If you have 100K to hire workers, you can put 10K
> each towards 10 people (and after benefits and overhead, pay them around
> 5K each total), Or, put 100K towards a really good marketing flack
> who will go around trying to convince 10 people in the entire world to
> WORK FOR FREE, because gosh golly they're contributing to A New Era,
> and showing those elitist priests up there that citizen-amateurs can
> do a job without pay that's every bit as good as paid professionals.

I've debated Benkler on this point, and at Wikimania in Boston this
summer one of the speakers (before or after Benkler) made a point of
demonstrating that folks involved in open source software projects
participated because they thought their participation would get them
some sort of financial return down the road (or something to that
effect--anyone remember?).

Anyway, at the end of the day everyone needs to eat, and when your
hobby moves from being part time to full-time the rubber meets the
road. In fact, look and Jimmy and Angela who did amazing free work on
the Wikipedia for years and years and are now working on a for-profit
company--Wikia--backed by the most aggressive form of capital in the
world: venture capital.

If the top folks from Wikipedia have left to "swing for the fences" at
a venture backed company that tells you something about Benkler's
theories now doesn't it?

>         But I get in trouble when I talk about that. At least in the
> wrong place. Anyway, I may be projecting, but I think the membership
> of this list skews more towards those on the code-developer end, and
> interested parties keeping an eye on the project, rather than those
> who will be doing grunt work of writing specific results.

Exactly. That's the part I hate. Developers can get paid,
administrators can get paid, but editors don't!? What if Theresa in
your example got paid for doing good? Would that be such a bad thing?

That's what we're trying to do at Mahalo: let everyone "get a taste"
not just the management teams of venture-backed companies.

[ Note: I'm not saying Wikipedia should move to a paid model, but I
think if Wikipedia allowed OPT-IN advertising they could hire 10-25
editors f/t to work from home and administer the system. It would be a
start. ]

best regards and Mahalo ;-) for the amazing feedback Seth... you're
like having a free management consultant on 24-hour duty!!!

Jason
www.mahalo.com