[Search-l] Valleywag: Jason Calacanis' next venture [Wikipedia-model search]

[Seth Finkelstein]

[Disclaimer - I'm forwarding this article for interest because it
discusses the general topic and connects to the Wikia project in
specific. The views in the article and the criticisms of commentators
below do not necessarily represent my own views]

http://valleywag.com/tech/informed-speculation/jason-calacanis-next-venture-256549.php

Jason Calacanis, the publishing entrepreneur who sold a group of
weblogs to AOL for $25m, has enjoyed sowing confusion about his
plans. We've been fooled ourselves. There was the rumor run by
Valleywag that the avid podcaster intended to hire Don Imus, another
hint that he was drawn to online video. As an entrepreneur-in-action
with Sequoia, whatever that term means, the hyper-active exec said he
was wading through business plans submitted to the Silicon Valley
venture capital firm. He announced a conference joint venture with
Michael Arrington of Techcrunch. But several people, in a position to
know of his plans, say these schemes are at most hobbies, or pure
disinformation; the next venture is a search engine.

Calacanis, we hear, has already hired about 20 engineers to work on
the project. Begun in the poolhouse of his Santa Monica home, it
recently moved to an office nearby. Sequoia isn't merely giving him
shelter while he comes up with a new idea; Roelof Botha, Calacanis'
patron at Sequoia, has already committed the funds. Former associates
of Calacanis, such as Mark Cuban and Jonathan Miller, his former boss
at AOL, are also backing the venture.

So what's the idea? It's a cross between Wikipedia and
Google. Calacanis' new site will create more digestible search results
for popular queries such as the names of Hollywood stars, and tech
products. The pages will be seeded, initially, with content gathered
automatically from the web and other sources. But they will be open to
contributions by readers. Sounds like Wikipedia? Yes: except Calacanis
will employ paid editors to oversee the pages.

The project makes perfect sense for Calacanis.

1. Money. The bust came before Calacanis could cash out of Silicon
Alley Reporter, his first startup. The establishment of Weblogs Inc,
and its sale to AOL, restored his entrepreneurial reputation, but
didn't make him as rich as poker buddies such as Jeff Dachis, founder
of Razorfish. Calacanis wants to make serious money out of his next
venture; he has told people his next venture will be the biggest thing
he's done. He's too savvy to bet on podcasting, for which there's no
significant advertising; he's long been fascinated by search
marketing; of course he would address a big opportunity, and there is
none bigger on the web.

2. Paid editorial. In building a blog group, and in the work he did
for Netscape, Calacanis has always believed in paid editors. Remember,
he comes from a traditional publishing background. It's a pattern:
take a concept which relies on volunteer labor; copy; and
professionalize. When running Weblogs Inc, the weblog group he sold to
AOL, Calacanis, like Gawker Media, typically hired bloggers who had
previously written for fun, and for free.  In copying Digg's voting
system on news headlines, when at Netscape, Calacanis hired away some
of the top unpaid contributors to the social news site. He's already
criticized Wikipedia, the collaborative encyclopedia, for its reliance
on uncredentialed editors; it would be entirely consistent with his
fast follower's strategy to copy Wikipedia, poach its top editors, and
pay them.

3.  Blogging.  Calacanis is bound, I believe, still by the terms of a
non-compete with AOL, so he can't simply replicate the blog network he
sold to the Time Warner internet company. But the pages of his new
search engine, if frequently updated with news, reader comments, and
editorial write-ups, could end up looking much like topic-specific
blogs. It's a good way for Calacanis to apply what he knows about
lightweight publishing, without obviously retracing his steps.

So, the big question: will it work? One person who's seen a prototype
describes it as labor-intensive -- "very web 1.0." And even one of the
former blog mogul's fans says: "It is extremely ambitious, and it will
probably fail." The field is crowded, with companies such as Wikia, a
new venture from the founder of Wikipedia; specialist search engines
such as Spock; and established "human" search engines such as
About.com, owned by the New York Times. Above all, Google itself is
gradually enriching its main search results with content such as news
headlines and images -- and purging other search engines which sneak
into its results.

But I wouldn't count out Calacanis. For a start, as we experienced at
Gawker Media, he's a ferocious competitor. He loves the smell of
battle. Second, there's a limit to the potential of user-generated
content. The pool of volunteers is limited. A web 1.0 approach, hiring
a team of editors to manage user-generated and aggregated content,
sounds sensible, rather than backward. And is it foolhardy to go up
against Google in search? Of course the field is crowded, and
competitive. But that's because it's so profitable. Search marketing
draws the ambitious entrepreneur, such as Calacanis, much as banks do
robbers: that's where the money is.


 From Jason Calacanis:

 Search?!?! Oh please...

 Also, the logic makes no sense: My noncompete is for blog networks--not
 audio/video.

 Where do you get this stuff?!

 04/30/07 05:08 PM

 04/30/07 05:41 PM
 Mike Snow says:

 Jason's criticized Wikipedia for relying on unpaid editors - really, where?
 I thought he criticized it for passing up untold millions by not carrying
 ads.
 
 JasonCalacanis says:

 this is almost as good as the don imus stuff... i love you guys--you'll
 print anything. :-)

 04/30/07 06:02 PM Nick Denton says:

 Hmmm, can't find a direct reference in writing. There's this... From
 Calacanis blog post. "I've been saying for a couple of years now that
 annonimity on the Wikipedia was unacceptable and would have to go
 away and it seems like even Jimmy Wales is heading in that
 direction. After getting his butt kicked for the past two weeks for
 not only getting duped--but also hiring--a Wikipedia editor who lied
 about his credentials, Jimbo posted the follow (re)proposal to a
 Wikipedia discussion group."

 http://www.calacanis.com/2007/03/09/wikipedia-will-check-c...

 David Quiec says:

 Good write-up; not too much mud-slinging at JC. Whether its true or
 not, it is compelling.

 04/30/07 06:06 PM JasonCalacanis says:

 Well, I do believe that a) wikipedia should eliminate anonymous
 editing (at least for the top pages, living bios, etc) and that b)
 wikipedia should have advertising so they can meet their mounting
 bills and hire some folks to manage major errors in things like living
 bios. Of course, I'm not the first person to discuss this...  in fact
 Larry Sanger--the creator of wikipedia--was a guest on my podcast
 discussing the issue and what he's done about it at citizendium.

 of course, I think only a very foolish person would try to take on Google or
 Wikipedia--let alone both at the same time!

 04/30/07 06:07 PM Mike Snow says:

 @JasonCalacanis: That would be a reason to spin it as filling the space
 between the two, while still letting the media use the obvious Google and
 Wikipedia similarities to build up hype for the project.

 04/30/07 06:27 PM Mike Snow says:

 And for seed content, Jason could go back to Netscape and convince
 them to sell dmoz.

 04/30/07 06:30 PM Gabe Rivera says:

 Interesting that JC hasn't denied the substance of the post.

 Personally, I think there's a huge opportunity in introducing explicit
 moderation into search, if done right. Big "if".

 04/30/07 07:11 PM JasonCalacanis says:

 Gabe: I deny it 100%... it's absurd. I do have a pool house however. :-)

 04/30/07 07:12 PM Nick Denton says:

 @JasonCalacanis: Oh, I'm sure even you wouldn't be rash enough to
 boast about taking on Google. Particularly when you'll need to place
 high in Google search for key phrases, and Google's indicating it may
 clamp down on other search engines such as Technorati which create
 permanent "tag" pages designed to show up high in the results. That
 shouldn't be so much of a risk if there's plenty of original and
 reader-generated content on each page. And I guess you'll rely on a
 Google Adwords deal for revenue. So you'll probably downplay the
 search, and emphasize the competition against Wikipedia, which is a
 big but less intimidating target. But, sooner or later, this venture
 comes into conflict with Google. Which, like I say, isn't a bad
 thing: that's where the money is.