Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : InfoSpace (INSP): Where GNET went! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: brk who wrote (17130)	2/26/2000 11:09:00 PM
From: brk	Respond to of 28311

Ok......lets get specific on a few things 'cause I am lost. I haven't checked, but I'm sure that the Classic SI thread has plenty to add to this list or may even already have one, so disregard this babble if that is the case. Why the Old SI was better (or, for the pessimists, Why the New SI sucks) 1. Browsemaster software capabilities (ex: read 100 posts per click) 2. Old SI was faster (I don't know if this is because of the server relocation to our beloved Seattle....are they still in transit?...or...because the platform / interface is just smoother and simpler?, so someone please edit and clarify this point) 3. Big print and uncluttered pages are easier to read for those that subscribe to the special edition of Reader's Digest. 4. Old SI didn't pollute your hard drive with cookies. I vaguely remember this being mentioned to me, but since I love cookies....especially oatmeal/choc. chip, can someone please elaborate on the negative repercussions of new SI using cookies? 5. The color scheme. I know that this is entirely personal opinion, but I always felt that the cream colored/grey background combined with the blue text was always so soothing. How does the audience feel about this ? That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but I would love it if people would edit/add to the list to enlighten the ignorant ones such as myself. PS - I'm posting this on the Old SI because I keep getting server errors on the new platform....now that's a "classic" <ggg>

To: brk who wrote (17130)	2/26/2000 11:14:00 PM
From: brk	Respond to of 28311

Re the Advertising / Branding discussion I believe that I sparked up a discussion regarding this issue a while back and I must take a moment to reiterate my conclusion at this point for all the frustrated longs...... ORGANIC GROWTH........It works, and guess what people ?.....Its Free! Go2net will get to the top tier and when it does I can't wait to see the balance sheet. Speaking of branding......remember all the Ask Jeeves ads ?....Anybody checked the stock price lately? Remember that questioning the actions of the Russell is the financial equivalent to questioning God. As CRUSADER4TRUTH would say.......Patience and Perseverance

To: brk who wrote (17130)	2/27/2000 3:50:00 AM
From: Larry Zenith	Respond to of 28311

brk and etc. It is because they now have something that they didn't have previously.....COMPETITION. brk, you made a good point here, it is the COMPETITION that made page views declining. May I ask why? The answer is simple, SI is paid site and others are not. That leads me to ask another question, is this a good model? I used to say yes, now I doubt it. The good living example is TheStreet.com, it is paid site while most competitors are not. With the "For sale" sign outside of TheStreet.com's HQ, I think it says something loud and clear, the pageview is more important than subscription fee, because the site could get more ad revenue from advertisers. Initially Cramer helped veto message board idea on TheStreet.com out of the fear that messages posted there could lead unsophisticated investors buy into the hype and they could in turn sue TheStreet.com. Now what? even Cramer succumbed to the pageview number, desperately invites you to post on his site. What a change of heart! BTW, CNBC is openly courting viewers to post questions on its lousy CNBC site, too. etc said: Declining page views, declining posts, declining growth, equals declining share price. That is very true. How could it be solved? I don't know. That is the reason that I seriously doubt that paid site model is going to prevail in the long run. Of course, restriction of posting generates much less spams, stock hypes, etc. It is a boon to most investors, me included. That was why I paid my $200 fee for SI previlege. But it has its flip side, that is less page view numbers. I believe that RagingBull.com has made a serious dent on SI. ( RV is owned by AltaVista, which is majority-owned by CMGI, I am very long CMGI ). With David Wetherell regularly chat with CMGI investors, it generates huge page hits over there. I believe that it is a foregone conclusion that RV will surpass SI, it is not a question of yes/no, it is when will that happen, it is just a matter of time. Guess what ? ...Safeway is now remodeling (i.e. changing) in an attempt to get customers back, not to drive them away. The new SI is just like remodeling of Safeway, had SI not remodeled, it could have got even worse than it is right now. Another catalyst that effectively drove people away was the massive stock misquotes and thereafter the unresponsiveness of the company. Message 12984791 The average vol is 58 Million and 52 week high is 140. We all know that CMGI closed above 165 on Jan 3, 2000. Could you please get it right??????????????? I have sent emails and called the company for that matter. They seemed less interested. Anyway SI got RFMD right after my call. etc said: Without Paul Allen's investment GNET would be trading under $20. It could be true. But even mighty Paul Allen has his own fair share of mistake, TOO. Look at ValueAmerica, iVillage, they have gone bad. But MCOM is doing mightily great. What can we draw from that? He is not Midas, not everything he touched is becoming gold. I agree with brk that it is not old/new SI thing, it is about paid site model thing. Will it prevail, I honestly doubt it. With this doubt and TheStreet.com throwing in the towel, I openly declare that I put my limit sell order in. regards, Larry, #79, getting even weaker.