Managing the mob

I moderated a panel for the Information Industry Summit Wednesday in New York called "My Media: The explosion of User-generated Journalism." Jeff Jarvis, a prolific and outspoken blogger was among the panelists. I guess that's redundant, most bloggers are outspoken. Jarvis has suggested that I'm myopic and blind to the possibilities of user-generated and audience-generated content. Actually, I'm not. As I've written in the past... "ultimately the viewers/readers in charge of finding and promoting the talent from within their own ranks - so they can distribute the content through their social networks, blogs and connected links on the Web." Additionally, I'm a blogger too. Much as Google has its labs, my blog is my lab. It's a way to understand what readers and viewers are interested in, and how they interact with one another. Most especially, I like to see if I can start a conversation, walk away, and see if my readers continue the discussion. They do. I've learned about readers. One recently told me to keep my personal ideologies to myself. That was odd. It's my blog, after all. What did I learn? I learned that the audience wants to be heard, wants to control, wants to have some sort of authority and influence, even if it means kicking a blogger off their own blog. The panel discussion didn't really help me to figure out how to control this mob, though. How do you manage, organize and measure what is relevant?

Read Net Sense - Google Poker - on MarketWatch.

How do you manage, organize and measure what is relevant from the disparate voices across the Web?

Comments

[Javaflash]

I sent the following to your MarketWatch email, but I doubt my message survived their filters.
-----------------
Dear Ms./Mrs. Francisco,

Could you please stop using Google as a vehicle to seek publicity? Take a step back, and read/watch what you dished out on MarketWatch or even here, it's so obvious that readers can sense traces of desperation coming from you and your works.

I mean, people use "Google" as a verb for convenience, you use "Google" as a subject, noun, verb, adjective, adverb, maybe comma and semicolon somewhere to promote your career. Even when you approached interviews of people unrelated to Google, you throw in Google this and Google that to induce attention. Interviewees often have that confused, stunned, what-the-hack-does-that-have-to-do-with-me stare in the middle of their interview.

Companies are made of people, not numbers nor words. Give those folks at Mountain View, CA some breaks. Cease your non-substance, recklessly speculative practice for a sense of decency. Allow Google to grow, innovate, experiment, compete, and make some mistakes along the way. Thanks in advance for doing so.

P.S. I don't work for Google, but I'm indeed biased as a fan.

[Javaflash]

Btw, there is only one post you made here that doesn't have Google in its context. I thought this is your lab, not Google's.

[farseer]

JavaFlash, I agree with some of what you are saying, but I also see the brilliance in using Google as vehicle. Now this is all my opinion, and it could be wrong, since I can't read Bambi’s mind.
First, I do think Bambi was using Google as vehicle to get her name out there. I also think the smart gal that she is, she knew controversy rings louder, hence her decision to take the contrarian stance on GOOG. When every one is saying the same thing, it's hard to stand out. The naysayers however, not only do they stand out, they are criticized and attacked and they GET ATTENTION.
So to you JavaFlash, I ask, what is wrong with this? Most journalists chase the hot stories and most journalist desires “face time”. Is there any stock that you can name that has more media focus right now then GOOG? If you were a journalist and had an opportunity to see your name on articles right next to ones from WSJ or Forbes debating Google, would you not take it? And what other way can you think of to stand out than to take the contrarian position? It’s brilliant!
The other question I would like to ask is: what is really wrong with what Bambi has been saying? For the most part, they are valid arguments. The articles are not simply empty dribble simply to accomplish the above.
That said, I mentioned “For the most part, they are valid arguments”. I did take issue with some of them, especially that one that mentioned the “investor” expected number. There’s nothing wrong with presenting the opposing argument, but I felt that was an attempt to ensure the arguments ended up proving correct by attempting to raise investor’s expectations, in hopes that even if Google had beat analyst’s expectations, they would still be disappointment at not making a “Bambi/investor whisper number”. Clearly it was not needed, and I could have told you that would have happened anyway. You can always count on analyst to ruin a good thing for investors (though in this case, it was as much Google’s fault as much as overly optimistic analysts).

Now I am big fan of Google and what they do and stand for ( please, give a break over the China non-sense…it’s unwarranted criticism imo and anyone that makes it, is either a hypocrite or does not understand the implications of not doing it). I am NOT a big fan of their valuation or the valuation models being used by most of these analysts. I for one appreciate a good counter argument regarding this that actually makes it out there and is heard. That balance is needed and has been missing with Google in the past. If it weren’t for these counter arguments, I can assure you, a lot more investors would have been caught with their pants down.

I also take issue with your request to give Google a break and let them grow. No! Being critical of public companies is vital, it benefits both the company and it’s shareholders. The reason scams occur in the stock market is because no one ever speaks up or “police” these companies. I am not saying Google is scam, but criticism is a means of maintaining a system of checks and balance that is available to investors (if they have a voice that can act as a megaphone for them). Companies, much like individuals, can only improve from constructive criticism. Lack of criticism only leads to complacency and that is when problems arise. For instance, though Bambi did not speak of this, the recent criticism of Google’s lack of guidance was absolutely warranted. Even if the company absolutely hated analysts (as we all do), they should have somehow communicated with them that they needed to adjust their tax percentage being used in their analysis. If they truly wanted to do it the “Google way”, they could have communicated to both shareholders and analysts together at the same time, possibly using one of their Google Labs seminars. That actually would have benefited their established image of existing for the little guys and not catering to corporate America. You can be sure they will not let this type of blunder happen again. There is now way they will again be able justify allowing 15 billion in investors value to vanish, while at the same time, dumping their shares onto those same investors.

[farseer]

btw, JavaFlash...if you are long, here is my arguement why you bulls need to step up and swing for the fence here...if y'all don't make a move soon, this puppy is heading lower. looks hurt to me.

http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=goog,uu[h,a]wbclyyay[pc20!c20!d20,2][vc60][ilb5!lah12,26,9][j68735688,y]&listNum=1

[gh_isoar]

Javaflash,

I have never met Bambi, but I have followed her work for years, so I feel qualified to state that your criticism is unwarranted. There are dozens of business writers currently writing about Google, because Google is doing important and in many cases unprecedented things. To ignore these developments in favor of a less important topic would be irresponsible, as well as disappointing to their readers.

May I remind you that Bambi's title at MarketWatch is "Internet Editor"? She is, quite literally, Doing Her Job.

Farseer,

Your understanding of the issues associated with companies giving "Guidance" appears shallow. You are apparently not aware of Google's history in this area, which is well established and well respected. There are other growth companies which have concluded that to give "guidance" of any sort is to abet Wall Street's investor-bilking games, and therefore do not do it. Whole Foods Markets, and Hansen's Beverages, to name two. I would also direct your attention to the fact that Google's largest investors (by far) are their founders and employees. Much of the $15 billion that disappeared belonged to them.

I'll respond to Bambi's question in a separate comment.

- GH

[gh_isoar]

To manage and organize what is relevant from the disparate voices across the Web, I basically feed it all into my brain and then let intuition take over. I read news articles - on the web, and also in industry-specific magazines - about industries and relevant topics, and Yahoo boards and Raging Bull boards about specific companies I'm interested in. I spend at least 12 hours a week doing this (it's not my full-time job). I use ignore lists to skip posters who are repetitious or usually off-topic. (To give a sense of scale: I read upwards of 200 articles and 8,000 messages a week, in support of a portfolio of around 50 stocks, about half of which I have a position in at any given time).

I pay attention to whether specific writers' work has held up over time, and maintained a high standard; thus different writers have different credibilities with me. (You know yours ;-). For small-cap stocks, I have to rely more on boards than articles; no one writes in any depth about many of the stocks I'm in.

Depending on the board, between 10% and 75% of the messages are inter-personal rants or stock cheerleading that aren't worth reading; when one of those makes it through my ignore list I can usually recognize it and skip it in the first few words. I view nearly everything else as relevant. There are typically only a few consistently valuable posters on each board, and I read their messages carefully, but I also consider all the other ideas.

What I do with all this is, I get a sense of the mood of the retail market, and a sense of the sophistication and depth of understanding of the writers and investors in each stock. They vary widely over time, but if you read them consistently, you start to see pronounced patterns. This week, for example, most of the KOOL longs were furious that the company did a secondary offering at $4/share, when the market price had been hanging around $4.50. They were talking about lawsuits, calling board members, etc. Relatively little talk about what the company will be doing with their new $30 million - but there _were_ a few posters discussing that, and those are the ones I paid deeper attention to. Another example: when a stock makes a big move up on no news, a lot of shorts start posting to the boards saying the price has gotten ahead of itself... and certain writers crawl out from under rocks and start showing their ignorance ;-). The best writers post the most likely explanations, and whatever they've been able to find out that might bolster or weaken those scenarios. These feed off each other and often turn up terrific insights.

I do read a few blogs, but I've found that many are wastes of time because the author is an extremist and has a simplistic world view that can be explained in 2 minutes. Of course even the bloggers that aren't that way can only be authoritative on a narrow range of subjects. But that's great; some are my favorite sources for deep fundamentals.

So to summarize: I read boards primarily to learn more about individual companies, and articles and blogs by newswriters like yourself primarily to help me understand industry issues and trends. I keep mental notes about authors who have provided useful insights. I find that every source helps in multiple ways.

Regards,
GH

[farseer]

GH,
There are many companies that do not give guidance. One that a few have started comparing GOOG to is BRK. I understand why these companies do not give guidance, they prefer investors to concentrate on the long term prospects of the company, not the quarter to quarter story. In most cases, I have NO ISSUES with companies that choose not to give guidance. Google made no secret about it's disdain for analysts and has expressed publicly that they will not cater to wallstreet...hoorah! google, our hero! Standing up for the little guy! These are the things that have garnered google the image it has today amongst it's core users and even investors. They love google for their "do no evil" slogan...and after the bubble, analysts are no doubt percieved as "evil".

However, a young company that claims to care very much about it's shareholders and that knows very well that it's stock is one of the most volatile stocks on the market and also one that has appreciated in value over 400% in one year and therefore is very susceptible to negative news should have guided at the very least about the tax multiple discrepancy. As i stated, this could have been done in a manner that could have maintained their image and possibly enhance it without appearing to cater to wallstreet. But they did not all the while, they were dumping shares on the market like their headquarters was on fire.

It does not sit well with the public when a company's officers are dumping billions of shares onto unsuspecting investors knowing darn well and months in advance they will not make the analyst estimates.
As for insider holdings...i respectuflly say i believe that is an absolutely ridiculous arguement. Insiders did not buy their shares on the market. Further, the bulk of their employees are given stock options. I don't know if those were options to recieve free shares or they were options to buy at the ipo price or at some higher price, but one thing is certain, they were not options to buy at 400+. So trust me when i say the folks that are hurting are NOT insiders, but those buying the google story on the open market. Please do not try to tell me Sergey and Page are losing sleep over a 30 dollar drop in share price after pocketing over 10 billion each from selling shares.

anyway, i understand what you are trying to say, and respect your opinion, but i do not agree.

regards.

[gh_isoar]

Farseer,

I sense from your writing that Wall Street's brainwashing machine has succeeded in twisted your thinking: you have become convinced that if the analysts are wrong, it's the company's fault! But you seem a reasonable person, so let's see if I can convince you that Wall Street, and not Google, is where the problem lies.

There are a long list of reasons why Google chose not to deal with Wall Street, from its IPO forward. Most of them have to do with double-dealing in which analysts do not state what they believe is the truth, but rather purposely hype or slander a company to gain short-term business advantage for their employers or friends, at the ultimate expense of the investor and the integrity of the process.

This gives rise to things like law firms that specialize in starting a class action whenever there is any kind of mistake in a company's guidance. Dreamworks was slightly over-optimistic forecasting its DVD sales this past summer; presto, class-action suits. Seeing this, Pixar immediately advised that their DVD sales might not be quite as good as forecast, either; next thing you know, they got sued too! Here were two companies trying their best to give good guidance - and they got sued for it. What do you suggest they should have done?

Next example: you state that Google "knows very well" various facts about the behavior of its stock price. But these "facts" are all subjective, in that their significance can only be interpreted relative to the rest of the market. The perception of this relationship is under control of... the analysts! So, you're saying Google should pay attention to the statements of known cheats, liars, and manipulators, and take countermeasures. This is _exactly_ what they have consistently said they will not do. They pay attention to their business, not to Wall Street crooks.

You state, "it's stock is one of the most volatile stocks on the market". Can you back that up with numbers? I think not; it's actually not that volatile day-to-day, and what volatility it has is the product of hype by analysts, not by the company. In absolute terms, many stocks are more volatile than GOOG. Others are not perceived as volatile, because they aren't hyped, and they split before they reach 100 so that a routine daily variability of 1% or so doesn't jump off the ticker as a 4-point move, as GOOG's does. Want to see a volatile stock? Look at GM's chart for the last year - moves over 10% were routine. And GM is historically owned by the "widows and orphans" - the least sophisticated, most conservative investors!

Or, "and also one that has appreciated in value over 400% in one year and therefore is very susceptible to negative news". Can you name a tech stock that is not very susceptible to negative news, regardless of its recent price history? Look at Synaptics (SYNA): they gave consistently mildly pessimistic guidance quarter after quarter, yet in the last year analysts manipulated the stock through the ceiling; crashed it; then crashed it again for good measure; now are resurrecting it again; and will no doubt crash it again. One analyst (Nef) actually changed his rating on SYNA 3 times in a week.

Finally: you're right, Google's insiders didn't buy their shares on the open market; they bought them with sweat, tears, personal risk, overtime, and hard work for years before the IPO. And you're right that some folks got hurt who bought "the google story" on the open market. FWIW, I don't think anyone who bought GOOG shares before today will be underwater by the end of this year... but if they buy or sell based on anyone's words but those of the Google principals, they can only blame the former, not the latter.

I guess I've ranted a bit here, and I apologize if it came across as personal; it's not. It comes from anger at seeing reasonable people brainwashed by the Wall Street B.S. machine.

I will now bring this discussion around to the topic Bambi wanted us to discuss: sources of information on the web. One reason I like her writing is that Bambi has never set off my internal hype alarm. Arms-length business writing used to be rare, but there are a growing legion of young authors who appear to be telling the truth as they see it. It will probably take years before the Bambi's outnumber the crooks, but things are looking up!

Regards,
GH

[farseer]

GH,
just who do you think you are talking to? i don't need an Idiot's Guide to wallstreet lecture. I worked there, have for 10+ years and know very well what goes on there. I was there when IBDs and Research were brothers in arms and i was there helping to separate the two only 3-4 years ago. I also know despite all the efforts "fix" this, not much has changed. Infact, the new regulations and requirements have simply made it such that lawsuits are now more difficult, as long as those 20+pages of disclosures are attached to each report. Does anyone really think the can prevent a research analyst and an investment banking personnel of the same company from chatting over dinner or lunch? nonsense!

I'm not going to spend much time rebutting your post, because it seems the bulk of it is trying to convince me of something i need no convincing of. I have stated many times before that the bulk of the disappointments this quarters were not due to poor performance by companies, but by overly optimistic expectations for analysts. I also do not need to be convinced that analysts are self-serving and diabolical. Why do you think all these analysts rushed to CNBC on the last two +20 down days google had to defend the stock? GS, as an example, is the largest institutional holder of GOOG. Was it suprising to see Noto hitting the airwaves only minutes after the earnings call? i think not.

a quick comment about googles perception. Does it matter where the perception comes from? Does that change the fact that the ones that stand to get harmed are investors? No. An analogy...if you are made CEO of a company, you inherit all that companies problems and issues. You can't simply say i didn't cause it, so i won't deal with it.
It doesn't matter where the perception came from, what matters is taking care of your investors. And if that means having to actually deal with people you don't like dealing with, that's too bad. And guess what, they have started to already. Call it what you want, but until this stock stabilizes and has several years of growth under it, it's the right thing to do in this case imo.

[Javaflash]

Farseer and GH, thanks for your comments. It's not my intention to spur up such a tense debate here. If anyone's blood pressure went up, I apologize. I also apologize for not yet read through all your posts, only picking up keywords for a reply...

I have no problem with journalists doing their job, which is like you said, seeking attention, but I have a problem with them manufacturing epics out of a few words, or a couple numbers. Most Google stories out there = price too high, price too low, someone else says price too high, someone else says price too low, this could happen, people says that might happen. I mean, come on, be a tag more original. It's getting so noisy that even Henry Blodget joined the party; worse, press welcomes his comeback (oh dear). Btw, who was that jerk put out a $2,000 target, I forgot, Cris & Co.? Let me go write him a letter, too.

I prefer journalists being critical about Google because that helps price in some risks into shares, but do so with backing of real substances, not just copycats or repeated hearsay. And yes, beside being a fan, I'm also an "investor" of GOOG since $118; I'm not dumping my shares out of these short term stochastic movements (a random walk down wall street, hmm?), just as I haven't sold a single share of my AAPL since 2nd generation iPod and AMD since Athlon xp. I expected Tuesday's aftermarket because what happened was nothing new, after the release of GOOG's Q2/05, those momentum players behaved identically, merely at a different magnitude. Media also rerun the same tune. In fact, I am actually relieved for Wednesday's correction because the market could finally sweep out those "funny money" press/analysts attracted during the past 3 months. Imagine if Google beat the whisper number... 200ish P/E the next day? That could force me to consider shorting the stock for a quarter no matter how much I admire the company + its business/corporate model.

GH, I agreed with you that most lawyers are modern day pirates, second worst only to lobbyists. Their greeds are insatiable. Remember the click fraud nonsense? Just because somebody forgot to look up the definition of "advertisement" in a dictionary doesn't mean the case will gain traction in court or even in PR. Sue ABC when people switch channel during commercials? Let's TiVo, shall we? Anyway, the issue is a technical one, not a legal one.

Farseer, please take a look at Gmail, Google News, and AdSense. How easy it is to further monetize those by slapping on visual brand ads that charges by the pages viewed or hours online (Yahoo, MSN model, and they ran out of inventories months in advance at prime URLs). Based on a Mr. Schmidt's recent guest lecture, I'm guessing Google is exploring a better model to monetize those potentials, rather than sitting idle waiting for competition to roll over. After all, there are actual people, and lots of shareholders working at Google.

Hmmm... not so brief after all. Enjoy Superbowl, and best regard to both of you. Cheer! :)

[Javaflash]

Geez, this is Javaflash again. Scrap that part about brand ad on Gmail and Google News. I am speculating like a mainstream press. Awful...

[Cahuna]

Didn't know you had a blog

[Alternator]

WHAT A STUPID LADY THIS IS!
ALL SHE WRITES ABOUT IS GOOGLE. SHE HAS NO NEW CONTENT, NOTHING ELSE TO PROVIDE AND SHE TALKS AS IF SHE'S "CONTRIBUTING"

MORE SO, SHE EVEN EDITS SOME OF HER POSTS. HER BLOG AHAS FILTERED OUT TENS OF POSTS THAT OPPOSE OR CONTRADICT HER WAY OF THINKING ABOUT FAITH! DO YOU WORK FOR THE BUSH GOVERNMENT OR WHAT???

YOU KNOW WHAT BAMBI, YOU CAN LIE TO US BUT YOU CANNOT LIE TO US. YOU A WORTHLESS BLOGGER WHO ONLY CATERS TO VISITORS WHO AGREE WITH YOU AND YOU DON'T KNOW SH*T!

IN YOUR RECENT POST YOU SAY "What did I learn? I learned that the audience wants to be heard, wants to control, wants to have some sort of authority and influence, even if it means kicking a blogger off their own blog. The panel discussion didn't really help me to figure out how to control this mob, though. How do you manage, organize and measure what is relevant? "

HERE'S OUR ANSWER (3 OF US STUDENTS AT Westminster Theological Seminary)

WHAT YOU SHOULD LEARN IS THAT YOU ARE DISLIKED IN MANY QUARTERS IN OUR SEMINARY. WORD HAD IT YOU ARE DISLIKED IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL WORLD TOO. YOU ARE AN EGOIST AND ACT AS IF YOU KNOW A LOT. WHEN IT COMES TO DISCUSSIN CALVINIST IDEALOGIES, YOU SPEAK AS IF YOU WROTE THE DOCTRINE.
TAKE A HIKE HUN, YOUR BORING PERSONA AND IGNORANT BEHAVIOR HAS MADE YOU UNPOPULAR IN LOTS OF SECTORS.

CALVIN, HELPHER, COS SHE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT SHE'S DOING. OR DOES SHE? EVEN IF SHE DID, SHE MUCH TOO POMPOUS TO ADMIT GUILT!

[gh_isoar]

Farseer,

I had to laugh at myself as I read your latest comment. You caught me: I really did take you for a relative newbie. Looking back over your previous writing, I took a few things the wrong way, particularly: "I don't know if those were options to recieve free shares or they were options to buy at the ipo price or at some higher price, but one thing is certain, they were not options to buy at 400+." There's no such thing as an option to receive free shares; that's a share grant. And any employee options granted in the last few months quite likely were at strike prices above 400. I added these minor issues up to mean you really didn't know very much about options, but now I realize you just weren't bothering to be extremely precise because those subtleties were beside the point.

As you say, you and I agree about most of this.

I _am_ really interested in reading responses to Bambi's question about how we filter and judge the stuff we read on the web...?

Regards,
GH

[Yogiberra]

Does this blog have any other content than Google? Does Bambi get money for promoting them or not? Maybe just like the layman, she has little insight into anything but Google.
I suggest you pursue that religion degree, it could come handy if you want a career as a preacher.

[Rachel]

I was drawan to this blog from our seminary since its the talk of our batch. I have known Bambi for about 3 months though we haven't met in person. Looks like a nice blog. Interesting that she mixes internet and faith on the same page. I was surprised that most of her thoughts on faith are copied and pasted from our text.

Please Ms. Francisco, do not fall prey to plagiarism, at least not to the words of God. Please be careful in defining what are your thoughts and what are his thoughts.

Internet discipline is expected from a person like you.

Some of my colleagues say you are very flashy. I came her to see who you were, nothing more and when I saw your picture I remember you now. It hard to forget a talkative and blatant person, especially at a seminary.

Keep the faith.
Rachel

[gh_isoar]

I should probably stay out of areas where I'm not expert, but these seminary guys seem to have missed one of the clearest corollaries of the Golden Rule:

Judge not, lest YE be judged.

[Bambi]

Gh:

Yes, those who claim to be my classmates at Westminster aren't. In fact, Rachel, alternator, and Yogiberra are the same person. IP addresses don't lie. So, please don't let your view of those in seminary be misguided by these random comments. And to the person at the IP address 24.98.39.211, even though I don't like to delete comments or prevent anyone from commenting, I will have to prevent future posts from this address if you continue to post comments that are outright lies, not on topic or irrelevant.

[gh_isoar]

Bambi,

Nevertheless, the bogus comments are on topic, in a twisted way. They represent the risk that anyone takes when reading web content: it could be garbage. A branded news outlet with millions of dollars in reputation at stake can't afford to print plagiarism, lies, or blatant misrepresentations. A blogger at least has a personal reputation at stake. A poster hiding behind a psuedonym has nothing at stake. Those who read the web must keep these facts in mind, and use them as one of their filters.

Regards,
Gary

[farseer]

relief...i was beginning not to think too highly of this Westminster seminary, judging from the oh so articulate posts by Rachel, Yogi and a few others that claim to be students at this seminary.

Bambi, it's your blog and you have the right to remove off-topic posts, but i think you ought to get someone on that job full-time. Media personalities often are targets of such attacks...you can be sure will be others, especially pissed off googlers!

Btw, good call on google. Major support gone and after a relief bounce, i think that puppy is going to chop it's way lower to close that infamous gap. I guess competition and "true valuation" is finally getting priced in here.
If the market is good for one thing, that is history will always repeat itself. Googlers are learning the same thing TASR, TZOO and the China Dolls (Sina, Sohu, Ntes) fans have learned...or maybe not, as i'm sure they are caught like deers in headlight, unable to hit that sell button.

[Javaflash]

Hey Bambi, another great article on Yahoo News. That's the way to do it. Journalists earn their marks by writing solid piece like that.

Farseer, I was not really pissed, btw (a little upset, yes), but I think you're referring to that other person (my IP doesn't start with 2). I'm also a Googler, so let's not create any stereotype here, hmm? You have my thanks for doing that. And yes, I'm still holding every share of my GOOG without worry. You see, going long term is a lot easier. I think people on the Wall Street watch the wave too much that they forgot what the boat looks like sometimes.

Well, I got what I want now, which was reaching out to Ms. Francisco. I'll wrap my last comment here. I'm a techie who happens to invest. So, this really isn't my type of blog.

Nice talking to you folks. Best regard. :)

- Javaflash

[Javaflash]

Wait, Googler = a Google Employee. I'm not. Sorry.

[farseer]

Bambi,
You seem to have a history of writing about small and speculative companies that could compete with such companies as GOOG and YHOO.

these to fellas were schoolmates with Brin & Page. The at one time thought about acquiring GOOG, but though it would be difficult due to Page's arrogance (according the article):

http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2006/01/27/kosmix_raises_cash_for_a_new_search_engine_to_compete_with_google.html

[Kirk Lindstrom]

I've enjoyed your work over the years. You wrote "Much as Google has its labs, my blog is my lab. "

I agree. I left Hewlett Packard in 1998 after 20 years in R&D working on many things including Fiber optics to build the internet. I "self funded" as my own angel investor which was my dream. I went to a small company where I was working as a hobby before leaving HP. I found I liked writing about investing, sharing what I had learned to make enough money investing to live on my investments in a very nice part of the World (Los Altos, California) and help others. Helping and teaching others is not high paying but highly rewarding.

Suite101 might start to pay me eventually for hits to my forums, but what has been really valuable is learning how the internet works and get feedback from others to help me make good investment decisions. I was surprised at how feedback would become so valuable.

FWIW, I didn't invest in Google at the IPO because I saw a huge problem with pay per click ads when we tried them. We now use Google to serve the ads on the site but I wonder how long it will be until the low hanging fruit is plucked and advertisers won't pay so much to get clicks to their site? How many Google shareholders simply click Google ads just to help their stock rather than look at the ads? Issues like that kept me away. 20:20 hindsight, $85 was a great price... but now it seems $450 was a great short.

Keep up the good work!
Kirk out

[farseer]

Bambi,
Pretty soon, if this continues, the contrarian point of view will be LONG Goog! what do you think?

That said, over 90% of anlaysts are STILL bullish. Of the three that had sell, only one has a sell now, the other two moved to "hold". Also, the 3 forward month option activity is still showing alot of bulls out there, though the nearest month (feb) has recently shown a spike in puts.

Overall, there is still too many analysts that are bullish on this stock and that needs to be taken care of. This reminds of the bubble oh so much...when in 2003, Anthony Noto was asked why it took a 60% drop for him to lower his rating on his internet stocks, he responed "The market sentiment unfortunately ran away from these stocks and caused the stocks to come down significantly. We at that time didn't change our ratings because when the stocks were down 50 to 60 percent, it didn't seem appropriate"!!!! And he was not the only one, the majority continued to remain bullish on their stocks for YEARS! Just like now with GOOG! incredible!

"market sentiment unfortunately ran away from these stocks"
"it didn't seem appropriate"

As long as i live, i will never forget that response. It such a good reminder of what wallstreet is made up of.