It’s called HugsOnline. We plan to be the peapod of hugs with a wide distribution network delivering hugs to our customers in response to real time requests.

The business model is built on unicorns, puppies, lollipops, and fairies. It’s going to be the next Google.

- Keep up the good fight.

Put simply, if you’re going after a tech version of the Wall Street Journal, good for you, if not, then I’ve most enjoyed TC’s work covering those little unheard of gems that haven’t even released a Beta. Sounds like you might, too.

Regardless, it is a fun wave.

C

I have to admit, I have tired of the constant news on large companies and what your mates are doing (also maybe some disclosure if you are friends with the people who are runnning the company wouldn’t hurt).

Also when posting what Robert had for breakfast maybe you could use this blog instead.

I know its a hard to please everyone and many of us forget its YOUR blog.

The user comments are really getting out of hand, they are not productive in most cases and there is really too much flaming etc going on. Here are some community ideas I would suggest:

1) I would love to see the ability to rate user comments, or users in general. If there is a person that is constantly posting garbage on the site, I want to rate that person’s feedback on a 1-10 scale, maybe as “reputation” that stays with that person. The higher the reputation, the closer they are to the top of the comments on a post. I.E. most useful comments come first and the spam crap is at the bottom, or hidden and can be expanded.

2) Create a user account system where new users have to be approved, and can be banned, much like a traditional forum. There are enough readers on TechCrunch where you can ban some of the spammers and still retain a large amount of posts. This will ensure that quality comments and users remain, and will ultimately attract conversation from more intelligent readers.

3) What about user reviews? Let those same quality/approved users rate the companies you are talking about as well. Do they think the product is good, and will the company have a chance at success?

These are just some off-the-cuff ideas that I think will help encourage a healthy community and add some more value to the site.

What you are going through are typical growing pains. There is no reason to give up. Just harness it and shape it how you see fit. This is a GOOD problem to have.

Best of luck.

Ian

I’m OK with creating controversy, as long as there’s intelligence behind a critique. I enjoy your posts, especially the most pointed ones. But Riley’s posts lack that intelligence to make it worth the read.

That is, for example:

TechCrunch, and all sites, sets the tone (in addition to the rules and structure) for its community.

The commenters on TechCrunch are extremely active, which shows a high level of engagement of the site (the large number of techcrunch links and coverage in the blogosphere also attests to this and to the sites’ influence). However, TechCrunch is not a community (to my mind) because readers cannot interact with each other beyond public comments. They cannot vote on companies. And they cannot vote on TechCrunch stories.

It is, in my opinion, a very top-down editorial standard by today’s quickly evolving Internet standards.

Michael’s point about the degredation of a community with size is interesting, and I think also a good one. I would recommend something like a commenter rating system, to begin with, perhaps along the lines of eBay feedback. That way, one can get at least a beginning sense (such ratings can also degenerate themselves into a popularity or “gamed/marketed/currency” system) of the credibility of the commenters.

If TechCrunch is really bold, they could institute a rating system also for posters. Then we could see who really are the favorites, and why (if not done carefully that could be divisive to a site I would imagine, but how can one - even a leading site such as TechCrunch - improve without refined metrics of user feedback and experience).

One thing I gotta say (in Mike’s favor) is that he could have easily filtered out all the nasty responses. But he didn’t.

Based on the responses, it *sounds like* Mike antagonizes a lot of people on regular basis (for fun, pleasure or just the way his psychology is wired, no offense, or maybe for a strangely altruistic purpose, e.g. to keep people competing and to keep the whole thing going, which is far better than seeing the Web 2.0/3.0/X.0 momentum die out…)

Yet he lets everyone speak their mind.

I would say that he knows what he’s doing.

So keep it up, for good or bad.

I doubt that appeasing everyone is gonna lead to euphoria.

I *always* reserve the right to change my mind.

‘)

Marc