Comments on: LA Times and Mixx: Don’t get it http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/04/la-times-and-mixx-dont-get-it/ ... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:03:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Edith Far http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/04/la-times-and-mixx-dont-get-it/#comment-340108 Edith Far Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:38:36 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/04/la-times-and-mixx-dont-get-it/#comment-340108 BTW, I think maybe the LATimes (and a LOT of other people) would like to travel back in time and invest in Digg while the getting was good--if this pays off and Mixx grows to get even half the size of Digg, they will make a nice bit o cash. After all, aren't they saying Digg could sell for 300 million? It didn't say that LATimes gave mixx money. so it sounds pretty low-risk from them, and the payoff could be huge. I gues time will tell BTW, I think maybe the LATimes (and a LOT of other people) would like to travel back in time and invest in Digg while the getting was good–if this pays off and Mixx grows to get even half the size of Digg, they will make a nice bit o cash. After all, aren't they saying Digg could sell for 300 million? It didn't say that LATimes gave mixx money. so it sounds pretty low-risk from them, and the payoff could be huge. I gues time will tell

]]> By: Edith Far http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/04/la-times-and-mixx-dont-get-it/#comment-340107 Edith Far Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:33:24 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/04/la-times-and-mixx-dont-get-it/#comment-340107 Actually, <a href="http://mixx.com">mixx.com</a> refutes the conclusion that Matt Marshall made about the deal between mixx and LATimes. I think Marshall performed some pretty amateurish reporting from a guy that claims to be a journalist. Rule one is don't publish anything but facts. Marshall didn't bother to confirm what mixx was doing with search results. Since then, it spread across the blogosphere when its JUST wrong. People who blogged this incorrectly SHOULD go back and publish a retraction but hey, that would be responsible journalism. So David Cohn, are you correcting your mis-statments? or leaving them out there?<br><br>I love Mixx, the mixx experience. I found a nice home there after getting banned without explanation from Digg. They respond to feedback and listen to their users! Actually, mixx.com refutes the conclusion that Matt Marshall made about the deal between mixx and LATimes. I think Marshall performed some pretty amateurish reporting from a guy that claims to be a journalist. Rule one is don't publish anything but facts. Marshall didn't bother to confirm what mixx was doing with search results. Since then, it spread across the blogosphere when its JUST wrong. People who blogged this incorrectly SHOULD go back and publish a retraction but hey, that would be responsible journalism. So David Cohn, are you correcting your mis-statments? or leaving them out there?

I love Mixx, the mixx experience. I found a nice home there after getting banned without explanation from Digg. They respond to feedback and listen to their users!

]]> By: mathewi http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/04/la-times-and-mixx-dont-get-it/#comment-340106 mathewi Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:19:02 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/04/la-times-and-mixx-dont-get-it/#comment-340106 I agree, Dave. I can see why the paper would want that (and I'm sure<br>that's part of the reason for the investment) but I think it<br>denigrates the quality or trustworthiness of the overall index. I agree, Dave. I can see why the paper would want that (and I'm sure
that's part of the reason for the investment) but I think it
denigrates the quality or trustworthiness of the overall index.

]]> By: digidave http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/04/la-times-and-mixx-dont-get-it/#comment-340105 digidave Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:44:38 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/04/la-times-and-mixx-dont-get-it/#comment-340105 More annoying than that: Mixx is going to highlight LA Times articles in their search results - as an active social bookmarker - I find that offensive. More annoying than that: Mixx is going to highlight LA Times articles in their search results - as an active social bookmarker - I find that offensive.

]]> By: Los Angeles Times Takes Equity Stake in Mixx, Integrates with LATimes.com http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/04/la-times-and-mixx-dont-get-it/#comment-336100 Los Angeles Times Takes Equity Stake in Mixx, Integrates with LATimes.com Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:44:19 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/04/la-times-and-mixx-dont-get-it/#comment-336100 [...] social news site LA Times Takes A Stake In Mixx LA Times Invests in Social News Site Mixx LA Times and Mixx: Don’t get it mixx may be pretty, but it’s going down a slippery slope LA Times Invests In Social News Site [...] [...] social news site LA Times Takes A Stake In Mixx LA Times Invests in Social News Site Mixx LA Times and Mixx: Don’t get it mixx may be pretty, but it’s going down a slippery slope LA Times Invests In Social News Site [...]

]]>