Netscape still exists? I had no idea.

Jon Miller was a "quiet samurai of a leader"...this now mean that Calacanis is now ronin:

"A samurai became masterless from the ruin or fall of his master, or after the loss of his master's favor or privilege..."

The TWX shogunate confiscated the Daimyo Miller's AOL holdings. That would make him technically a corporate ronin, as well.

But since we are not an honor society and seppuku is no longer in vogue...

Not sure where you got those numbers but they are not even close to correct. We lost 35-40% of traffic over the summer when we moved the email users off of the site/domain (to AIM.COM). That wasn't my call, AOL didn't want to maintain the two email services so they moved the NEtscape users to AOL. The web traffic was then flat and now is ticking up.

The numbers I published are internal, from Omniture. They refer to all Netscape properties. I cross-checked against the Comscore numbers. Uniques held up okay, but estimated pageviews declined from 503m in June, to 202m in October. So, Jason, we all know that internal stats can get messed up -- we thought for a long time that Fleshbot was growing, when it wasn't, because we were inadvertently counting an include. The email migration definitely had an effect. And most changes result in temporary dips. But this is quite a dip!

Another classic Nick Denton hit and run story about a competitor...

Some facts:

1. If you look at unique users before and after the move uniques are down only 22%--which is just fine given that we move the email users over. In fact, the webpage views are up if you take the email users out.

2. We DIDN'T LOSE THE EMAIL USERS... we moved them to another domain inside of AOL (i.e. aim.com). AOL did this because they didn't want to manage the old Netscape email system which was not keeping up with new free email standards (think 2gig free).

3. The email page views are worthless--no one buys email inventory on the web.

4. The reason why the uniques are still high and the page views went down was because the email users do 100's of page views a day--AND WE DIDN'T LOSE THESE PAGE VIEWS... WE MOVED THEM TO AIM.COM.

5. The stats were not leaked--you're talking about COMSCORE. Give me a break.

Feel free to slam me Nick... I know you're having fun taking down anyone who competes with you during your time on Valleywg. First John Battelle... now me. Don't let the facts stand in your way of course.

You should do a blog post on Engadget vs. Gizmodo, Joystiq vs. Kotaku, and Autoblog vs. Jalopnik and how Weblogs, Inc. has crushed Gawker media in the only three verticals we ever competed in.

Or maybe you should do a blog post about how you're always asking your bloggers to out people--I've heard this from three Gawker bloggers so far.

Anyway, good to know that you're still the hit-and-run, facts are secondary, publisher you've always been.

We don't expect anything less from you Nick!

best j

Watch out, here come the Diggers!

http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg_Clone_Failure_leads_Calcani...

I don't know if Denton takes a huge degree of glee in this or not, but you can bet the (volunteer worker) folks over at Digg do.

Also, I haven't checked the stats for Digg lately, but I'm guessing, correct me if I'm wrong, that their traffic is *not* going down.

Who'd have thunk- outright cloning a popular site and slapping a corporate logo on it wasn't the path to success?

Who cares about all this? C'mon guys, back to business.

At the end of the day, Calacanis, you're still out on your ass, you ruined the Netscape portal, and to accomplish all this, you stole someone else's idea to do it.

Genius.

Someone call the Fire Department, This thread is heating up!

"...you stole someone else's idea to do it."

That is hardly a fair statement. Digg, while interesting and popular, is not a unique idea. There were sites before Digg that tried to do similar concepts but failed. In May of 2003 I created a now-defunct site called TodaysPapers.com that never gained mindshare that did some of the things that Digg is now doing around news aggregation and community voting/conversation.

As someone recently said (i'm paraphrasing): "There is no such thing as a unique idea, it's the execution of that idea that counts the most."

I cant wait for Kevin Rose on Diggnation to comment on this when his put a few beers under his belt .

Note: Kevin Rose gives credit to Josh from Delicious all the time for the idea behind digg. digg's innovation was a) moving the populat page to the home page, b) better design and c) ajax voting.

Netscape innovated on that by adding editors who removed spam and did metajournalism, as well as adding tags, sitemail, and video (among the most recent innovations).

You can expect much more from the team at Netscape, and frankly I'm excited to see where the Netscape team takes it now that they don't have my name attached to it.

Jason: As Shakespeare said, methinks thou dost protest too much. Has Nick's arrow struck a nerve perhaps?

Why don't you both shut your pieholes and go develop exciting new projects like good little entrepreneurs. Time is money.

There were sites before Digg that tried to do similar concepts...

including denton. the early incarnation of moreover was basically digg sans voting.

the early incarnation of moreover was basically digg sans voting.

Oh, you mean a list of news stories? Damn, you're right that was the inspiration for Digg!

In all seriousness though, it seems clear that Netscape is not gaining a new or exciting audience. Too early to tell? I don't know, but one thing that is for sure is that early adopters, "cool kids", anyone who's part of the "A List" did not migrate to Netscape, does not credit Netscape for stories, etc.

Not saying the only path to success is to be adopted by first-movers, but it does usually point to future health.

Jason: Do you think Nick really compares himself as a competitor to Netscape?

Again, Denton wipes his ass with the veil of transparency and then wraps Jason's head with it to make him a corpse bride.

Simplistic strategy, it's textbook Denton with his usual lies, distortions, and half-of-the-storytelling that spreads like a virus through most Gawker Media properties. This time it's the ol' Digg Traffic Bait. Denton knew they wouldn't resist linking to a slam on Calacanis, even with a bogus premise.

Jason, treat this like war because Nick is neck-deep in your shit. He's got you on heavy D when you need to get your O face right in his. Time to fight fire with white phosphorus. I have the ammo but it's gonna cost you. Pageviews for hostages. Amanda Congdon will play Fawn Hall.

boohoohoohoo...

We are excited to have your name not attached to it too (but aren't all that interested in what results of it however)...

In regards to the pissing contest of who copied who, who does what better, who credits who... Who cares?

The Netscape site design doesn't differentiate itself enough for most users to switch. Come up with something that is significantly better and wait for users to show up.

In other words, quitchyer bitchin' and improve on it instead of moaning and grandstanding... err... I guess that'll be whoever's left there job.

Jason are going to steal Lifehacker away from Nick now your no longer with AOL ....

Or will you do your own thing with all that cash just like Justin Frankel did after he left AOL.

I agree with Valleywag. Netscape was set up for failture
Netscape vs Digg

FWIW, I don't think Netscape innovated with this one. In my book, adding editors to remove spam and add tags is not considered an innovation. Neither it is to pay users. I'm not saying those are bad ideas, but innovating includes doing something that people can use *differently*. Editors and $$ in this case are means to the same goal: a global news-voting-recommendation system.

Netscape.com? Who cares? Wasn't that just something for Calacanis to run while he vested? And run it he did ... apparently right into the ground. Serves him right for 'borrowing' ideas that originated elsewhere. Next time, how about a bit of innovation?

nick,
i'm really baffled at the source you quoted for the numbers - omniture. you have direct access to aol/netscape's private omniture account? or you hacked it? those numbers ain't public.

comscore i'd believe, but omniture - i don't think so.

Jsnf (and everyone else who doubts the numbers) -- do you really think it's not possible that someone at AOL would hate Calacanis enough to send along some damning numbers?

The main problem with the new Netscape, IMO, wasn't that it sucked, per se -- it wasn't bad.

The problem was that it didn't solve any problems compelling enough (or compellingly enough) to induce switching from the site (Digg) that had captured the lion's share of the interested market.

It's a classic AOL (although not limited to AOL, of course) product development problem.

For years, monolithic client software packages drove AOL's business and bore its products to market. Client development demanded a long-lead, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink, expensive-to-fix-after-the-fact, boxed-software development and go-to-market approach. The company continues trying to transform itself in that regard, but hasn't yet finished -- not even close.

Result? AOL lacks the technical skills, infrastructure and tools required for the "fire, aim, ready" approach that the new Web world has made so popular (and so successful).

Further, AOL has tried multiple times but ultimately lacked the intestinal fortitude to build and follow an organized and disciplined innovation effort. Instead, "innovation" generally leaps from the dark recesses of the minds of the company's senior execs, like Athena from the brow of Zeus... or is "borrowed" from others.

The former leads to occasional hits (see: AIM) and many, many misses (see: AOL for Broadband; AOL Explorer; AOL Search; etc.).

And, of course, borrowed innovation (see: AIM Pages; Netscape; etc.) isn't really innovation -- and it's really damn hard to fulfill unmet consumer needs that way.

None of which excuses Jason, of course. He remains (again, IMO) a tool (see my other posts for my reasoning). A rich and successful tool, and one I'm sometimes envious of, to be sure, but a tool, nonetheless.

I'm just sayin'.

Yeah, the numbers are indeed from Omniture, which is Netscape's internal stats system. I saw them, noted the numbers, and made the chart in Excel. And I don't think anyone is denying that they're accurate. The Calacanis argument, if one strips away his incandescent anger, is that his overhaul of the Netscape front page was responsible for only part of the 70% decline in the site's pageviews.

I'm certainly no cheerleader for Jason, but I'm all for doing something rather than nothing with a brand like Netscape. That said, the numbers quoted by Nick are a selective interpretation of the real ones. A closer look at the part of the traffic specific to the new portal reveals both a slightly different shape than the one up there, but also that Jason's statements that traffic is growing are actually true. That said, I won't even try to judge whether the silly outrage over "stealing" the digg idea is valid. Personally, if you can make a buck with an idea as obvious as that, I say do it. But what do I know - I build stuff rather than spending my day ripping on those who build stuff.

where did I read that the whole Netscape thing was astroturf in the first place, that the editors were paralyzing each other's--and all the employees'--inboxes with "rate this story!" requests?

WickedDummy -- "nothing with a brand like Netscape" -- it was a portal, it was webmail, it was a low-cost ISP (all at once). One could argue the value of each of those branded offerings, but one can't argue they're "nothing."

"traffic is growing" -- everything's relative. Alexa gives an imperfect perspective, but probably a useful one, for trending and contextual purposes -- http://tinyurl.com/ykwxa9 offers a 6-month trailing comparison of Digg, Netscape, Reddit and Newsvine. The news for Digg seems good. For the others... not so much. "Ticking up" when the pace-setter is exploding? Why, one might almost be forced to resign over such a failure.

"those who build stuff" -- are you referring to Jason, here? My impression has always been that he's more the sizzle salesman than the meat-cutter.

Nick, it looks like you saw the Omniture stats, *misnoted* them, and then made this chart. If I pull up the same time spread as your graph in Omniture there is still a dip, but not such a steep one; it doesn't start as high and it doesn't have the second tier dip you show around September 1st. Comscore would seem to agree on this.

The only thing that looks as drastic as this chart is a 2 year spread of Netscape's performance, where it was already falling before we arrived.

Looking back further (say, since AOL acquired Netscape), the Netscape portal brand essentially vanished off the map. While it's fun to look at the downward trend since Jason took over, the downward trend goes back a heck of a lot further. The peak is pre-Alexa, but even just within the 5 years Alexa shows, you can see a continued downward trend, broken only by a brief resurgence in late '04 when the site was re jiggered to improve page views. Plot a trend line on that and you'll see that Jason's era didn't even break the curve. Is it a waste for a well-known brand to disappear? Maybe. But it's ill-informed to suggest that Jason was responsible for snuffing it out: the handwriting was already on the wall.

I'd certainly not argue about explosive growth -- I can see a trickle as well as the next person. But, I didn't see anyone claiming Netscape is experiencing "exploding" growth.

Finally, those who build stuff refers purely to me. Jason, and all the others of his ilk, are sizzle salesmen. Show me a geek trying to be a sizzle salesman, and I'll show you the moron who put up the Ubuntu billboard on 101. I'd rant and rave about an industry full of technologist elitists who wouldn't see a great mass market idea if they'd just sold it for $10 billion, except on the advice of my analyst, I'm trying to cut back on self-loathing.

Long live the bubble.

Nick's chart is dead on. I've seen the stats for the Netscape brand report (CK -- make sure you're looking at the right report suite). There were two significant drops that Jason wasn't responsible for:
1. The loss of the HP & Compaq cobranded Portals that happened in early June (before the time listed in the chart). Prior to that the NS Brand was doing approx. 160MM pv per week.
2. The mail change that took place in August September (worth about 20MM page views a week).

The net result of this is that Jason's change (factoring out Mail and HP) is that traffic decreased by approx. 50% since he took over. The uptick that he refers too is very small 1-2 M page views and can be tied to seasonality (it's colder outside and people are spending more time on their PCs).

Jason wrecked this portal and the users still hate him for it. Just see what they're posting on the Netscape Blog
http://blog.netscape.com/2006/11/14/new-homepage-did-you-n...

Or look at what they originally said on his blog after the takeover:
http://www.calacanis.com/2006/07/17/old-vs-new-netscape-or...

Jason killed a solid if unexciting portal and bailed out under cover of Miller's botched firing. I'm not sure what will come of the portal now but you have to believe it's better off without Jason.