<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for claywhitehead</title><link xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="http://api.friendfeed.com/2008/03#sup" href="http://disqus.com/sup/all.sup#usercomments-d83b875a" type="application/json"/><link>http://disqus.com/people/claywhitehead/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:10:45 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Improving links and tags with Kaalga and Tagaroo</title><link>http://www.retina.net/tech/improving-links-tags-with-kaalga-and-tagaroo.html#comment-3364399</link><description>Couldn't agree more on Zemanta. I love it.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">claywhitehead</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:10:45 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Is Volatility Embedded in the System for a Generation?</title><link>http://www.informationarbitrage.com/2008/10/is-volatility-embedded-in-the-system-for-a-generation.html#comment-3353681</link><description>But, Japan had far different structural problems around its bad debt. I don't think it's an accurate analogy.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">claywhitehead</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:48:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Is Volatility Embedded in the System for a Generation?</title><link>http://www.informationarbitrage.com/2008/10/is-volatility-embedded-in-the-system-for-a-generation.html#comment-3353655</link><description>So do you think that established companies will be punished enough that B2B start-ups premised around reducing costs (e.g. 3D architectural design software that reduces design, construction, and operating costs) will be able to grow significantly and sustainably?  More generally, what type of companies that are built to last would you focus on starting right now? I think that with reduced asset prices it might be smarter for entrepreneurs to follow the search fund model than to start unless they see a durable mega-market, not just one that is counter-cyclical.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">claywhitehead</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:46:35 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Why a LinkedIn Connection is Worth More than a Facebook Friend</title><link>http://www.charleshudson.net/why-a-linkedin-connection-is-worth-more-than-a-facebook-friend#comment-2793293</link><description>Charles, I like your post and agree that the value of a passive user is higher for LinkedIn than FB.  I'd add the caveat, which I think is implicit in what you are saying here, that a user cannot become too passive.  Passive users must at least accept some connections or update their information with some regularity to create and sustain value for active users.  Some might think that this issue boils down to the semantics of active vs. passive passive users (30 day? 60?) but the bottom line is that you need at least some level of activity from your passives, beyond just signing up, for them to create any value at all.&lt;br&gt;I'd also add that not all users are created equal.  You can measure users along many dimensions - content created, number of links, etc - and I think that it's worth acknowledging that any analysis of user value is going to involve segmentation along a number of dimensions. One example: if LinkedIn allows a start-up to reach the decision maker at its first client, LinkedIn is of nearly infinite value to that start-up, regardless of how active or inactive that user is on the network (assuming they can be reached through the network.)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">claywhitehead</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:37:39 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>