Yelp is not doing anything revolutionary. Before Yelp there was city search. Yelp came along and improved on what city search had done. Who is to say a better Yelp won't come along. I think they will regret walking away from this deal in the near future. For a very recent example look at Friendster. Although I hope I'm wrong.
I think you're on to something. Don't forget–Google Maps already shows local reviews and details gathered from Citysearch, Urbanspoon, Insider pages, Angie's List, etc. In large cities it seems to have a decent amount of reviews/content.
Google might already have a better yelp (or a just as good yelp).
Lots of people are still quite invested in Friendster. Facebook somehow used the college connection to one-up them in "cool." Then they expanded beyond college/high school.
Google is executing their business plan of trying to 100% own the web.
Recent aquisitions are positioned to own the underlying top 10 search results in every category they can get their hands on.
I'm glad that yelp, top of the list for many local searches, is holding out.
And yes, I know they've got a pile of cash and they should use it to improve margins in underlying biz, but still this just seems like a continued march to monopoly.
I very much doubt they want to own 100% of the web. Only the profitable bits that fit with their ongoing strategies.
Yelp obviously ties into a lot of the good stuff they're doing, OTOH yelp is pretty unheard of outside the US afaik.
I see that you retracted your original statement, but I'll comment on it nonetheless. Before trying to counter someone's views with "troubling links to Marxist ideology," I think that you should try Googling "McCarthyism" instead of "Capitalism."
No offense, but I doubt that McCarthy found any communists. He may have found some Communist-sympathizers, but that's hardly the same crime that you're talking about (killing real people by the thousands). Name me one Communist that McCarthy took off the street that would have murdered thousands of people.
McCarthy used Communism as an excuse to attack people's political leanings. If you think that people that have Socialist/Communist political leanings are in favor mass murder, then you have a really distorted view of reality. Do you really think that when the Beatles wrote "Back in the USSR" that they were condoning mass murder and a 'report your neighbor to the secret police' culture?
Most people have those political leanings because they believe in the 'hope' that humanity will work together to solve their problems (join hands and sing "Kumbaya" or something). Whether or not their beliefs are reasonable or even possible is irrelevant. You don't throw someone in prison or ruin their life just because they have impossible dreams.
> Meanwhile, communists were killing real people by the thousands.
> Yup, McCarthyism was the big problem.
I challenge you to find me one instance where McCarthyism 'saved the day.' Even if you are able to find one instance, I challenge you to weight that against the number of people that were jailed/lives ruined over this. McCarthyism wasn't a way to "save us from the evils of Communism," it was a modern-day witch-hunt that one man started to earn political brownie points. If you see McCarthy as an altruist, then I have a bridge to sell you...
Let's not also forget that Communism in the forms that we have seen in implemented in real life is far from "Marxist ideology."
> If you think that people that have Socialist/Communist political leanings are in favor mass murder
They may not say that they favor mass murder, but they do it whenever they get the chance.
> Whether or not their beliefs are reasonable or even possible is irrelevant. You don't throw someone in prison or ruin their life just because they have impossible dreams.
Nice sentiment, but you're defending folks who kill political opponents and attacking someone who didn't even jail folks.
And, you still haven't addressed the "conservative blacklist" that Hollywood has today. You're rather selective in your outrage over "ruined lives".
> [McCartyism] was a modern-day witch-hunt that
No it wasn't. There aren't witches, but there were communists and, according to the USSR's records from the time, McCarthy was basically correct.
> Let's not also forget that Communism in the forms that we have seen in implemented in real life is far from "Marxist ideology."
That simply doesn't matter at this point. Millions of dead folks is too much risk to take, again.
Of course, if you actually pay attention to communists and Marxists, they always let "break a few eggs" slip. They try to hide it, but they're fundamentally authoritarians with a nasty thought-control streak.
> They may not say that they favor mass murder, but they do it whenever they get the chance.
So you're claiming that everyone who has ever favored Marxist ideals will without any doubt resort to mass murder when given the chance?
> Nice sentiment, but you're defending folks who kill political opponents and attacking someone who didn't even jail folks.
And, you still haven't addressed the "conservative blacklist" that Hollywood has today. You're rather selective in your outrage over "ruined lives".
"Didn't even jail folks?" From Wikipedia:
It is difficult to estimate the number of victims of
McCarthyism. The number imprisoned is in the hundreds,
and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs
Do you bother to investigate what you are talking about? And again, I will state: Do you believe that everyone that has ever believed in 'Marxist ideals' murders political opponents? If not, then you are arguing a fallacy here.
> No it wasn't. There aren't witches, but there were communists and, according to the USSR's records from the time, McCarthy was basically correct.
[citation needed]
McCarthyism was the same thing that the Soviets were doing to their own people. The only difference was that they were killing people instead of shaming and/or jailing them. It doesn't make it right on any side. All it does is create a society of people that will turn in their neighbors because they "might be Communists" because they "said that they disagree with the Leader/Dictator/President/Party."
> That simply doesn't matter at this point. Millions of dead folks is too much risk to take, again.
> Of course, if you actually pay attention to communists and Marxists, they always let "break a few eggs" slip. They try to hide it, but they're fundamentally authoritarians with a nasty thought-control streak.
But you have the SAME philosophy. You're 'breaking a few eggs' to find the Communists. How are you any better than them? Because "I'm right and they are wrong?" They believe that they are right and you are wrong. So who is really right and really wrong?
Please wake up and realize that the world is not black-or-white. You seem to have this 'with us or against us' mentality. You are bordering on wanting to execute anyone that is ever an idealist in thinking that Communism in the Marxist sense (i.e. all humans working together towards a better world) in a bid to prevent any 'Communism' from ever happening again. You fail to realize that:
1. You are no better than the 'Communists' that you are so afraid of if you think that 'breaking a few eggs' to prevent 'Communism' is the best course of action. In either case, you can't fault the 'Communists' for having that philosophy if you yourself have already adopted it. The word 'hypocrite' comes to mind.
2. 'Communism' in the forms that we have seen in in the world thus far as a far cry from what Marx actually believed in. To that end, the only thing that all of the 'Communist' regimes share in common is that they are just excuses for totalitarianism. They are just empty promises to the people to get popular support for overthrowing the current regime and/or justifications by the people actually implementing the 'revolution.' Once these regimes are actually in power their operations are a far cry from what should actually be called Communism. It is really and truly a perversion of the term.
I'm not about to argue whether or not Communism in the purest most idealistic form is a real possibility in this world or just an impossible dream. I will say that trying to censor people through jail-time and/or public embarrassment/harassment is really low and not something that should be promoted in a 'free' society. It might not be as bad as mass murder, but that's not saying much. That sort of censorship is the path to Fascism and I doubt you're about to start arguing about the benefits of Fascism over Communism (if you are, I'll just label you a troll and move on).
I'd really like to know who modded these comments down. The fact that every comment of mine on this thread was just modded down and every reply to my comments were just modded up seems highly suspicious.
If you really have a beef with what I'm saying actually debate it with me rather than this passive-agressive BS.
> So you're claiming that everyone who has ever favored Marxist ideals will without any doubt resort to mass murder when given the chance?
I don't know about the future, but the past is pretty clear. The only exceptions seem to be folks who give up such beliefs.
> McCarthyism was the same thing that the Soviets were doing to their own people. The only difference was that they were killing people instead of shaming and/or jailing them.
The same thing? Killing millions is the same as some folks losing their jobs and a (relative) few jailed for a law that predated McCarthy? Hint - that means that he had nothing to do with it. (You didn't even honestly summarize Wikipedia.)
That law, fwiw, punished folks who "knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the [...] desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association".
I don't much like said law, but to equate it with SOP in communist countries is quite a stretch.
> But you have the SAME philosophy.
No, I don't. In other news, surgeons are not (necessarily) Jack the Ripper. There is a difference between the police and the robber, even though both might fire guns.
> You're 'breaking a few eggs' to find the Communists. How are you any better than them? Because "I'm right and they are wrong?" They believe that they are right and you are wrong. So who is really right and really wrong?
They kill millions when given the chance. That doesn't make me right, but it does make them wrong.
> Please wake up and realize that the world is not black-or-white.
Hey, another straw man.
I never wrote anything that implied that the world was black and white. I did say, however, the communists were evil.
You seem torn between "other folks are just as evil" and "communists are not evil, they just kill a lot of people who probably needed killing". Since we're mind-reading, I'll go with you really think that they're not evil but their opponents are. You do realize that the killing thing looks bad, so you're trying to put that off on people you don't like who didn't do it, but it doesn't much bother you that communists do it.
> You are bordering on wanting to execute anyone that is ever an idealist in thinking that Communism in the Marxist sense (i.e. all humans working together towards a better world)
Marxism isn't "all humans working together towards a better world". It's a very specific way of "working together" that leads to mass killing.
There are lots of ways to work together, the vast majority not being marxist. (To be fair, there are some other ways of working together that also lead to mass killing, but they're not common.)
> I doubt you're about to start arguing about the benefits of Fascism over Communism
Fascism was Communism with better clothes and a more efficient implementation. I don't count those differences as significant benefits.
So the story here is ... Techcrunch published a story about an acquisition that turned out to have no basis in fact. TMZ seems like a more reliable source for gossip.
TMZ isn't a good example. When it comes to breaking celebrity news, they actually exercise a great deal of journalistic integrity and restraint. They're very reliable and very well-sourced.
My comment was meant to be agnostic to the merits of your argument. While we're talking about it, though, I think that this particular situation (reporting the Google-Yelp acquisition talks) is actually a bad example as well.
TechCrunch reported that Google and Yelp were in talks for an acquisition. As far as I know, that is true and TechCrunch broke the story with original reporting.
Then TechCrunch reported that Yelp walked away and talks broke down. As far as I know, that is also true and again they broke the story with original reporting.
Remaining agnostic to your claim about TechCrunch, how does this situation support the argument that they are not reliable?
How many other times have techcrunch reported "company x in late stages of being acquired by Google/Yahoo/Microsoft" followed by "Talks for company x being acquired break off?" I'd suggest quite a few. I realize that this can actually happen, but if it happens often enough then the story becomes non-news.
You need to understand that things change in deals. On Friday you could have reported GM was closing down Saab and it would have been accurate, but on Sunday it was GM had received more inquiries on Saab and a deal may still be made. Just because the news has changed does not mean that there was not a basis in fact for the initial story.
While I agree with the other comments, I'm going to call this a dick move of the week. I understand that google wasn't buying yelp just for the sake of owning yelp, but Jesus Christ, yelp is a terrible terrible website for reviews of anything(I can only vouch for the NYC yelp). It's a pretty widely regarded fact here that yelp reviews do not count for shit, thus making the website a joke. They should have taken the money and ran.
Edit: If you don't agree, feel free to browse the reviews of NYC restaurants for some great advice by hundreds of thousands of self-proclaimed culinary experts and trendy hipsters who's idea of a good bar is one with big game hunter in the back and a 95% mustache rate.
Sounds way too meta to me. You have to review the reviews to actually find a useful review? If the site is being abused and the reviews need to be filtered than it's effective usefulness goes way down.
I second nymag. Also, while not a replacement for yelp, Per Se, keeping up with ny.eater.com will ensure you know of all the interesting/amazing places to eat/go out.
Word of mouth really only works if you live there, not so much if you're just passing through. And the time you really need a site like yelp is for all those times you're just passing through place and want to know who will do you a good pizza.
That's my use case for yelp like sites anyway. When I'm at home I go out for dinner on avg. once or twice a week or so and go to a new restaurant probably less than 1 time in 10, so my need for restaurant reviews is quite low. I also have plenty of other local sources for good reviews when I need them
When I'm traveling I eat out basically every night and visit a new restaurant pretty close 100% of the time. On the whole I have much greater need for a site with reviews of restaurants in not my home town than in my home town, and that hardly seems niche to me.
You're thinking like a movie critic more than a business owner. The quality of the reviews counts for squat if the cash flows are positive. In the end, Google thinks it's a financially sound acquisition aligned with the company's vision. That is what matters.
Sure, but it's also important to realize that Google Maps was a rare success in a string of mostly failed projects/acquisitions (Orkut, Knol, Picasa, Google Video, etc).. I'd argue that Google's biggest successes were in areas in which the previous leaders failed to innovate for years (Mapquest, Hotmail), whereas Yelp is a very active company in a constant state of improvement/innovation. If I were Yelp, I'd be more concerned about Google doing something which would cause it to lose placement in search results.
Yelp is, from my observations, anything but active. They haven't innovated in terms of UI or features in probably two years. Even geographies have been slow to develop - UK took a long time to appear.
In fact, they're oddly static - the number of reviewed restaurants and stores has increased quite slowly for most cities, they haven't done a good job pushing into smaller markets.
Admittedly this is my anecdotal observation but i've been following yelp pretty closely since they launched and honestly up until the Google acquisition attempt, i was wondering if they were short on cash because they seem to spend so little energy on product/design/site and there seemed to be a bit of desperation in the whole 'yelpscam.com' accusations, which appear to be legitimate.
Never know how this will play out. Would they Become another Google (who refused yahoo's offer and became better for it) Or Friendster (refusing googles offer but lost out to Myspace & facebook) . Only time will tell.
And I Do not understand this views of "Getting aquired is bad" for start up. I think it is up to the founders to decide what is good/bad for them.
