All Things Digital

“There’s a reason why we’re the only fortune 500 company with an exclamation point at the end of our name,” Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang said yesterday. “And now is the time to demonstrate what that exclamation point stands for.”

Today investors are doing just that. Sadly for Yang, it’s with criticisms and epithets, not calls to arms. Seems Yahoo (YHOO) investors’ view of what that exclamation point stands for post-Microsoft (MSFT) differ just a wee bit from Yang’s. What follows is a selection of reader comments on Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang’s “OK, So Now What?” blog post:

• Dear Mr. Yang, You had the opportunity to provide your shareholders and dying company with a somewhat respectable exit. A 70% premium sat in your lap and you had the ARROGANCE to ask for more.

• I don’t doubt that the pro-Microsoft crowd is celebrating right now. I’ll bet no one in Redmond wants to go through the pain of integrating with a company that has undergone an engineering talent-exodus and is becoming irrelevant in its core technologies. So as a Microsoft shareholder, thank you for acting in my best interests. Had you accepted Microsoft’s offer it would most certainly have crippled Ballmer and company.
• Hi Jerry, Nice job. … Now will you please buy my 500 shares at $31. I mean it’s a great deal for you since your stock is worth $37 as you say.
• How are you going to turn this aging hippy around? How about coming out and announcing Yahoo’s new strategy. You can start by appointing Sue Decker CEO.

So much for eBay’s Feedback Profile. The online auction pioneer has been getting quite a bit of negative feedback for its decision to ban sellers from leaving “negative” or “neutral” comments about buyers.

Announced last week along with some other changes, the move is designed to eliminate retaliatory feedback. Apparently, eBay believes its slowing growth is due at least in part to dissatisfied buyers put off by vindictive sellers. “… [T]he original intent of eBay’s public feedback system was to provide an honest, accurate record of member experiences,” Bill Cobb, president of eBay North America, wrote in a message to the eBay Community Forum. “Over the years, we’ve adjusted the system to add nonpublic means of providing feedback to try to improve its accuracy. … But overall, the current feedback system isn’t where it should be. Today, the biggest issue with the system is that buyers are more afraid than ever to leave honest, accurate feedback because of the threat of retaliation. In fact, when buyers have a bad experience on eBay, the final straw for many of them is getting a negative feedback, especially of a retaliatory nature. Now, we realize that feedback has been a two-way street, but our data shows a disturbing trend, which is that sellers leave retaliatory feedback eight times more frequently than buyers do … So we have to put a stop to this and put trust back into the system.”

Suffice it to say, eBay’s sellers, who view feedback as one of their few means of protecting themselves against shady buyers, are not at all happy with the change. Some are threatening boycotts. Others are just taking their auctions elsewhere. “The feedback is the only carrot a seller has to make sure a person buying from them is fair,” said one veteran eBay seller who’s closing up shop. “Now I’ve got virtually no way to protect myself against negative feedback. … As for the weight or gravity of this situation, it’s a major life decision–right up there with getting married, picking a school and deciding whether to have children.”

Publications that have taken issue with Google for excerpting their articles have another reason to be peeved at the company today. This morning, Google added a new feature to Google News that allows newsmakers to comment on the stories in which they’re featured (here’s an example).

“We’ll be trying out a mechanism for publishing comments from a special subset of readers: those people or organizations who were actual participants in the story in question,” Google software engineers Dan Meredith and Andy Golding explained in a blog post. “Our long-term vision is that any participant will be able to send in their comments, and we’ll show them next to the articles about the story. Comments will be published in full, without any edits, but marked as ‘comments’ so readers know it’s the individual’s perspective, rather than part of a journalist’s report.” You know, just like Topix. Passive news, active dialogue.

Google says it will vet comments by confirming the identity of their authors–which it must, if it’s truly serious about this initiative. But is that even possible? Comments@google.com is certain to become the Augean stable of email accounts in short order. Who’s going to manage it? And what of legal liabilities? And unintended consequences?

Of course, if Google does pull this off it may well upend traditional news as we know it. “The fact that Google is trying this is, in one sense, testament to an abject failure on the part of traditional news operations,” says Dan Gillmor, director of the Center for Citizen Media. “With the Net, they could have given people the chance to comment in this way–above and beyond the standard comment published as part of a story or a letter to the editor. They didn’t, and left this opening. If Google pulls this off, it will be a huge boost for one company–Google–because people looking for responses to news articles will head to the search site, not just to the site of the original story.”

Observers have pointed out the irony of the situation, because Google’s terms of service prohibit other sites from reproducing or creating derivative works from Google News, so it will be the only place they can get it. Yet Google News wouldn’t even exist if news providers were to demand it abide by similar terms.