alarm:clock has broke the story: http://www.thealarmclock.com/mt/archives/2007/05/google_negotiat.html

And everyone is reporting on it: http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/05/04/google-in-talks-to-acquire-simplyhired/ http://mashable.com/2007/05/04/google-simplyhired/

However Joshua Jaffe at VC ratings think this is non-sense. Why would the search giant buy search. http://vcratings.thedealblogs.com/2007/05/google_buying_a_vertical_searc.php

I wish I could take sides and call one thing reasonable over other. what you guys think Does it makes sense ?

And Adam is a gifted writer, or lets say he has a neck of picking the top N things built on top of an API. Also check http://mashable.com/2007/04/29/7-awesome-things-built-on-the-digg-api/

Yes, I 'm not sure if any of these 10 mashes satisfies my criteria for awesome.

It would be nice if we could search for previously posted stories on news.yc

I came across the metrolive article when pg submitted it here, but to find it again had to search Google and then fetch the link from Google's cache. Too much work.

A lot has already been said, but I want to participate as well:

For those who think Arrington likely didnt took money from MSFT, for the past couple of months I was seeing MIX ads on the top banner, below the first post and on the sidebar. Is this not giving money albeit more subtly ?

For PG If you were in his position, having an exclusive interview with Ray Ozzie, a high profile lunch and ten hours of selling to go with months long ad campaigns on TC, I am not sure you would have done something different.

But I havent said here that you would have wanted to be in this position, that's a totally different thing.

I cant really understand this statement of Arrington "it blows away native Javascript routines - without exaggeration, Ajax looks like a bicycle next to a Ferrari when compared to Silverlight"

The other reason for writing this post I guess is that the previous post from Nik didnt got enough page views "Nik wrote a very long post yesterday afternoon on Silverlight, long after the initial news broke. From a pageview standpoint, the post was a loser for us. We would have been far better off doing a one-paragraph post at 10 am announcing the news, and by the time we wrote in the late afternoon the buzz had worn off somewhat."

Totally agreed, I think Kevin Rose made the right choice. Banning the stories at this juncture would have been a suicide.

The users threatened to move on to Reddit, but this does not mean Reddit would have been a beneficiary, it would have to either allow this or show the users door once again.

Check out techmeme http://www.techmeme.com/070502/p5#a070502p5

cant help imagining how much press coverage Digg has got on this issue

So far, mainstream coverage has been sparse. Forbes has an article, and some of the British papers do, but the Washington Post and NYT don't have stories. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is huge news to people who know what Digg is, and that it won't attract the attention of anyone else.

really nice

Didn't knew New York Post has such a great reputation, but alot of people are jumping on it http://www.techmeme.com/070501/p26#a070501p26

And they cite the Post. That's how bad information spreads...

It should be "Thats how the rumor mill works" :)

The point that you are making was explained in detail by some fellow in a post titled "Maybe Google Wanted to be Sued: YouTube and Plan B" http://www.michiknows.com/2007/03/14/maybe-google-wanted-to-be-sued-youtube-and-plan-b/

The post is really thought provoking and got Digged, slashdotted and reddited.

Do give it a look

Thanks for the link. That's basically the idea that I was considering, but obviously more in depth.

It was a very good post.

Do check out this http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=18237

Philipp Lenssen is blogging live about the Google personalization workshop held at Googleplex, where all these news announcements were made by Marissa Meyers.