Comments on: 1.9 Billion Words; Scribd Users Have A Lot To Say

By: courtney

courtney — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:16:11 +0000

alyson addie says heyy.

By: courtney

courtney — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:15:02 +0000

wel, hullo whats u doing…. btw there is not 1.9 bilon words on this website u losers

By: SANTA CLAUS

SANTA CLAUS — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:57 +0000

u suck booooooooooo it sais 1.9 billion words you liar liar

By: Vuzit Document Viewer Blog » Blog Archive » TechCrunch Loves Documents

Vuzit Document Viewer Blog » Blog Archive » TechCrunch Loves Documents — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:01:50 +0000

[...] been reading the news. TechCrunch, the third most popular blog in the world, just can’t stop talking about document-based startup companies. Vuzit hasn’t yet graced the pages of TechCrunch, [...]

By: Abhijat Mahajan » Blog Archive » The Technology Behind Document Streaming Applications (Scribd, Docstoc)

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:07:12 +0000

[...] It has already hosted 1.9 million words and recieves 42.9 million visitors a month (more here) [...]

By: Ryan Mickle

Ryan Mickle — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 05:08:55 +0000

Comparing words within documents uploaded to Scribd with content authored on Wikipedia is like comparing Flickr to Google Images Search, don’t you think? It takes significantly less effort to upload a 1000 word document than it does to write 1000 words that will withstand the criticism of many other authors (and I might be wise to bet that there is much material at risk of breaking copyright infringement on Scribd than on Wikipedia).

I still think Scribd took a wrong turn as the “YouTube of documents.” I’d rather create a passionate community of users, rooted in the contributions of hardcore enthusiasts (a la Flickr)… in this case, the many great writers around the globe who are now finding recognition of their voices online. I think Scribd had more potential as the Flickr of writing.

By: Thor Heijk

Thor Heijk — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 08:40:17 +0000

I think the guy who paid one and only one visit to Scribd is short sighted. I took a cursory look myself and even I could see the problem that Scribd is solving quite successfully. If I was any good at Quark, I could write and publish a book on Scribd that was indistinguishable from a volume from another publisher. Hence…the publisher is on its way to irrelevance. It’s weird when people say Scribd is bad for writers when it’s actually great for writers, bad for the publishers. It seems like the ultimate expression of the Creative Commons.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 05:38:00 +0000

Scribd has turned out to be a nice repository for some of my (original) pdf files, that now form nice linked pictures on my blogs. I like Scribd because it serves my purposes very well but I can understand why some people are aggrieved. Scribd is neither wikipedia (which does not serve my purposes) nor google, but it is quite legitimate to compare volumes, hits, page views and other such statistical trivia, but the three services are very different and I do not think anyone is confused about that.

By: aaron wall

aaron wall — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:02:02 +0000

>> They’re placed in a more precarious position than Google, which you can use to find pirated content, because they actually host it.

One guy took an old version of my ebook and uploaded it to bloggger. Google hosts that without my permission. And then of course there is TheftTube.

By: Dennis Kelley

Dennis Kelley — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:40:48 +0000

I don’t believe that Scribd users have a lot to say, as proclaimed in the headline. Yes, they have written a lot of words, but they have collectively said very little. 99.999% of the site is pure, mindless drivel. I hadn’t heard of the site until I came across this post. Frankly, I have probably paid my first and last visit to the site.

By: Clyde Smith

Clyde Smith — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 05:03:59 +0000

I’m disappointed to see those “free” ipod nano “giveaway” ads on your site.

Not a good look. Hope they just slipped in like they do with some of my services when I’m not paying attention.

By: Steve Ballmer

Steve Ballmer — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 04:55:59 +0000

Lots of words! Sounds like ZDNet!
Those guys kill me!

http://fakestev...er.blogspot.com

By: Marques

Marques — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:57:58 +0000

Behind every great fortune there is a crime.

By: ChandraB

ChandraB — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 02:37:44 +0000

If copyrights were enforced, Scribd would be in serious trouble. You can’t build a business enfringing on other people’s intellectual property. (Actually you can, e.g. YouTube), but you shouldn’t.

I’m sure the author of the Adobe Illustrator WOW book can’t be too happy about losing out on some royalties.

http://www.scri...Wow-Book-Part-1

By: roger

roger — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 02:21:56 +0000

i generally tend to disagree with tech dumpster kind of naysayers but this is really height of compromising journalistic values. how is originial content as against content aggregated (that too blatantly through illegal means) comparable? Feel free to promote any of your interests but please don’t equate good and bad..at least say they are different.. I would like to see scribd execs and VCs going behind the bar and probably they will..

By: Dominic

Dominic — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 01:22:26 +0000

Again, more crap. I’m having a hard time seeing where this is real news. No biggie, I probably have 15 GB of legal documents on my server.

By: Jason

Jason — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:53:35 +0000

These two are absolutely not comparable. The operative word here is Scribd COLLECTED X documents. How many of these documents are original content? Very tiny percentage. Anybody can create a website in a day with more documents gathered from other sources, especially if they don’t care if it’s legal or not and nobody would care. So why fall for the hype on this one? Why not talk about websites that have real original content instead?

By: Nick Gonzalez

Nick Gonzalez — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 23:40:42 +0000

TechDumpster – Wikipedia is obviously bigger than Wikipedia as outlined in the third paragraph. I also think that if Google really solved all our document needs, no one would upload to Scribd.

Granted, Scribd looks to be benefiting from copyright infringement. They’re placed in a more precarious position than Google, which you can use to find pirated content, because they actually host it.

By: EH

EH — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 23:38:58 +0000

With the Scribd news this week I’d say the slope of that blue line is not guaranteed.

By: China Internet Marketing

China Internet Marketing — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 23:24:14 +0000

Looks like just another grapth from presentation meant to be what the viewer expects to see.

By: TechDumpster (living in First Life)

TechDumpster (living in First Life) — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 23:21:35 +0000

This is non-news. It’s also silly to compare Wikipedia to Scribd. That’s like comparing an art museum to a trash heap. At Wikipedia, articles are under a constant state of editing while at Scribd, you just throw something up. It’s much easier for Scribd to grow it’s word count. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia entries are supposed to be concise.

That chart is completely pointless because all it says is that Scribd is full of crappy stuff that no one reads.

Overall, Scribd is really overrated. We don’t need a “Youtube” of text content. We already have Google to search for us.

Yawn.