Comments on: An Alexaholic Moment: Visual Search Engine ManagedQ Gets Snapped

By: An Alexaholic Moment: Visual Search Engine ManagedQ Gets Snapped

An Alexaholic Moment: Visual Search Engine ManagedQ Gets Snapped — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 20:24:59 +0000

[...] techcrunch.com [...]

By: The project to win my time | Don Wilson

The project to win my time | Don Wilson — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 05:45:19 +0000

[...] cache features can be. It was before I saw Snap, the primary source for the automated screenshots, pulled the plug on a service. It was before I realised that I should work on things that I really believe in and [...]

By: ManagedQ wants to be ‘Windows for search’ » VentureBeat

ManagedQ wants to be ‘Windows for search’ » VentureBeat — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:25:40 +0000

[...] — it’s hard to imagine that Google, for one, will be pleased. (ManagedQ already ran into trouble for using Snap’s images, although the company found another provider on the same day.) Stat [...]

By: Max

Max — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 06:51:49 +0000

They are back up and using Thumbshots now.

By: Jazzter

Jazzter — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:08:33 +0000

I think it’s quite funny as Snap are stealing the sites images too if you think about it. They certainly haven’t contacted anyone I know to ask if they can take a visual image of their website

In any case to circumvent anything like this is just too easy, grab a few hosted server accounts, even godaddy will do, run your scripts from there. Pump in a few proxy links via curl and you’ll look like a normal user. We run circa 32k images from snap per day and it seems fine so far. We also cache them so build up our local db too to cut down on their load. It seems that with their several million dollar investment they didnt invest in hardware or bandwidth, perhaps too many parties?

By: Thomas Joseph

Thomas Joseph — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:10:04 +0000

Ya, David, I agree McGovern is a jerk. He cut us off too so don’t feel bad. They cut off tons of sites so don’t fell bad. I guess we will just suck it up and pay Alexa.

By: Akash

Akash — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:11:56 +0000

ManagedQ gets free press here and it’s a good thing because their site is actually pretty cool. Snap just ends up looking like the bumbling snarky corporation. It apparent the Snap GOON squad is all over the comment board as well. This is a very simple case of a creative startup trying something interesting and getting shut down by a corporation that’s within their rights. Not a big deal. ManagedQ already has another service doing this so no need for everyone to et their panties in a wad.

Why is Snap so hot and bothered….? Could it be that their traffic has been flat for a year and Tom McGovern is desperate to appear on top of things in a weak attempt to hang onto his cushy job? See the numbers…

http://www.alex...etails/snap.com

By: Munashe Gumbozvanda

Munashe Gumbozvanda — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:36:49 +0000

title i found very lame for post

but in a way they had to be scrapped, how can you run a startup on top of someones data?

By: Sneezy Melon

Sneezy Melon — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:10:02 +0000

Well at least they got the publicity they needed to stay in the light

By: Peter Cooper

Peter Cooper — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:17:31 +0000

I cannot understand, however, why ManagedQ needed to rip Snap’s images when putting together your own thumbnailing service is so simple. It’s not as if it’s a problem of accessing a pool of data that’s behind closed doors (such as Alexa’s or Google’s). You can develop a service to screenshot Web pages without much difficulty.

Even if you can’t figure out how to make such a system (and if that’s the case, you shouldn’t be building a search engine), there are quite a few paid-for APIs (some not too expensive) that will do this screenshot stuff for you and let you use the images mostly as you like.

I’ll sympathize with people scraping data where there are few other options, but scraping out of laziness to solve a problem yourself is, well, lazy.

By: sky

sky — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:36:26 +0000

That the probelm with based your business on other people’s data. Like
FB introduces IM and all the 3rd party FB IM app companies are going to go bust. Stupid people never learn.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:43:21 +0000

David Stat, Founder, ManagedQ:

>Secondly, the resource usage attributable to ManagedQ amounts to a >rounding error in terms of Snap’s total impressions per day.

Rationalizing theft based on your victim’s seeming ability to afford it indicates you are in dire need of an ethics course, David.

Face the facts: You were completely wrong in this matter. Accept it, stop rationalizing your behavior, stop playing the victim, and make amends by dealing with Snap (or whomever) in good faith.

Good luck to you and your venture.

By: Mel

Mel — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 07:28:37 +0000

Snap is the most disgusting piece of crud to ever grace the internet. I have it completely ad-blocked from my browser. Snap did them a favor. They can use something better.

By: Don Wilson

Don Wilson — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 04:43:36 +0000

Snap is well within their rights and ManagedQ should’ve cached so in the time between switching providers their screenshots wouldn’t go completely down (as they are now).

By: JDD

JDD — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 02:15:55 +0000

jabber – Ridiculous. Of course it’s not an admirable thing to default on a loan. But it happens all the time, particularly to people of middle-lower income. I’m sure you would condemn them all to eternal damnation.

Can you read? Nowhere in my post did I defend ManagedQ. I only criticized Snap for what I deem an inefficient and ultimately ineffective business practice.

By: JabberJ

JabberJ — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:43:22 +0000

JDD – help me with that logic… “Credit card companies set aside a portion of receivables for defaulted payments” so it is okay to default / commit credit card fraud? You need to check your ethics or at least your ability to reason.

By: JDD

JDD — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:45:23 +0000

I’m actually surprised at everyone’s knee-jerk reactions here. Credit card companies always set aside a certain portion of their receivables for defaulted payments, and web services companies should do the same – allow small sites like managedq and the many others that use snap’s service against their tos to carry on. For Snap, there is essentially no cost (traffic from these sites is not high enough), and there is the added benefit of the goodwill and feeling of debt garnered from these sites. Obviously, if one of these sites becomes popular enough, they should shut it down. But it seems that managedq is too small at this point to require such action.
A bit harsh and reactionary, I would say. But perhaps their margins aren’t so hot and they need to trim off all the fat.

By: JabberJ

JabberJ — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:48:33 +0000

#37 Funny I did not realize that TOS were just suggestions. I think this whole thing is amazing – its an open and shut case of stupidity by this site. Those Snap guys blogged twice that they were cracking down so I have to believe they sent e-mails to the users of their service. Maybe it was not received because a bogus e-mail was given to sign up for their service?

By: Stephen Paul Weber

Stephen Paul Weber — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:21:34 +0000

thmbnl.com anyone?

By: David Stat, Founder, ManagedQ

David Stat, Founder, ManagedQ — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:52:25 +0000

I think there been a few factual misrepresentations here. Firstly, we never received an email or any communication from Snap asking us to cease using their service. Secondly, the resource usage attributable to ManagedQ amounts to a rounding error in terms of Snap’s total impressions per day. Those two things being said, we’re a bit at a loss as to why they decided to proceed in such a public fashion.

Terms of Service on the Internet are little more than one company’s attempt to tell the world how they’d like their service used. If we all obeyed the TOS, no one would have unlocked iPhones or downloaded music on their iPods. Remember in 1996 when some sites had TOS preventing people from linking to them without their explicit authorization?

We’re not trying to say that Snap is not within their legal rights in blocking us, we’re just saying it seems like an overreaction.

By: Yakov

Yakov — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:34:16 +0000

what a free advertising for both parties involved

By: Nir Levin

Nir Levin — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:41:12 +0000

So ManagedQ.com has changed to a different thumbnail service provider, but the new guy (websnapr) blocks them as well . All I am seeing are “Forbidden Request” thumbnails.

That’s hilarious!

By: AW

AW — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:38:04 +0000

I think Snap did everything right.

They tried to contact ManagedQ publically and privately before pulling the plug. What more could you ask for?

By: Kenneth Yeh

Kenneth Yeh — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:25:49 +0000

I think Tom was completely justified in what he did. ManagedQ’s decision to use Snap’s thumbnails without permission was just a bad business decision on their part. There’s no one to blame but themselves for that.

By: Nancy

Nancy — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:25:29 +0000

Snap shutting down ManagedQ shows McGovern doesn’t really understand the internet. If anything Snap should force ManagedQ to put the Snap logo on it’s homepage or say “powered by Snap” or something that would build distribution/brand for Snap. McGovern’s decision to shut ManagedQ down first and ask questions later is shortsided at best and just plain stupid otherwise. ManagedQ is easily another channel for Snap to get it’s name out there and gain distribution. McGovern is likely just another 3rd-tier CEO from a non or only semi-tech background that just doesn’t “get it” and is more a visitor in Silicon Valley, than a true resident. (think Terry Semel among others)