Hacker News Reader

Comment by TomOfTTB | Hacker News Reader

Is it just me or do companies always come out with a "vague numbers" post like this when everyone starts thinking their doomed? What I mean by that is a post that's designed to reassure people but quotes a bunch of numbers that we have no way of actually verifying.

(The first example that pops to my mind of a similar post: http://tinyurl.com/22qdow9)

I'm not taking a stance one way or the other on Facebook Comments vs Disqus or Disqus' chance of survival. I'm just saying these posts don't mean anything to me anymore because unverifiable numbers are easy to skew and the strategy of using them has been done too many times in the past.

So, at least on me, the post has the opposite effect. It makes me think the company is getting scared and that's why they felt the need to make such a post.

View on HN

Please don't use URL shorteners on HN. There's no reason to hide the destination or to shave characters here.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2010/06/25...

I think it's to say "hey did you know we are fricking huge!!" - that's why I like to say our numbers, it's an accomplishment and something to be proud of.

It also gives comfort to bigger users / potential users ... you're not going to be worried about using Disqus on your site with 100s of thousands of daily users when you know they eat that number for breakfast.

Disqus traffic numbers on Quantcast: http://www.quantcast.com/p-94WKwgUwZHlfo

As I said below I'm not doubting the numbers I'm just trying to draw attention to the perception those numbers create and saying it might not be what Disqus intended

Though for the record I don't see how those numbers confirm or deny anything in the source post. In fact those numbers seem to invalidate Disqus claims (though measurement of the type Quantcast provides doesn't provide precise numbers so again we're back to "unverifiable but not necessarily untrue")

Twitter did the same thing less than 2 months ago:

http://blog.twitter.com/2011/03/numbers.html

As strong as our combined anecdotal evidence is, I don't think it's possible to draw any strong conclusions.

Fair point about unverifiable numbers, but in Disqus' case I don't think it is running scared - just celebrating the traction that they've achieved and announcing that they just raised a big round.

That said, I'm a huge Disqus fan, and hate FB comments, so I may be biased :)

I don't really think they're running scared either but I think that's the problem for me.

The more I think about this the more I think it's a perception thing. I mean, Apple announces similar unverifiable numbers at almost every event. But it never seems like Apple is trying to defend itself against claims of the company being in danger. Because no one would claim Apple is in danger at this point.

The problem with Disqus is there are those claims floating around. So while Disqus is doing the same thing Apple does it comes across differently. It comes across like a response to the doom claims. Even if it's not.

So upon further thought I just think, from a strategic perspective, these posts aren't wise for companies that might be perceived as in danger. Because they seem to validate the claim.

Well, this didn't seem to bother investors since they've just raised $10m. They've got enough cash to figure out what'll come next if Facebook comments gain too much market share.

I don't think investors would be scared off by such a post alone BUT for the record the post was made AFTER they raised $10m dollars so your point isn't really valid.

My point was simply to say "this type of post is meant to reassure people of the company's stability and, at least in the case of me, it has the opposite effect because it's so often used by companies who are perceived as desperate. So maybe it's a strategy that should be reevaluated."

Finally I don't really consider a $10m investment as validation one way or the other. In my mind, and again this is my opinion, an $80m investment means "we think this company will succeed". A $10m investment is more like "we think these are smart people who could beat the odds but we don't want to commit to many resources to this"

> BUT for the record the post was made AFTER they raised $10m dollars so your point isn't really valid.

Don't you think people writing a $10mm check did way more due diligence than anyone reading this blog post could? They had to believe everything that was (going to be) in this blog post and much, much more.

Maybe they don't want or need more than $10 million?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com