I like that idea. It could also be words of wisdom or something in between. The framework is already there and I don't mind giving anyone this code. All that needs to be changed are the quotes and the domain name.
As one of the collaborative projects on my social network, we asked that people code a spelling check script in PHP. One member, who had zero previous knowledge of PHP took up the challenge. After investing a few hours into it, he came up with the following:
You're welcome to download the source code. One major issue with the code is that it loses efficiency when the dictionary size is increased from 1,000 to 20,000 words.
"..Even when you find genuinely good things to copy, there's another pitfall to be avoided. Be careful to copy what makes them good, rather than their flaws. It's easy to be drawn into imitating flaws, because they're easier to see, and of course easier to copy too. For example, most painters in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries used brownish colors. They were imitating the great painters of the Renaissance, whose paintings by that time were brown with dirt. Those paintings have since been cleaned, revealing brilliant colors; their imitators are of course still brown." - Copy What You Like, by Paul Graham
Earning off Google adsense is not a business, it is a hobby. Very few startups manage to squeeze a reasonable profit off Google.
Advertising is, of course, a feasible business. But no one (this especially applies to geeks) clicks on Adsense ads anymore because they are so used to seeing them. My suggestion is to develop a custom ad delivery system, or manually post sponsored ads (just as TechCrunch does).
Use "I" because it's more personalized. The excuse for using "we" is simply that the service may seem professional; hence, building more trust. That might actually be true, but unless you're building an online bank, it wouldn't matter.
I initially worked on my webservice alone, and decided to adopt "I" on every possible location. I managed to build a dedicated community around the website, and later on decided to use "we" to denote the community as well as myself. Now, when I say "we thank you for participating", I mean "me and the community...".
Of course, if you've more than one founder (like I do now), you should use "we". Be consistent with the terminology in order to avoid confusing the end-user.
Revenue earned vs. number of ad spots on a site is probably an inverted parabola; after a certain point is reached, each successive ad spot actually reduces revenue along with pageviews.
As a side note, here are several good case studies for adsense users:
https://www.google.com/adsense/success
I talked about choice and the sensory overload it often causes. We have reached a point where the only type of cell phones we can't buy anymore are cell phones that are just a phone. The suppliers, however, cannot be held responsible for this. Afterall, they are simply trying to satisfy the users constant demands. So eventhough this mental toxin often makes us feel miserable, it is preferable by consumers over having less choice. And this fascinates me.
I am contemplating writing an article about choice and relating it to Web 2.0. Here is an excerpt from another article I wrote that relates to this: "...if a choice is present, perfectionists spend a ridiculous amount of time over simple decisions. Such is the mentality governing users of today's social networks. We are caught up in a web of choices; indeed, the core reason behind MySpace's success is that users rule. MySpace might suck, but it gives its users ample of choice. Once a user has invested an hour of their life customizing their profile, they are not likely to leave the site anytime soon."
The only reality that counts is what's already in the prospect's mind. Coca-Cola came before Pepsi, so even a century later, it continues to dominate the market. Aside from being displeased, YC shouldn't feel threatened by TechStars; Y Combinator is ahead of its competition by leaps and bounds especially since it was first in their prospect's minds. For startup founders and bloggers, TechStars will always come off as the "clone".
There is understandably some heat between us and the replicant. Wouldn't it be a good idea to just send David an email (David[@]coloradostartups.com) to reach some common ground? This might just be an opportunity to expand Y Combinator beyond Boston or Mountain View.
About 300+ teams have applied to TechStars so far. I am guessing for YC the number is at least 500. From this large pool, only about 13 teams will be selected by Y Combinator. So I am sure there will be some good startups even within the ones that are rejected by Y Combinator.
TechStars could also judge their applicants on a criteria different from Y Combinator and catch good startups where YC might not.
The word on the street is that most startups, however, wouldn't choose TechStars over Y Combinator. First, the initial investment is lower. Second, they aren't original nor do they have the reputation that Paul does. In the end, though, it all comes down to which program maximizes success for startups. For that, David had this to say in an e-mail "Our investors have funded several hundred companies over the years, far more than Y Combinator has done. Y Combinator has Reddit to point out. Our founders point at Newsgator, Technorati, Feedburner, Dogster, and tons more as examples of our past experience."
I don't think anyone hates TechStars, but startup's would have had more respect for them if they had at least taken Paul's permission for rewording and copy-pasting the questions :)
Interestingly, Larry Page was reluctant to publish this infamous research paper when it was first conceived. Much of Larry's thinking was inspired by Nikola Tesla's life; a genius whose inventions were often mocked upon and stolen by Thomas Edison. It was Larry's research advisor who convinced him to publish the paper.
lol@"Sorry, many services are unavailable due to a local network faliure beyond our control. We are working to fix the problem and hope to be back up soon. 12/4/97"
:)