Am I the only one who doesn't think Craigslist is "Ugly or Janky"? It's one of the only places left on the web where I can go and not be bombarded by ads, pop ups, crazy amount of JavaScript and slow loading. It just works and is intuitive to use. The only major thing I feel is missing is the ability to search through multiple locations at the same time.
But if they just wrote an SPA and overrode the back button behavior and displayed a little spinner icon while html was loaded via json, your experience would be so much better.
Founder: The paradigm has shifted. 5kb HTML pages are no longer disruptive enough, we need more javascript for a-
VC: Shut up and light this bag of cash on fire. Focus on number of non-paying users and make sure it's big enough so I can introduce you to more people with bigger pile of cash to light on fire.
Craigslist Post: We are hiring front-end React.js developers with 10+ year experience.
HR: We hire the best of the best! Are you a passionate code ninja that lives and breathes code?! Show us your github and bitbucket profiles and enter the Craigslist Hackathon today! We promise we'll consider you.. and then go whine on HN about how hard it is to find a truly qualified candidate.
HR: Oh we are sorry but it seems like you aren't having enough "fun" by committing your waking hours contributing to open source projects for absolutely no financial compensation. We want people who love coding so much they do it after work and on the weekends. We are willing to pay below market average for said rock stars.
It seems like most of the complaints about craigslist (including those in the article) are ultimately complaints about what it's like to buy stuff from a random person in your area. People are messy, arbitrary and annoying if you don't know them and you only want to buy something from them. People are part of all sorts of social groups with all sorts of standards of behavior.
The dream of creating an app that can shield a person from all the uncertainty of buying from an individual is appealing - but I don't see how you could really offer a better deal. The problem is that however smoothly you put two people in touch, those two people will have to do lots of annoying work coming to an agreement and it's hard to see a lot saved by this initial increased smoothness.
Oh, and if you filter out the annoying people, you filter out a lot of people who actually have stuff to sell too.
Those people are essentially asking for someone to facilitate the transaction for them. We already have that, in the form of online auctionhouses like eBay and open market storefronts like Amazon. Want to buy a used tv without interacting with someone you don't know? Amazon or eBay are your best option.
I'll admit this doesn't really work for big stuff like couches and other furniture, but in that case you're asking for hyperlocal protections that an online business just can't offer. Check out a thrift store, pawn shop, estate sale, or local auctionhouse instead.
Craigslist has it's niche, and it's niche doesn't really have room to improve.
It is not just the sans-js experience about craigslist that people complain about. It is the coloring and lack of nice CSS stuff too.
And I am pretty sure if you took a developer from say 6 years ago and told them to look into the front-end code, they could optimize the KB and keep the site looking the same. I am also sure you could optimize the way it is organized and bring some civility and style to posts without doing any CSS or JS work.
On top of all that, if they launched an XML version to each page, they could be the listing backbone of the internet.
Oh those nice simple features ... but maybe the only way of avoiding JS/CSS bloat is to avoid all features entirely.
What people complain about that? Other developers or people in tech? Sure it doesn't look as modern by today's standards but is changing the styling, font, etc. going to make it easier to use? Doing so may actually startle a lot of users which is most likely why they have only made small changes over the years.
I have seen a lot of CL alternatives that look nicer at first glance but the UI lacks. Sometimes more features is not a good thing. KISS principle is oftentimes better especially when you are working with such a wide user base such as Craigslist.
CL only has 30 employees, never took VC, is one of the most highly visited sites and brings in millions of profit a year. Not many other web companies can claim that. If I were in that position, I don't think I would be too worried about the tech community complaining about how ugly my site was especially if my users continued to come back and benefit.
You can search multiple craigslist locations by doing a google search with "server:craigslist.org" to limit the search to craigslist's server. Not the most refined approach but good in a jiffy.
you can search multiple locations on craigslist right now. in the left hand bar click "include nearby areas". there is also a miles from zip search option.
The lack of an index, and indeed the incredible technology dedicated to preventing external indices, is widely considered to be a feature of craigslist.
Network effect, reliability, free, anonymous, ability to run without JavaScript.
If Craigslist decided to modernize today, they could potentially disrupt the state of things on the internet. Facebook is trying to move in on their territory for sure. Unfortunately, I don't think they will. If a new-kid-on-the-block could offer anonymity, reliability, and free regional market based transactions, with preferably integration with Monero, it would be a killer app for the crypto industry.
>Facebook is trying to move in on their territory for sure. Unfortunately, I don't think they will.
Why "unfortunately"? This is a good thing. Facebook is horrible, in many different ways, and the last thing we need is to hand even more power over the internet to them. CL is "ugly", but it's fast and works great, and isn't filled with ads and tracking, something I definitely can't say about Facebook.
I think facebook serves a purpose but I also agree with your statement. The last thing I want are more places relying on facebook. I deleted my facebook to get away from it. Huge "but" though: I did get value out of facebook when I was younger. It's for that reason that I think it's probably a good thing.
Of course...there's also the ever present threat of a new social network growing up with another generation.
> Theres loads of competition for CL. Internationally many people have cut in on that space.
Correct. Here in Stockholm no one knows about CL (even if there is one for our city at https://stockholm.craigslist.se/). Just about all you can see there are some robot spam listings for medical cannabis.
Over here https://www.blocket.se/ has near monopoly position, even though it's quite expensive. They got here first, it's as simple as that. http://sv.shpock.com/ is trying hard to establish a presence, but it's seems to be going slow.
I read this (possibly wrongly) to be a proxy for "unencumbered page load speed" which is a feature that many users value beyond the 1% who care about noscript.
If you said it that way, yeah. But it means that the site is nice to use on very low-end devices - you know, the sort used by people to whom the second-hand market is very important, because they can't afford high-end devices.
From what I understand, people started local garage sale groups on Facebook specifically to remove anonymity. It's a benefit for those people. Facebook is just taking what is already a massively popular use of their groups feature and officially supporting it. It won't replace craigslist but it will do just fine.
They already did disrupt it, you just aren't cognizant of the fact that you life in that post-disruption world. It's hard to imagine what could have been, but I suspect there'd be a confetti of paid services (likely absolutely horrible side-projects by local newspapers) that everyone hated but still had to use.
I think the (slightly) higher threshold for creating even a throwaway account elsewhere makes for a better experience in the long run. I needed to get rid of a lot of stuff in the past couple months and fb/nextdoor/freecycle was more productive in a week than craigslist was in two months.
Same story for paid job listings on craigslist - I just put one up a few weeks ago. I'm starting to find that it's getting worse as time goes by for things like restaurant jobs. I've slowly started using other ways to find new hires, and next time craigslist won't be on my radar unless everything else falls through. Not that my few hundred bucks a year is a big deal for them, but I kinda expect better and get better from competitors.
As mentioned elsewhere, the average user probably doesn't know or care about JavaScript. They do know and care about simplicity and speed. Not having JavaScript (or only very little) often positively affects speed. (See Hacker News vs Redis on mobile for an example of this.)
When I visit Craigslist, it loads almost instantaneously, similar to how Hacker News does now, or Gmail used to years ago. This is not the case for sites that use JavaScript to position everything.
Perhaps I was. I used to use NoScript around the time I started using Gmail, but gave up at some point because I started having to disable it on almost every site I visited.
It certainly is for some (e.g. me and some people I know). I think quite a few people get pissed off at websites which do not have live content (it's live if it can't be cached; Craigslist content, e.g., can be cached) but require JS just to render the basic text. It doesn't help if those sites also make 100+ requests. And yes, some folks still prefer text-based browsers when possible. :) I do realize the latter make up quite a small percentage only, though...
In the sense that no JS = better performance on slower PCs - yes, I'd say that's a selling point.
My 70+ parents just listed and sold dozens of items in their spring cleaning - first time they used CL and they did it without my help. They might have had more problems if CL was "jazzed up".
I'd really like to know how to deal with users input, forms and other stuff without JS. Every tutorial we see today is like "throw tons of JS to this problem and it shall work".
Vanilla forms just GET or POST to some server endpoint with all of the <input>s passed in as query parameters. Frameworks (e.g., Rails) put some syntactic sugar on it, but that's really all that's happening. If the form submission contains invalid input, it's customary to return to the form page (with all the values already filled out) and show a server-generated message about what went wrong.
I think it's a little bit awkward to not use put, patch, delete... I wonder however if my server must follow the same technique, if not how to wire a delete endpoint to handle a form post and so on. I'll try to handle a form using only get and post sometime just to see how it works. Thank you!
Well you just made me feel old. For put/patch/delete you can just as easily wire different options to different URL's. We had URL's like /Foo/Delete?43. It may be awkward in a particular framework but it's about as simple as things get.
I've always hated put/patch/delete because it tends to result in data centric UI's instead of workflow centric ones.
Hmm now that you mentioned I realized I've seen this pattern before but I've never given it a thought. I'll definitely try it sometime, it seems to work pretty well. BTW sorry for make you feel old, it was not my intention haha
Hmm I've been using w3schools for quite some time now but I ALWAYS double check it with a third source, often MDN. I really like their straight to the point approach and I think they've been fixing some of the odd stuff lately. I don't really think it's really that bad if you already have some previous experience, it can work OK as a quick reference.
all that link says is that w3c is "not reputable". no evidence. For learning the basics in webdev (coming from C/C++) I've never had a problem with w3c.
Even if they have fixed all these instances since then, that all those errors were ever produced is a bad sign, especially when there were better alternatives even then.
You actually can't use Craigslist over Tor, so it's not anonymous. Also, your contact details can be leaked in their email relay system. If your name in your Gmail account is Jane Doe, the other person will receive an email from a Craigslist domain with your name as the sender... so just be careful.
Does craigslist's UI work really well without JS? I mean, sure, it looks lo-fi, but there's still a ton of script on most pages, and the submission process is definitely pretty dynamic. If anything, CL looks more like a relic of the DHTML era of 'designed for IE4' web design.
It isn't universal, though. One of the things you find if you move to Utah is, "Don't bother with Craigslist." I mean, it exists here. It gets some use. But most people use the online classifieds from ksl.com, the local TV station. At least, I think it is a TV station. I've never watched it, but everyone uses their online classifieds instead of craigslist. Their site also is ugly, and full of difficult buyers and poor experiences. And somehow it beats craigslist in Utah.
Now you have me wondering how that site managed to retain its position at the top of the regional heap. My dad was obsessed with Saturday morning tag sales when I was a kid so he was an early adopter of various local proto-Craigslists. I can't remember the name of the site which was the king of the CT market but it was very similar to the familiar front page of Craigslist which is still in use today.
Craigslist took over despite not having anything meaningful to offer over this site as it was free to list with a single picture and this was before the era of ad-infested local sites. I'm honestly surprised to learn a local competitor managed to withstand the Craigslist juggernaut.
In Quebec, Craigslist is virtually unknown (with maybe a little traffic in Montreal, but I'm not sure), everyone used LesPAC first, and then Kijiji when it came along. You needed to pay to post an ad on LesPAC, so it quickly lost market share when a free competitor emerged.
Both of these have a French-language version, and I believe it had a lot to do with CL's failure to get the market here.
I have found many of these, usually in suburban or rural areas underserved by services that seem to work only by city or state. CL is guilty of this. Living between two largely served areas, but bad s/n for nearby stuff. A local website, originally just featuring a single persons webcam and static greeting page, is now the regions most active online marketplace. People sell cars, livestock, propery, and various more CL like stuff. They often have strict moderation in stark contrast to CL.
I just checked salt lake city utah CL and I think your wrong, in comparison to where i live in Nashville there 1k less cars for sale in Utah than in Nashville, still a ton of stuff for sale though. Every state I have lived in there has been a CL with very high use. Florida, California, Washington, and Tennessee, all use CL.
You might want to take your data analysis one step farther and actually check how many cars are for sale on KSL.com. Compared to the 1,951 on Salt Lake's Craigslist, KSL.com has over 12,000. (over 67,000 if you include the dealership ads).
Subjectively, I've heard many people say exactly what
codingdave said above. I'd say, at a minimum, KSL has a bigger mindshare then CL in the SLC area.
I almost always fight the SV meme that largely founders focus on throwaway trivial ideas. I just think this is so stupid. Craigslist is one of the few companies that isnt greedy, is community driven, and if there are examples using there outsize market to kill competitirs or act nefarious-- I havent heard them.
I did 3 craigslist deals in the past 2 days. Got coffee with a stranger at 2am who let me flash an os to a drive he sold me for cheap..at 2am.
Craigslist is the email of startups. It works well enough, its a cockroach, and other substitute & complimentary companies fill its gaps. Ebay, etsy, amazon, tradesy, ect.
This isnt even a problem. I have done hundreds of deals and havent had a bad experience. Have others; Absolutely. Do I think its common, not in my experience. I suspect the percentage is low, but I dont have data.
Craigslist is what ai would like to see other companies model after, simplicity, community and no greed.
I may be alone, but i find this absurd and destined to fail. Is it profitable? Probably, but show me that balance sheet. Probably founders not oaying themselves, a tiny server and an apartment. I dont want to belittle the founders, they must have had a terrible experience, but this doesnt seem like a profitable or good strategy at all
I've used Craigslist in several different locations in the US over the last 10-15 years, with I don't know how many transactions. I've never had a problem, except for the occasional buyer who tries to offer a lower price after showing up in person when the ad says "firm".
For instance, the last thing I bought on CL was a washer/dryer set, as my ancient washer finally bit the dust and needed a part that cost much more than a new economy washer. I seriously doubt the nice older lady I bought from had somehow stolen a washer and dryer to resell to me.
I am saying the profitabls challenger is just a server probably hosted nearly free on AWS or Azure through sponsorships. Being profitable is great and I applaud that, but my point is what is the magnitude of success? This likely is a lifestyle business and it is disingenuous to say it is a CL competitor.
I find it interesting that there's a general undertone that CL is being "honorable" by choosing to not make more profit.
I have no doubt Craig's intentions were honorable, but in reality, his refusal to make money to fund the site's innovation is hurting society. His users are screaming "TAKE MY MONEY AND MAKE THE SITE (MY LIFE) BETTER", but he refuses to do so and everyone is worse off because of it!
In a way, it's lazy and selfish, and nobody can do anything about it because..network effects.
When money exchanges hands, generally, value is being delivered. He refuses money which, in essence, equates to refusing to deliver value.
Now it's lazy and selfish to not take every ounce of surplus you can out of a market?
Some folks just want to lay back and enjoy life. If I were Craig I'd sit on that goldmine for the rest of my life - most likely it will finance a very decent lifestyle until the day he dies.
Why bother with the stress of expanding and doing what everyone else is doing? I'm completely convinced that strategy makes for miserable people. The happiest folks I've met in my life are those who own the "lifestyle businesses" everyone on HN enjoys deriding so much.
Isn't Craig living the hacker's dream? A reasonably useful service that provides value to customer, that once built you don't have to put much effort into maintaining or improving - because it works. Then you spend the rest of your free time on the beach.
You also get the nice side benefit that most guys like this tend to provide relatively low-stress long-term jobs employees can build a balanced life around.
The problem is not that CL isn't squeezing out every ounce revenue.
The problem with the benevolent dictator at Craigslist is his kingdom is so big and he does nothing to advance it.
It would not be hard to offer minor but relatively simple identity validation for users. Or dabble with the ability to create trust networks or reputation. Or offer basic mechanisms for safe transactional payments. Or an official mobile app that worked well. Or a hundred other things that would improve lives.
There is no question craigslist gets a "job well done" but there is a great argument that if they have a choke hold on the online classifieds market they should offer increased value over time.
Craigslist reminds me of the IRS. Sure, you can fumble your way through filing your taxes with us, but why would you do that when TurboTax can do it better. Except there is no alternative.
I think Craigslist is acting more like the old newspaper classifieds they disrupted if anything.
Despite this article's focus on a couple companies, there are other startups getting major traction in used goods space apart from Facebook.
If CL loses significant market share, I hope they don't go trying then to revamp the site. Because it would only be that much more obvious how much they held back from their users for so long.
>It would not be hard to offer minor but relatively simple identity validation for users. Or dabble with the ability to create trust networks or reputation. Or offer basic mechanisms for safe transactional payments.
And when users are lulled into a false sense of security from these changes, who is all of a sudden liable when things go south? CL being barebones is a feature, not a bug.
>Isn't Craig living the hacker's dream? A reasonably useful service that provides value to customer, that once built you don't have to put much effort into maintaining or improving - because it works. Then you spend the rest of your free time on the beach.
I don't know about you, but real hackers get personal enjoyment from creating software, products, and innovating. They don't do it so they can "spend the rest of their free time on the beach."
In fact, if you are trying to just make enough money to spend the rest of your free time on the beach etc, you're probably not a real hacker.
The beach was a bad example, but I think we agree here. I used it to illustrate that a hacker (at least what I think of when I say the word) is not primarily motivated by money - he's motivated by creating useful things people use. The goal of automating your daily job out of existence so you can move on to more enjoyable activities. Just a side note: some of the best hacking I've done was on a beach building some really cool stuff.
So in my world (I do consider myself a hacker, if a poor version of one) if I create something like Craigslist I don't try to squeeze every ounce of profit out of it at the expense of customers and employees. I spend as little time as possible on that solved problem which pays my bills, and I go hack on new problems that have yet to be solved. This may be in tech, but it may simply be learning an entirely different skill entirely. Work I leave as work, and of course hack on any interesting problems that come from that area of my life as needed. If I did my job right though building it, that should be relatively rare.
> In fact, if you are trying to just make enough money to spend the rest of your free time on the beach etc, you're probably not a real hacker.
I'd probably argue against this based on my above statement. I know very few folks I would describe as hackers who are motivated to make money beyond what they need to comfortably live and fund the projects/research they are personally interested in. Stacking millions in a bank account isn't something that motivates the folks I was describing - building things and living a free life is what I think motivates that archetype.
I think it's a lot more honorable and selfless than trying to blow it up with a huge round of VC funding and turn it into the next ad-funded unicorn. Why found a company just to turn into the same exact companies you tried to get away from?
But I also completely agree that's subjective, and there really is no morality here. It's simple personal preference.
Or perhaps Craig simply understands his business better than you do.
Are the loudest users the ones providing him with the most profit? If not, then why not ignore them?
Would being involved as a true middleman leave them more open to liability when things go south? If so, why open yourself to that risk if you are already making profit?
If you really think CL is so under-utilized, why hasn't a larger company bought them out, improved the site, and raked in increased profit?
Take a look at Ebay's acquisition attempt on CL. CL wasn't interested.
Also, it's not about listening to loud users. It's about understanding whether your users (any of them) are willing to pay you to improve the site. And, the answer to that is a resounding yes.
I have seen no proof that users are willing to pay to improve craigslist. I like it just the way it is. It's like a unix tool, it does one thing and does it really well. If you wanted it prettier, you could make a browser extension to change the UI. What other changes could they make that wouldn't decrease it's value for other current users?
I'm really glad they're not making the site "better", because it works fine the way it is. Making it "better" these days would clutter it up with a ton of unnecessary graphics and scripty whooshy hover widgets that pop up over whatever it is you're actually trying to do after wasting a whole bunch of load time pulling in 10+ MB of Javascript from god knows where.
It works, and I'm really glad they're leaving it that way.
Moving a product in the direction of higher profit, and even more starkly, more revenue, is not at all the same thing as moving in the direction of higher value. This is often mistakenly conflated.
Another possibility is that CL has reached a local maxima and they can't see an easy way out of it that isn't actually reducing (globally) value to their customers. I'm somewhat playing devils advocate but it is plausible.
After all, many of the "innovations" suggested in the comments here have actually been tried by other services - ones that on average have not succeeded nearly as well as CL. Some of which were pretty terrible.
You can interpret this as due to network effect, or due to CL just providing more value, or some mix. But you have to at least accept the possibility that the other views are correct. It's easy to point at feature "A" in something like CL and say "I can make that better by just doing B". It's a lot harder to understand the effect of "B" across a large, diverse, heterogeneous user population.
Maybe CL just hasn't seen a compelling improvement yet?
One improvement they could make that seems like an unambiguous win for society would be an open API. That way they could continue to run the site however they like, but people interested in other experiences could seek them out as well. I can see why a business might prefer to keep a monopoly on their data (although there are business advantages to providing an API as well), but I can't see any argument from a purely user-focused perspective. Obviously I'm biased, but (for instance) the response to padmapper didn't seem to be about maximizing value for users.
I think there's a reasonable argument for Craigslist's aversion to offering an API and it's all down to performance and operating costs.
Craigslist manages to offer what may be the last free webservice that hasn't been forced to sell the personal information of its users and/or turn into an ad-infested mess. It manages to make a modest profit by running incredibly lean in terms of manpower and server resources. The incredibly quick and clean interface is a huge appeal for users.
The problem with building an API is that you have now exposed your efficiently minimized infrastructure to the insatiable demand of content scrapers. The resources demanded by a search on a site like Padmapper are greater than those demanded by the same search made on CL. While a smart API implementation isn't the equivalent to loading every relevant listing, some data must be pulled from every one of those listings in order to populate the Padmapper map and provide filters for its users.
My point is that an API would not only increase the demand for resources which CL must pay for, it would break their minimized monetization strategy that keeps the site cleaner and more usable than any other rival. While they could charge for access to the API, the amount they would have to charge would likely break the business model of sites like Padmapper. Padmapper was also relatively clean and ad free but require them to pay any sort of fee for access to Craigslist's data and they'd have to ruin their user experience in order to stay afloat.
Craigslist is minimal for more reasons than simplicity for the developers and users. It's minimal because that's the only way their business model works.
This seems like a bad example. There is no money at all for them to make an API and it wouldn't get more people coming to craigslist.com. At the same time it would require additional server resources. So why bother?
Are users screaming that? I like Craigs List as is. To me, it's sort of the classified equivalent of Hacker News. Minimalist, fast, gets the job done, not cluttered, not encumbered with useless junk (other than the listings. :)
> I have no doubt Craig's intentions were honorable, but in reality, his refusal to make money to fund the site's innovation is hurting society. His users are screaming "TAKE MY MONEY AND MAKE THE SITE (MY LIFE) BETTER", but he refuses to do so and everyone is worse off because of it!
Wrong. So many useful sites have been ruined because someone decided to hire a bunch of MBA's to make it better (and increase profit). It's successful, and it's wonderful. Just leave it alone.
I can't deny the possibility of laziness (from what I've heard of Craig I very much doubt it), but it is certainly not selfish.
> He refuses money which, in essence, equates to refusing to deliver value
On the contrary, I think they have literally made the perfect site for what they do. I like it ugly because it is also FAST!!! I have no UI qualms at all about it. Any change they made would make me less likely to use the site. What exactly would you like them to spend $300 million a year on "improving?"
I actually think that Craigslist will come to see tough competition from Facebook Marketplace.
Facebook has the existing user base to get a network effect, has a much better UI, notifications, and solves for the worry of meeting someone who is a complete unknown.
Will be interesting to see if Facebook chips away at the Craigslist user-base over the next few years.
I'm skeptical FB will make inroads here. One of the bedrocks of FB, positive or negative, is that it connects together people who already know each other in some way. Craigslist is the polar opposite of that.
I don't think that argument it applicable to Facebook Marketplace. It allows you to see anything for sale in your region, not by friend circles. You may be thinking of Facebook groups that are used to buy and sell items?
I think the greater risk for Craigslist is that categories that have standardize products will lose to niche markets. Maybe FB could implement a social aspect to the marketplace. For example, listing for cars for car people to comment on.
Agreed that it would be tragic. After completing a few marketplace transactions though I think the writing's on the wall that Facebook's out to unseat CL. They've even put the app center-stage on the native nav bar.
CL has the benefit (and costs) of anonymity, as well as more diverse content. Hopefully they can keep the network effect going.
Yeah, I actually would like to see a modern HN / Craigslist blend. One thing both sites do well is having a simple quick-loading site which works without JavaScript.
It outlines a model of "supernova" companies. Companies that initially earmark such a large market that they implode, creating the materials for many other companies. AirBnB for example is just a small chunk of craigslist. Twitter may be in the process of exploding, being unable to capture or tame the reaction.
> Twitter "failing" to own the revolutions it obviously took mainstream (messaging, chatbots) isn't a failure really if viewed that way
Twitter in no way made messaging mainstream. It had absolutely nothing to do with it. Twitter's peer to peer messaging system being so horrific is one of the reasons it failed (WhatsApp, Snapchat, etc. took advantage of that screw-up). ICQ, AOL, MSN messengers, MySpace and Facebook, all did drastically more to take messaging concepts mainstream (the messengers had hundreds of millions of users before Twitter even existed). Twitter was late to the party and showed up with the wrong solution.
In Japan Craigslist exists but isn't nearly as popular. A lot of companies tried to replicate the Craigslist effect but interestingly with little success
But lately you have new players like mercari and frill with tons of funding behind them and a pretty app that somehow attracted users like crazy, but they all charge a 10% fee if your stuff gets sold. If I sell my MacBook for 2000 dollars that's a significant sum.
I love Craigslist for what it is and hope they will stick around longer
I think people miss the bigger picture. CL is the classified section, only 1000x easier to use, both buying and selling.
Generally the stuff sold has a low, but non-zero, payoff / hassle ratio (e.g. furniture), but most of its charm has to do with its rough edges (flaky users, tag spam), which adds a little sense of adventure.
One of my friends whom I would characterize as a semi-pro CL user says some of his best deals came from stuff the seller hadn't listed on CL.
I was looking at apartments in Vancouver, BC recently and was happy to see a Map View for searching now. With $381 Million in revenue in 2015 and about $300 Million profit it isn't going away.
This [1] is a bit dated - maybe from 2014 - but still quite relevant to this discussion. Some new entrants have made their way in like AptDeco - and some have fallen off. Overall, there is still tons of opportunities to supplant Craigslist piece-by-piece.
Great in major metro cities where internet use and penetration are almost taken for granted. I think the Dallas CL is just as lively as the SF one for instance. However, in a city like San Antonio, which I kid about being "40 years in the past," it's barely worth even looking. Very drastic difference in the community approaches. As in, the Dallas Music Instruments section might get 4 pages a day in volume. San Antonio might do 4 pages a month.
Somehow this historical wikipedia quote about profits relationship to beauty and trendiness smells appropriate:
"The Roman historian Suetonius reports that when Vespasian's son Titus complained about the disgusting nature of the tax, his father held up a gold coin and asked whether he felt offended by its smell (sciscitans num odore offenderetur). When Titus said "No", Vespasian replied, "Yet it comes from urine" (Atqui ex lotio est)."
The main problem Craigslist still has is that it does not have an official mobile app which is actually why I started using a competitors service. It's a lot easier on a phone to endlessly scroll through items via an app then it is to go to the CL website. CL is fine when I'm sitting down in front of a computer but if I'm on the bus I want to just be able to use my thumb to quickly flip through.
I don't get why you can't search for anything across the towns. If I'm looking for something hard to find but is reasonably shippable, I might want to take the risk of a trusting the seller or work out some escrow type thing.
It is likely a technology issue that Craigslist may not desire to fix. It is possible that each city is a different database instance. That is a simple way to scale, but has issues like you are seeing.
I actually live between three of the cities listed in my area, they're all about 20 miles from my house and part of the same metropolitan statistical area. Being able to search LA and SF at the same time might be silly, but being able to search two or three very close cities is not IMO.
Slightly tangential, but you can find a similar UI in the Ellucian's Banner system used in some schools for course registration, payment, schedules, etc. I think its simplicity is brilliant, but most users find it ugly and old school.
Back in the day, search engine home pages had a vast list of categories... Google just had only a text field to input what you wanted to search for. Google search won.
Let's be honest, Craigslist is a horrible product and the only reason it's so popular, is because of network effects. Never underestimate the power of incumbency, and getting in on the ground floor of a rocket. The same thing can also be said for half the monopoly-companies out there, and half the politicians currently in office.
