He outlines the charges as follows:
1. It counts sources not links.
2. It is not updated often.
3. People drop off the list for no reason.
4. It’s based on the number of links for all time.
5. Why 100?
Calcanis doesn't supply detail for all of these, but the stickier ones get the full treatment and I suspect the others are deemed too obvious for elaboration.
What he has done is clearly identify a number of unsolved issues in the blog rating world. The company who is doing the best job in the market is not doing the job to the satisfaction of the blogging community it hopes to support.
David Sifry of Technorati jumped into the fray first and says he will review the feedback. The blogging community awaits, perhaps with pitchforks and torches. (At any given moment in time, the blogosphere is only about five posts away from becoming an angry mob.) In the meantime, Jason Calcanis is offering $50,000 for someone to come up with an alternative.
At Get Real, Stowe Boyd seems to be conducting a thought experiment of what a meta-ranking engine might provide.
Read this: Jason Calcanis - The Blog 500 Challenge
