For me, they're: (1) the owner of Flickr, an acquisition they've tried to futz around with, but haven't actually managed to damage too much yet. (True, the sit

For me, they're: (1) the owner of Flickr, an acquisition they've tried to futz around with, but haven't actually managed to damage too much yet. (True, the site design's become much more heavyweight, but that's a general web design issue) Interestingly, whilst they tried to go ad-only, removing "Pro" accounts, they later reinstated them - but with an oddly tone-deaf press release that trumpeted that account level's availability again, and that rates wouldn't go up for two years. Fair enough, except Pro had been $25/yr, and they quietly noted they'd be $50/yr in the future. Is ad-only revenue that strong to consider dispelling paid accounts? (2) The original curated web index. Fiendishly difficult to scale, absolutely, but while it lasted, it was remarkably useful. Could such still work? It'd be a tremendous challenge, but, Wikipedia might suggest so - it's not as if Wikipedia is free of dead/changed links, but the footnote links do indeed tend to be useful. Yet, as I recall, their finances are/were quite robust - we may well simply not be Yahoo's audience.