There are a lot of flaws in this analysis... 1. Yes Techcrunch's traffic is down according to Compete but so is the traffic from other sites that cover the sa

There are a lot of flaws in this analysis... 1. Yes Techcrunch's traffic is down according to Compete but so is the traffic from other sites that cover the same space. In the last 6 months Venturebeat for example is down 73%. ReadWriteWeb is down 38%. Even smaller sites are down. CenterNetworks covers relatively the same space and they're down 38%. By comparison Techcrunch is only down 29%. 2. The author states Michael Arrington making increasingly inflammatory posts as a reason why techcrunch will fail. But in my experience such posts tend to draw traffic. More to the point Arrington has been at this for a while, he uses analytics and he's not stupid. If the inflammatory posts weren't getting results he wouldn't continue to post them. 3. The author uses Wavii as an example of how TechCrunch is no longer a "kingmaker" because they've pushed that startup and it hasn't gotten major funding. But said product hasn't even launched yet so it's really too early to receive more funding (they already got $2m in seed funding and that was only 9 months ago). So the example doesn't really hold. 4. I actually kind of agree with this point in that I don't really enjoy Paul Carr, Sarah Lacy or Steve Gillmor. But again the site has analytics so I assume they'd be gone if everyone agreed with me. So clearly they're drawing a crowd regardless of how I feel. The author needs to realize the same is true of his opinion. 5. The last point boils down to "the author doesn't like Arrington so he'll fail". Well...a lot of people haven't liked Michael Arrington in the past and he's succeeded in spite of it. I'm not saying Techcrunch doesn't have its problems but they're far from "over"