5 ms·

I didn't know buzzfeed put out articles of substance.

hammock 11y ago
http://www.buzzfeed.com/news http://www.buzzfeed.com/news
joelrunyon 11y ago
Surprisingly, they do. It's a very weird mix of horrible surface-level junk and in-depth, interesting articles. Gotta be a weird business/cultural mix.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  I wonder if there's any overlap in the writers. Is there a room full of people generating serious content, surrounded by content farmers? Or are they obligated to generate five listicles for every paragraph of investigative journalism?
  - DasIch 11y ago
    You can see the articles each author wrote so you can actually get a good picture on that. It looks like there are some people that only do content farming and others that do a mix of both.
    - qq66 11y ago
      There's gotta be a better word for "content farming" that doesn't make it sound like the productive labor of turning sunlight and water into food.
DasIch 11y ago
They have a quite a few articles of substance. However as many publishers are finding out and as buzzfeed also has realized such articles don't make any money. That's why in addition to their actual journalism they have clickbait that makes them money.
dang 11y ago
Quite a few have hit HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=buzzfeed.com%20points%3E10&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=buzzfeed.com%20points%3E10&sor.... Many if not most of the major websites have this dual identity where they put reams of fluff, then the occasional substantive piece.
- colmvp 11y ago
  The reams of fluff bring in the dollars and views, whereby they can afford to pay people to write substantive pieces. Furthermore, sometimes the biggest 'cost' is not the piece itself but making sure you have a legal team to defend against potential SLAPP suits.
  - dang 11y ago
    The way you put it almost makes it sound not dysfunctional, i.e. high-quantity dross subsidizes higher-quality material. It still seems like there's a need for a different funding model. But it's interesting that one still hasn't emerged, given that the erosion of the old one has gone as far as it has.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  > Many if not most of the major websites have this dual identity where they put reams of fluff, then the occasional substantive piece. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law More seriously, anything that produces a lot of work is going to produce a smaller amount of excellent work. Anecdotally, one of the primary indicators of webcomic quality (overall!) is how often it updates.
duskwuff 11y ago
Believe it or not, Buzzfeed has pivoted from a clickbait site to a real news organization. I've noticed NPR acknowledging Buzzfeed's reporters on a pretty frequent basis lately. (And for serious international news stories, too, not just fluff.)
viraptor 11y ago
Buzzfeed news is actually pretty reasonable lately. It's buzzfeed-the-portal that's producing crap. It's so separated that I don't even see buzzfeed-the-portal crap links on buzzfeed news sites.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/news http://www.buzzfeed.com/news

Surprisingly, they do. It's a very weird mix of horrible surface-level junk and in-depth, interesting articles. Gotta be a weird business/cultural mix.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
I wonder if there's any overlap in the writers. Is there a room full of people generating serious content, surrounded by content farmers? Or are they obligated to generate five listicles for every paragraph of investigative journalism?
- DasIch 11y ago
  You can see the articles each author wrote so you can actually get a good picture on that. It looks like there are some people that only do content farming and others that do a mix of both.
  - qq66 11y ago
    There's gotta be a better word for "content farming" that doesn't make it sound like the productive labor of turning sunlight and water into food.

DasIch 11y ago

They have a quite a few articles of substance. However as many publishers are finding out and as buzzfeed also has realized such articles don't make any money. That's why in addition to their actual journalism they have clickbait that makes them money.

dang 11y ago

Quite a few have hit HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=buzzfeed.com%20points%3E10&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=buzzfeed.com%20points%3E10&sor.... Many if not most of the major websites have this dual identity where they put reams of fluff, then the occasional substantive piece.

colmvp 11y ago
The reams of fluff bring in the dollars and views, whereby they can afford to pay people to write substantive pieces. Furthermore, sometimes the biggest 'cost' is not the piece itself but making sure you have a legal team to defend against potential SLAPP suits.
- dang 11y ago
  The way you put it almost makes it sound not dysfunctional, i.e. high-quantity dross subsidizes higher-quality material. It still seems like there's a need for a different funding model. But it's interesting that one still hasn't emerged, given that the erosion of the old one has gone as far as it has.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> Many if not most of the major websites have this dual identity where they put reams of fluff, then the occasional substantive piece. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law More seriously, anything that produces a lot of work is going to produce a smaller amount of excellent work. Anecdotally, one of the primary indicators of webcomic quality (overall!) is how often it updates.

duskwuff 11y ago

Believe it or not, Buzzfeed has pivoted from a clickbait site to a real news organization. I've noticed NPR acknowledging Buzzfeed's reporters on a pretty frequent basis lately. (And for serious international news stories, too, not just fluff.)

viraptor 11y ago

Buzzfeed news is actually pretty reasonable lately. It's buzzfeed-the-portal that's producing crap. It's so separated that I don't even see buzzfeed-the-portal crap links on buzzfeed news sites.