15 ms·

> If the company didn't exist, would there be a need to create it? Should I guess that you were not adult yet when Yahoo! started? When Yahoo! was founded, th

by akg_67 11y ago

> If the company didn't exist, would there be a need to create it? Should I guess that you were not adult yet when Yahoo! started? When Yahoo! was founded, there was a need for WWW site directory, and Yahoo! filled that vacuum. It was the go to place for finding the sites in your area of interest. Some of the sections of Yahoo! for example: Finance and Sports are still go to places for me and I am sure countless others. I haven't come across any other sites that even come close to those two sections on Yahoo!. Even today, there is no single directory site with curated list of relevant sites, news and information from such sites. So, I will say there is still a need for a Yahoo! like portal with curated information. What Google spits out in search and associated sites is SEO crap. Google has inability to differentiate among 14,777 news articles on a topic and which one is the most relevant and comprehensive. IMO, Yahoo! need to go back to their roots which was portal of curated information. If they wait too long and the direction FB is heading, they will fill the void left by Yahoo!.

copperx 11y ago
15 years after using Yahoo! For the first time I realize that it is still a directory...
pbreit 11y ago
Neither are very good and I think there would be a rush to fill the gap with superior offerings.
vonklaus 11y ago
> I haven't come across any other sites that even come close to [sports and finance] on Yahoo! You haven't been able to find any other sites focusing on finance or sports on the internet? To be clear, yahoo does a decent job curating finance and sports sections, but it is extremely trivial to find sites similar to Yahoo. Here are a few, I found: Finance: ======== Marketwatch[0], is very similar to yahoo finance. Owned by WSJ and Dow Jones. Google Finance[1] is like Yahoo! finance, only done by google. MSN Money[2] almost the exact same thing as Yahoo. Then you have your more niche honorable mentions like motley fool, seekingalpha, zerohedge, etc. SPORTS: ======= Without repeating Google and Microsoft offerings, there is of course: ESPN which is the second largest sports news provider, also they have a tv network about sports. They sports fairly hard.[3] Bleecher Report is not to be out sportsed, sort of a hipster pitchfork media type sports player.[4] CBS Sports[5] NBC SPorts[6] This, and the preceding offering are large entrenched media rent collectors, which is similar to yahoo, except that they are profitable. So, in finality, I find that statement absurd, but I am glad you enjoy yahoo. I am rooting for it as it is an under dog for sure. [0]http://www.marketwatch.com http://www.marketwatch.com [1]http://www.google.com/finance http://www.google.com/finance [2]http://www.msn.com/en-us/money http://www.msn.com/en-us/money [3]http://espn.go.com http://espn.go.com [4]BleacherReport.com [5]CBSSports.com [6]http://www.nbcsports.com http://www.nbcsports.com
- akg_67 11y ago
  I was pretty sure someone will make a comment like yours. You didn't disappoint. You want to me to go to 3 different sites for Finance when I can get everything at Yahoo! You want me to go to 4 different sites for Sports when I can get everything at Yahoo! Can you get Bleacher Report articles on ESPN? I will suggest comparing Yahoo! Finance and Sports with the sites you mentioned. You might be surprised that most sites you mentioned feed to Yahoo! and not vice-versa. I can go to all the sites you mentioned or just go to Yahoo! Each mentioned site is missing something that is available on Yahoo! Either you browse through all the articles on Bleacher Report or you can see the most relevant ones on Yahoo! That is the difference. Remember the keywords Portal, curated information, relevant information, comprehensive. None of the sites you mentioned are at a level of Yahoo!
  - vonklaus 11y ago
    I meant each site is as good as yahoo! not that you would have to go to each one, but I don't really care about sports. The finance sites are all drop in replacements and better than yahoo finance. As for sports, if you want the same information but the caveat you seem hung up on is that it must come from different domains, just go to a reddit like aggregator. I get it, you like yahoo. Yahoo does a good job, and I also like yahoo. My point is it is patently rediculous to claim there is no other space on the internet that is close enough to Yahoo sports or finance. Companies don't survive being ~10% better than the competition, and the stuff you are talking about sounds like it is moire about habit than anything tangible.
    - kristianc 11y ago
      It's also going to get more difficult for Yahoo to differentiate itself as a curator/creator as it gets more difficult to survive on the Internet producing differentiated content. Within sports, Grantland tried producing content that was different, and died. GigaOM tried focusing on enterprise tech, and died. FiveThirtyEight served policy wonks, and is struggling to attract a meaningful audience. The verdict is out on Vox, but they also may go within 18 months. Yahoo has tried to solve this problem by hiring 'star names' but it doesn't seem to have moved the needle. People are happy to take the commodity churn article from Bleacher Report. Oh, and to top all that off, it's unclear that there's really any serious money to be made from online content / eyeballs anyway. Which is to say that even if they could execute on the 'trusted source of content' business model, it may not be enough to save them anyway.
Animats 11y ago
"When Yahoo! was founded, there was a need for WWW site directory, and Yahoo! filled that vacuum. ... IMO, Yahoo! need to go back to their roots which was portal of curated information." Yahoo's Directory was shut down December 27, 2014. What's left of Yahoo does some photo storage, some email, some video streaming, some finance and sports reporting, and some ad serving. They also resell Bing search. All those things are done better by others.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Beat me to it again. ;) Directory was my favorite part of Yahoo. People giving me the links I need in an organized fashion. It was one of the early forms of online serendipity: look for one thing you need or want only to find a bunch of other pieces of info with benefit. Many forms of it now but I still think Directory could be revived. Maybe exceed the old one with curators for high profile topics plus crowd input. Some hybrid model.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  > All those things are done better by others. It's highly debatable whether anyone does flickr "better". 500px, for example, have descended to suddenly announcing that they'll give away licenses for the photos you pay them to host and reward you with "exposure".
  - porsupah 11y ago
    Could you expand on that? I'd be quite concerned to find my photos being licensed for commercial use without my consent.
    - rodgerd 11y ago
      The "Distribution Network" document, which was updated a month or so ago (https://licensing.500px.com/distribution/ https://licensing.500px.com/distribution/) under the "Content publishing partners". Sony, Google/chromcast, and Samsung all have the right to use your material uncompensated. There is an opt-out box buried away in your preferences, but (in a shitty move) you also have to opt out of selling your images through partners at the same time - you can't disable only uncompensated use.
phamilton 11y ago
Product aside, "When Yahoo! was founded", there was a need for high traffic web properties that could scale past a few hundred users. I think we forget about how 10k simultaneous connections was a big freaking deal back then. Yahoo! wasn't just a useful site, it was one of the only usable sites under heavy load.
JabavuAdams 11y ago
I've not found a good replacement for Yahoo Finance's free daily historical data.

by akg_67 11y ago

copperx 11y ago

15 years after using Yahoo! For the first time I realize that it is still a directory...

pbreit 11y ago

Neither are very good and I think there would be a rush to fill the gap with superior offerings.

vonklaus 11y ago

> I haven't come across any other sites that even come close to [sports and finance] on Yahoo! You haven't been able to find any other sites focusing on finance or sports on the internet? To be clear, yahoo does a decent job curating finance and sports sections, but it is extremely trivial to find sites similar to Yahoo. Here are a few, I found: Finance: ======== Marketwatch[0], is very similar to yahoo finance. Owned by WSJ and Dow Jones. Google Finance[1] is like Yahoo! finance, only done by google. MSN Money[2] almost the exact same thing as Yahoo. Then you have your more niche honorable mentions like motley fool, seekingalpha, zerohedge, etc. SPORTS: ======= Without repeating Google and Microsoft offerings, there is of course: ESPN which is the second largest sports news provider, also they have a tv network about sports. They sports fairly hard.[3] Bleecher Report is not to be out sportsed, sort of a hipster pitchfork media type sports player.[4] CBS Sports[5] NBC SPorts[6] This, and the preceding offering are large entrenched media rent collectors, which is similar to yahoo, except that they are profitable. So, in finality, I find that statement absurd, but I am glad you enjoy yahoo. I am rooting for it as it is an under dog for sure. [0]http://www.marketwatch.com http://www.marketwatch.com [1]http://www.google.com/finance http://www.google.com/finance [2]http://www.msn.com/en-us/money http://www.msn.com/en-us/money [3]http://espn.go.com http://espn.go.com [4]BleacherReport.com [5]CBSSports.com [6]http://www.nbcsports.com http://www.nbcsports.com

akg_67 11y ago
I was pretty sure someone will make a comment like yours. You didn't disappoint. You want to me to go to 3 different sites for Finance when I can get everything at Yahoo! You want me to go to 4 different sites for Sports when I can get everything at Yahoo! Can you get Bleacher Report articles on ESPN? I will suggest comparing Yahoo! Finance and Sports with the sites you mentioned. You might be surprised that most sites you mentioned feed to Yahoo! and not vice-versa. I can go to all the sites you mentioned or just go to Yahoo! Each mentioned site is missing something that is available on Yahoo! Either you browse through all the articles on Bleacher Report or you can see the most relevant ones on Yahoo! That is the difference. Remember the keywords Portal, curated information, relevant information, comprehensive. None of the sites you mentioned are at a level of Yahoo!
- vonklaus 11y ago
  I meant each site is as good as yahoo! not that you would have to go to each one, but I don't really care about sports. The finance sites are all drop in replacements and better than yahoo finance. As for sports, if you want the same information but the caveat you seem hung up on is that it must come from different domains, just go to a reddit like aggregator. I get it, you like yahoo. Yahoo does a good job, and I also like yahoo. My point is it is patently rediculous to claim there is no other space on the internet that is close enough to Yahoo sports or finance. Companies don't survive being ~10% better than the competition, and the stuff you are talking about sounds like it is moire about habit than anything tangible.
  - kristianc 11y ago
    It's also going to get more difficult for Yahoo to differentiate itself as a curator/creator as it gets more difficult to survive on the Internet producing differentiated content. Within sports, Grantland tried producing content that was different, and died. GigaOM tried focusing on enterprise tech, and died. FiveThirtyEight served policy wonks, and is struggling to attract a meaningful audience. The verdict is out on Vox, but they also may go within 18 months. Yahoo has tried to solve this problem by hiring 'star names' but it doesn't seem to have moved the needle. People are happy to take the commodity churn article from Bleacher Report. Oh, and to top all that off, it's unclear that there's really any serious money to be made from online content / eyeballs anyway. Which is to say that even if they could execute on the 'trusted source of content' business model, it may not be enough to save them anyway.

Animats 11y ago

"When Yahoo! was founded, there was a need for WWW site directory, and Yahoo! filled that vacuum. ... IMO, Yahoo! need to go back to their roots which was portal of curated information." Yahoo's Directory was shut down December 27, 2014. What's left of Yahoo does some photo storage, some email, some video streaming, some finance and sports reporting, and some ad serving. They also resell Bing search. All those things are done better by others.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Beat me to it again. ;) Directory was my favorite part of Yahoo. People giving me the links I need in an organized fashion. It was one of the early forms of online serendipity: look for one thing you need or want only to find a bunch of other pieces of info with benefit. Many forms of it now but I still think Directory could be revived. Maybe exceed the old one with curators for high profile topics plus crowd input. Some hybrid model.
rodgerd 11y ago
> All those things are done better by others. It's highly debatable whether anyone does flickr "better". 500px, for example, have descended to suddenly announcing that they'll give away licenses for the photos you pay them to host and reward you with "exposure".
- porsupah 11y ago
  Could you expand on that? I'd be quite concerned to find my photos being licensed for commercial use without my consent.
  - rodgerd 11y ago
    The "Distribution Network" document, which was updated a month or so ago (https://licensing.500px.com/distribution/ https://licensing.500px.com/distribution/) under the "Content publishing partners". Sony, Google/chromcast, and Samsung all have the right to use your material uncompensated. There is an opt-out box buried away in your preferences, but (in a shitty move) you also have to opt out of selling your images through partners at the same time - you can't disable only uncompensated use.

phamilton 11y ago

Product aside, "When Yahoo! was founded", there was a need for high traffic web properties that could scale past a few hundred users. I think we forget about how 10k simultaneous connections was a big freaking deal back then. Yahoo! wasn't just a useful site, it was one of the only usable sites under heavy load.

JabavuAdams 11y ago

I've not found a good replacement for Yahoo Finance's free daily historical data.