4 ms·

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

by 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.
- xiaoma 11y ago
  > The finance sites are all drop in replacements and better than yahoo finance. I completely disagree with that. I tried for over a year to switch from Yahoo to Google for finance and found it completely lacking, despite the nicer UI. The only site that can match Yahoo finance in my opinion is the Motley Fool. I still use both.
karma928 11y ago
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how people actually use the web today. "Portal" is an amazing video game and a 1990's buzzword. Why would anyone rely on a single "portal" for content? A "portal" like Yahoo(!) was relevant when connections were slow and the potential of the internet was still nascent. That was 20 years ago. These days, just open a new tab with a new site. Open 10 new tabs with 10 different sites. It's not that complicated.
- niccaluim 11y ago
  Yahoo is the fifth most popular website in the world. People actually use it.
- jamespo 11y ago
  facebook is a portal. People spend a lot of time on facebook you may have noticed
cli 11y ago
>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! What? No. He/she meant that any of those sites can replace Yahoo by themselves, not that all of them are required.

by akg_67 11y ago

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.
xiaoma 11y ago
> The finance sites are all drop in replacements and better than yahoo finance. I completely disagree with that. I tried for over a year to switch from Yahoo to Google for finance and found it completely lacking, despite the nicer UI. The only site that can match Yahoo finance in my opinion is the Motley Fool. I still use both.

karma928 11y ago

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how people actually use the web today. "Portal" is an amazing video game and a 1990's buzzword. Why would anyone rely on a single "portal" for content? A "portal" like Yahoo(!) was relevant when connections were slow and the potential of the internet was still nascent. That was 20 years ago. These days, just open a new tab with a new site. Open 10 new tabs with 10 different sites. It's not that complicated.

niccaluim 11y ago
Yahoo is the fifth most popular website in the world. People actually use it.
jamespo 11y ago
facebook is a portal. People spend a lot of time on facebook you may have noticed

cli 11y ago

>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! What? No. He/she meant that any of those sites can replace Yahoo by themselves, not that all of them are required.