2 ms·

(wow are there a ton of distracting ads on that article ...) Is this an example of conflict of interest? Or just of less-than-substantial "personal finance" co

(wow are there a ton of distracting ads on that article ...) Is this an example of conflict of interest? Or just of less-than-substantial "personal finance" content? The Contributor's bio has her bona fides and point of view. http://www.forbes.com/sites/vanessamcgrady/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/vanessamcgrady/ She's not Charlie Munger, but he didn't start out as Charlie Munger, either. The article is timely and relevant. "Powerball" in the article title is going to get play -- there's a multi-state, $900MM jackpot at stake tonight. Many Contributors are paid for the traffic they drive. Most Contributors like it when their stories are widely-read. Managing those incentives, the quality of content created, the creators themselves, and their reputations is an ongoing process for the Contributors, editors, and publishers involved. No doubt you could find more-glaring examples of less-than-substantial stories. One of my points is I'm glad this Contributor has a platform to create and publish her stories and build her community and career.

maxerickson 11y ago
Right, it's junk click bait designed to serve a pile of ads. I think it's awful that people are building a career by pretending that you can do better at the lotto (that's why I called it mysticism, you can't do better at the lotto). Someone who bills themselves as helping people be savvy consumers should be pointing out that the statistics for Powerball are basically insurmountable, not having fun pretending that there are ways to beat them. That doesn't mean I didn't buy a couple tickets for fun, but I also didn't spend a lot of time figuring out what numbers will work best to beat their random number generator.
- smcnally 11y ago
  Got it. Your point was about randos, general editorial quality and caliber, and being taken seriously. Specific decisions were made a few years ago about adding a distributed editorial workforce -- a Contributor network -- to the full-time editorial staffers. This was not a universally-beloved decision at the time. It has been a very successful one for Forbes. My take on the basic thesis is there are more credible, authoritative people with stories to tell than could reasonably be hired as full-time staffers. Adding those voices under Forbes' brand helps scale content creation, community, and revenues. It also provides the ability to identify and nurture talented creators. Despite Forbes' Contributor network being relatively high-touch, bringing on 1000+ new writers is going to be dilutive by definition. Historical editorial models and workflows are about command and control; scaling a contributor network is about ceding some of that. More of my take on what this success has done to Forbes' "serious business identity" is here https://medium.com/@sjkmcnally/reach-and-revenue-vs-dilution-24307615893d#.40y1etxya https://medium.com/@sjkmcnally/reach-and-revenue-vs-dilution... The ability to identify and manage the Contributors and their contributions is built into the platform and processes around it. No one should get or stay in the ecosystem who shouldn't be there. Specifically re this Powerball piece, I mostly agree. I know some people will enjoy it even if others do not. I would not expect people to borrow against their 401k for lotto tickets because of it. I don't know if or what changes should be made to it. Luckily, that's someone else's issue to handle. There are a bunch of statistically-interesting things to consider about the jackpot, though not really about improving your odds of winning it. "(You are vastly more likely to get struck by lightning twice in your lifetime.)" -- http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/powerball-jackpot-800-million-odds/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/powerball-jackpot-800-mi...

maxerickson 11y ago

Right, it's junk click bait designed to serve a pile of ads. I think it's awful that people are building a career by pretending that you can do better at the lotto (that's why I called it mysticism, you can't do better at the lotto). Someone who bills themselves as helping people be savvy consumers should be pointing out that the statistics for Powerball are basically insurmountable, not having fun pretending that there are ways to beat them. That doesn't mean I didn't buy a couple tickets for fun, but I also didn't spend a lot of time figuring out what numbers will work best to beat their random number generator.

smcnally 11y ago
Got it. Your point was about randos, general editorial quality and caliber, and being taken seriously. Specific decisions were made a few years ago about adding a distributed editorial workforce -- a Contributor network -- to the full-time editorial staffers. This was not a universally-beloved decision at the time. It has been a very successful one for Forbes. My take on the basic thesis is there are more credible, authoritative people with stories to tell than could reasonably be hired as full-time staffers. Adding those voices under Forbes' brand helps scale content creation, community, and revenues. It also provides the ability to identify and nurture talented creators. Despite Forbes' Contributor network being relatively high-touch, bringing on 1000+ new writers is going to be dilutive by definition. Historical editorial models and workflows are about command and control; scaling a contributor network is about ceding some of that. More of my take on what this success has done to Forbes' "serious business identity" is here https://medium.com/@sjkmcnally/reach-and-revenue-vs-dilution-24307615893d#.40y1etxya https://medium.com/@sjkmcnally/reach-and-revenue-vs-dilution... The ability to identify and manage the Contributors and their contributions is built into the platform and processes around it. No one should get or stay in the ecosystem who shouldn't be there. Specifically re this Powerball piece, I mostly agree. I know some people will enjoy it even if others do not. I would not expect people to borrow against their 401k for lotto tickets because of it. I don't know if or what changes should be made to it. Luckily, that's someone else's issue to handle. There are a bunch of statistically-interesting things to consider about the jackpot, though not really about improving your odds of winning it. "(You are vastly more likely to get struck by lightning twice in your lifetime.)" -- http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/powerball-jackpot-800-million-odds/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/powerball-jackpot-800-mi...