5 ms·

I now completely ignore any forbes.com link. The pain to get to the articles outweighed the extremely modest value of the articles. One wonders (he said) wheth

I now completely ignore any forbes.com link. The pain to get to the articles outweighed the extremely modest value of the articles. One wonders (he said) whether Forbes might want to pursue success by publishing irresistable articles -- not by seeking new ways to attach ticks to passers-by.

gcb0 10y ago
did the same with nytimes years ago. HN wasn't even a thing. but every slashdot article pointing to it, I ignored and looked over the comments if anybody pasted the behind login/paywall text.
- gaius 10y ago
  I happily pay a sub to the NYT because their content is worth it to me. Forbes these days, you would need to pay me to read...
- bogomipz 10y ago
  And yet neither of these(Forbes, NYTimes) sites have a problem using someone else's free news site(HN et al.) to drive traffic to their sites.
  - WalterSear 10y ago
    Or polluting search engine results for free advertisitng of their paywalled pages.
Silhouette 10y ago
The thing is, if you also block ads and aren't going to pay them money (or give them something else of value, as discussed here), Forbes are probably happy that you don't go to their site. A visitor that generates no revenue is just a drain on resources.
- nihonde 10y ago
  Maybe...just maybe...ads aren't a good business model for journalism any more.
  - a_imho 10y ago
    Seeing an accurate valuation of your product is a bitter pill to swallow if you are accustomed to an inflated market. I don't think it is a business model problem and changing your monetization strategy won't help you much unless you can convince your customers about the (perceived) quality of your content. I don't think adblock shaming is very effective here. There are many many sites without adverts doing just fine, even receiving donations and volunteer work.
  - mtkd 10y ago
    The combination of populist/sensationalist/clickbait articles with subtle marketing seems to have some merit - see the Daily Mail with their "buy a dress like this for less" panels on the celeb articles - but that forces the content into a certain direction and is not sustainable without massive traffic volumes
    - nihonde 10y ago
      One thing I have learned in this life: the more you cater to the lowest common denominator in society, the more everyone plays by their rules. I understand the "Buzzfeed" concept of using populist, knuckle-dragging content to sell ads in order to fund content for people who prefer to use their brains, but I think it's an epic example of the snake eating its own tail, and a wildly pessimistic, fatalistic vision of the future.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    I would be happy if 90% of the "journalism" died out, and the rest remained as quality investigative content behind paywalls (which I would gladly pay for and already do for 2 sites) and government subsidized strictly informational reporting (sort of like we already have from NOAA, Orange alerts, emergencies, closures, etc.)
3327 10y ago
I agree - sadly forbes.com has become a click bait blog.
hellbanner 10y ago
Any news sites you pay for?

gcb0 10y ago

did the same with nytimes years ago. HN wasn't even a thing. but every slashdot article pointing to it, I ignored and looked over the comments if anybody pasted the behind login/paywall text.

gaius 10y ago
I happily pay a sub to the NYT because their content is worth it to me. Forbes these days, you would need to pay me to read...
bogomipz 10y ago
And yet neither of these(Forbes, NYTimes) sites have a problem using someone else's free news site(HN et al.) to drive traffic to their sites.
- WalterSear 10y ago
  Or polluting search engine results for free advertisitng of their paywalled pages.

Silhouette 10y ago

The thing is, if you also block ads and aren't going to pay them money (or give them something else of value, as discussed here), Forbes are probably happy that you don't go to their site. A visitor that generates no revenue is just a drain on resources.

nihonde 10y ago
Maybe...just maybe...ads aren't a good business model for journalism any more.
- a_imho 10y ago
  Seeing an accurate valuation of your product is a bitter pill to swallow if you are accustomed to an inflated market. I don't think it is a business model problem and changing your monetization strategy won't help you much unless you can convince your customers about the (perceived) quality of your content. I don't think adblock shaming is very effective here. There are many many sites without adverts doing just fine, even receiving donations and volunteer work.
- mtkd 10y ago
  The combination of populist/sensationalist/clickbait articles with subtle marketing seems to have some merit - see the Daily Mail with their "buy a dress like this for less" panels on the celeb articles - but that forces the content into a certain direction and is not sustainable without massive traffic volumes
  - nihonde 10y ago
    One thing I have learned in this life: the more you cater to the lowest common denominator in society, the more everyone plays by their rules. I understand the "Buzzfeed" concept of using populist, knuckle-dragging content to sell ads in order to fund content for people who prefer to use their brains, but I think it's an epic example of the snake eating its own tail, and a wildly pessimistic, fatalistic vision of the future.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  I would be happy if 90% of the "journalism" died out, and the rest remained as quality investigative content behind paywalls (which I would gladly pay for and already do for 2 sites) and government subsidized strictly informational reporting (sort of like we already have from NOAA, Orange alerts, emergencies, closures, etc.)

3327 10y ago

I agree - sadly forbes.com has become a click bait blog.

hellbanner 10y ago

Any news sites you pay for?