3 ms·

John Siracusa's departure was after Ars already had gone downhill significantly. Also he was not an editor or regular contributor outside of his OS X reviews, s

by ebbv 10y ago

John Siracusa's departure was after Ars already had gone downhill significantly. Also he was not an editor or regular contributor outside of his OS X reviews, so his departure doesn't have much effect on the day to day. It's more of a symptom rather than a cause. The cause is the change in editorial standards for the site which has been decreasing for years, and so every year is at a new all time low. Not to mention the really invasive ads and even sponsored content.

acdha 10y ago
People have been complaining about the editorial standards continuously since at least 2000, but that doesn't magically lend more weight than any other subjective assessment unsupported by evidence. As for advertising, how do you expect them to hire writers and editors or run a high-traffic website without advertising? They've offered paid subscriptions for years and subscribers don't see ads at all but not enough people have taken them up on it.
- ebbv 10y ago
  Give me a break, I am not complaining about advertising period. Ars has always had advertising and it used to be fine. But over time the ads have gotten more and more intrusive. There's more and more auto play ads with sound, and ads that take over part of the screen, etc. The lack of subscriptions are probably a symptom of the editorial quality going down. You can say there's no evidence of it, but when lots of people complain about it that is evidence of it. I was a long time Ars reader and the b.s. finally got too thick that I have stopped going to the site regularly in the last year. It used to be a site for intelligent, balanced articles about tech. Now it's got shills like DrPizza who basically just reprint whatever Microsoft's PR department emails him.
symfoniq 10y ago
I would trace the beginning of the decline of Ars Technica back to when Jon Stokes sold it to Conde Nast. But Siracusa's departure was another nail in the coffin.

by ebbv 10y ago

acdha 10y ago

People have been complaining about the editorial standards continuously since at least 2000, but that doesn't magically lend more weight than any other subjective assessment unsupported by evidence. As for advertising, how do you expect them to hire writers and editors or run a high-traffic website without advertising? They've offered paid subscriptions for years and subscribers don't see ads at all but not enough people have taken them up on it.

ebbv 10y ago
Give me a break, I am not complaining about advertising period. Ars has always had advertising and it used to be fine. But over time the ads have gotten more and more intrusive. There's more and more auto play ads with sound, and ads that take over part of the screen, etc. The lack of subscriptions are probably a symptom of the editorial quality going down. You can say there's no evidence of it, but when lots of people complain about it that is evidence of it. I was a long time Ars reader and the b.s. finally got too thick that I have stopped going to the site regularly in the last year. It used to be a site for intelligent, balanced articles about tech. Now it's got shills like DrPizza who basically just reprint whatever Microsoft's PR department emails him.

symfoniq 10y ago

I would trace the beginning of the decline of Ars Technica back to when Jon Stokes sold it to Conde Nast. But Siracusa's departure was another nail in the coffin.