4 ms·

I agree nothing of value was added, but it's a big stretch to call Doctorow's website "blogspam." That connotation has a whole 'nother set of attributes that go

• imron 9y ago
  Likewise, it's a big stretch to call boingboing "Doctorow's website".
  • dsr_ 9y ago
    I noted at the end of 2014 that Boing-Boing had stopped having much value. Brief summary: unsigned advertorials in the voice of the BB staff; page view splitting to max ad revenue -- often with no more than 1-2 sentences on the last page; pushing podcasts without text equivalents; repeat entries (at the time they didn't have any decent queue management, don't know if that's changed) and finally: I've got a perfectly good RSS reader, and that entirely replaces BB with a bunch of much higher quality sources of signal. I think I've looked at BB articles three times in the intervening years.
    • imron 9y ago
      > Boing-Boing had stopped having much value. Yep, I used to check it daily, but now I haven't actively checked it in years.
    • Bartweiss 9y ago
      As of the big Wells Fargo scam, I filed BB under "actively destroying value". The brief summary they gave for the arbitration issue abandoned the real story (WF tries to force arbitration based on existing contracts) for a completely false clickbait story (WF tries to force arbitration using the forged contracts). At this point it's really no better than HuffPo's "repackage and publish" pieces.
• Veratyr 9y ago
  He only said the article was blogspam, not the website. An otherwise reputable website can still have blogspam articles.