4 ms·
> NYT needs to know how long you spent, on which articles, etc. They need data to produce the product and you can only achieve that with javascript tracking pix
by jaredklewis 8y ago
> NYT needs to know how long you spent, on which articles, etc. They need data to produce the product and you can only achieve that with javascript tracking pixels (Server logs aren't good enough).
Nonsense. I subscribe to the NYT so that I can read the news. Nothing about that necessitates tracking which users read which articles.
If the NYT uses page view data for anything other than statistics for their advertising partners, it's a shame. I don't want the NYT to tailor write their articles to maximize page views, time spent, or any other vanity statistic; if I felt like reading rage bait fed to me by an algorithm personally customized for all my rage buttons, there is plenty of that elsewhere.
NYT's differentiating factor is that they are one of the few businesses left that pays people to conduct actual journalism. If they give up on that, then I imagine their customers will just go to buzzfeed or wherever.
- lazyasciiart 8y agoSo, how does the NYT style section fit into your idea of 'actual journalism'?
- jaredklewis 8y agoIt doesn't. Not every word printed in the NYT is journalism, but it doesn't change the fact that they are one of the few websites that have any journalism at all. If the NYT cut their paper down to just the style section, horoscopes, and other garbage, they would be just another Buzzfeed and are probably not equipped to compete. On the other hand, Info Wars, Mother Jones and friends offer publications with basically no journalism at all. That's the space the NYT, WSJ, Miami Herland, Chicago Tribune, and so on fill. They do Pulitzer prize worthy reporting. If these papers become run-of-the-mill click farms, I'm sure silicon valley will run them out of business, as rage bait is not really their core competency.