5 ms·

I'm sure there's other like me here, but I don't even click on articles published in Medium anymore because I don't want to deal with their gigantic popup that

by taude 8y ago

I'm sure there's other like me here, but I don't even click on articles published in Medium anymore because I don't want to deal with their gigantic popup that interferes with me getting to the content. I think we're eventually going to see a resurgence in open platforms where content creators better control their content. I don't think the discoverability of these content hubs is worth it, I personally do more discovery other ways and usually only end up on the site after a recommendation, etc...

habeebtc 8y ago
I legitimately want to read the articles--they have a lot of interesting ones. The curious thing is that often enough you can't even click through--they insist that it's "Medium Exclusive" content and you can only view 3 a month. (Browser Private mode helps, but is not a panacea) But... If I search the 'net for the title of the supposed Exclusive article, I can frequently find it elsewhere with no nagging or paywall. I don't really believe Medium has the exclusive content that gives it an advantage over anything else, but it's useful as curated, indexed content that you can find elsewhere. This is probably not what they are going for, though.
- dhimes 8y ago
  Serious question: Why don't you sign up?
potta_coffee 8y ago
I miss the days when people had their own websites, blogs, whatever, and then there were forums. Facebook has killed forums and I hate them for it.
- asark 8y ago
  Not just Facebook. Any site without attention paid to on-site SEO is basically impossible to find since Google gave up fighting the spammers and (effectively) stopped trying to provide access to a bunch of the web. That was back in, like, '08 or '09. The other day I was trying to find a Russian world-traveller photo blog I used to read but lost track of, and it was plain from the results that Google's 1) heavily penalizing low-traffic sites to the point of giving me top results that contain almost none of my keywords when there 100% for sure had to be sites that contained all of them, and 2) barely paying attention to text linking to a site anymore. I'm not even upset I couldn't find the site I wanted using my search terms so much as that part of their surrender to the spammers meant that most of the top results were "legitimate" content-mill spammers-by-another-name. I don't think I could have found anything like what I was looking for. Any similarly-obscure sites are just invisible now. DDG wasn't much better. The spammers won and "web search" doesn't really search the whole web anymore, or even close to it.
  - StrictDabbler 8y ago
    Oh, that's what's going on. If I search, for example, "proton transfer balalaika" I get search results where the first few results are "Missing: balalaika | Must include: balalaika" but a result after these has all three search terms. I've been wondering what Google now thinks the word "must" means and why they're putting pages that don't include words that I've used above pages that do. That's frustrating. Low-volume sites represent a significant portion of the web results I need.
    - cygaril 8y ago
      The "must include" is a hyperlink. Click it and you'll get results that do include that word.
      - StrictDabbler 8y ago
        You know, it's obvious it's a link, and I'm pretty sure I clicked on it and noted it adds the quotes then immediately forgot. I'm sitting here looking at it now and I still can't believe that's the function. It looks like a link to a search of just that term. Of course, even when I click on it, I get ads for hotels that are missing "proton" and "transfer" first, then random word dictionaries, both well above perfectly valid results talking about chemists who played the balalaika or research done in the city of Balalaika. Which means that it's a link to getting a different wrong set of results and it's there as a kind of fig leaf on the sin of distorting searches so heavily.
        pbhjpbhj 8y ago
        >and noted it adds the quotes then immediately forgot. I quoted search terms yesterday, but still had to specify by clicking the link "must include" .. first result still didn't include one of the terms. Come on Google, what is this? I suppose that top hit earned them money; can't think why else they'd be deceptive about it.
  - potta_coffee 8y ago
    There are whole topics I can no longer search for on any engine because the results are so bad. The example I can think of is product reviews for just about anything - the results are almost always shitty "top ten" Amazon affiliate sites. If I want to find a legitimate opinion about certain kinds of products, it's nearly impossible to find via Google.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Spam killed forums. Facebook took since it wasn't plagued with spam.
  - potta_coffee 8y ago
    Facebook content is now such low-quality that it might as well be spam (my opinion). Also, pointless, toxic conversations. It seems to bring out the worst in people. I know some people like it for keeping in touch. I refuse to use it anymore, not worth it for me.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      I find Facebook to be quite useful, and the content to be of moderately high quality for the type of content it is intended for: social updates from friends and family. The conversations on FB range from informative to toxic, and depend, like the internet forums of old, on the moderators. As FB does not actively moderate discussions, toxic conversations are the fault of the participants and the moderators, not on FB.
    - baroffoos 8y ago
      When I looked at facebook it was virtually all memes. I'm sure someone is about to tell me that I need better friends but these people are fine to talk to and interact with on other platforms but it seems facebook has become a meme graveyard. No one posts actual quality content because stuff I want to read doesn't have a general appeal, its specialized to the things I am interested in. Facebook only allows for general appeal stuff so you end up with memes that everyone can understand.
- opportune 8y ago
  Facebook+Reddit+stack exchange I think is a more comprehensive group to blame. I think a lot of people who use facebook for hobby groups maybe never would have discovered forums but Reddit definitely could have. And stack exchange kind of absorbed basically all technical forums
  - potta_coffee 8y ago
    That's true, I forgot about Reddit. I check some sub-reddits that I'm interested but in general the format and quality of discussion is much lower than that of the now-dead forums that I used to check for similar content. The internet is like a barren wasteland to me now.
- veddox 8y ago
  You know, I'd completely forgotten about forums? I used to be active on two. Doing a quick search now: one seems to have disappeared, but I managed to log in to the other one for the first time in nine years! (Those were the days before I used a password manager.) And it's actually still semi-active...
enraged_camel 8y ago
>>I think we're eventually going to see a resurgence in open platforms where content creators better control their content. Sure, but as those platforms grow, they will run into the same problem: having to pay for infrastructure. That shit ain’t cheap once you get past a certain size.

by taude 8y ago

habeebtc 8y ago

I legitimately want to read the articles--they have a lot of interesting ones. The curious thing is that often enough you can't even click through--they insist that it's "Medium Exclusive" content and you can only view 3 a month. (Browser Private mode helps, but is not a panacea) But... If I search the 'net for the title of the supposed Exclusive article, I can frequently find it elsewhere with no nagging or paywall. I don't really believe Medium has the exclusive content that gives it an advantage over anything else, but it's useful as curated, indexed content that you can find elsewhere. This is probably not what they are going for, though.

dhimes 8y ago
Serious question: Why don't you sign up?

potta_coffee 8y ago

I miss the days when people had their own websites, blogs, whatever, and then there were forums. Facebook has killed forums and I hate them for it.

asark 8y ago
Not just Facebook. Any site without attention paid to on-site SEO is basically impossible to find since Google gave up fighting the spammers and (effectively) stopped trying to provide access to a bunch of the web. That was back in, like, '08 or '09. The other day I was trying to find a Russian world-traveller photo blog I used to read but lost track of, and it was plain from the results that Google's 1) heavily penalizing low-traffic sites to the point of giving me top results that contain almost none of my keywords when there 100% for sure had to be sites that contained all of them, and 2) barely paying attention to text linking to a site anymore. I'm not even upset I couldn't find the site I wanted using my search terms so much as that part of their surrender to the spammers meant that most of the top results were "legitimate" content-mill spammers-by-another-name. I don't think I could have found anything like what I was looking for. Any similarly-obscure sites are just invisible now. DDG wasn't much better. The spammers won and "web search" doesn't really search the whole web anymore, or even close to it.
- StrictDabbler 8y ago
  Oh, that's what's going on. If I search, for example, "proton transfer balalaika" I get search results where the first few results are "Missing: balalaika | Must include: balalaika" but a result after these has all three search terms. I've been wondering what Google now thinks the word "must" means and why they're putting pages that don't include words that I've used above pages that do. That's frustrating. Low-volume sites represent a significant portion of the web results I need.
  - cygaril 8y ago
    The "must include" is a hyperlink. Click it and you'll get results that do include that word.
    - StrictDabbler 8y ago
      You know, it's obvious it's a link, and I'm pretty sure I clicked on it and noted it adds the quotes then immediately forgot. I'm sitting here looking at it now and I still can't believe that's the function. It looks like a link to a search of just that term. Of course, even when I click on it, I get ads for hotels that are missing "proton" and "transfer" first, then random word dictionaries, both well above perfectly valid results talking about chemists who played the balalaika or research done in the city of Balalaika. Which means that it's a link to getting a different wrong set of results and it's there as a kind of fig leaf on the sin of distorting searches so heavily.
      - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
        >and noted it adds the quotes then immediately forgot. I quoted search terms yesterday, but still had to specify by clicking the link "must include" .. first result still didn't include one of the terms. Come on Google, what is this? I suppose that top hit earned them money; can't think why else they'd be deceptive about it.
- potta_coffee 8y ago
  There are whole topics I can no longer search for on any engine because the results are so bad. The example I can think of is product reviews for just about anything - the results are almost always shitty "top ten" Amazon affiliate sites. If I want to find a legitimate opinion about certain kinds of products, it's nearly impossible to find via Google.
gamblor956 8y ago
Spam killed forums. Facebook took since it wasn't plagued with spam.
- potta_coffee 8y ago
  Facebook content is now such low-quality that it might as well be spam (my opinion). Also, pointless, toxic conversations. It seems to bring out the worst in people. I know some people like it for keeping in touch. I refuse to use it anymore, not worth it for me.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    I find Facebook to be quite useful, and the content to be of moderately high quality for the type of content it is intended for: social updates from friends and family. The conversations on FB range from informative to toxic, and depend, like the internet forums of old, on the moderators. As FB does not actively moderate discussions, toxic conversations are the fault of the participants and the moderators, not on FB.
  - baroffoos 8y ago
    When I looked at facebook it was virtually all memes. I'm sure someone is about to tell me that I need better friends but these people are fine to talk to and interact with on other platforms but it seems facebook has become a meme graveyard. No one posts actual quality content because stuff I want to read doesn't have a general appeal, its specialized to the things I am interested in. Facebook only allows for general appeal stuff so you end up with memes that everyone can understand.
opportune 8y ago
Facebook+Reddit+stack exchange I think is a more comprehensive group to blame. I think a lot of people who use facebook for hobby groups maybe never would have discovered forums but Reddit definitely could have. And stack exchange kind of absorbed basically all technical forums
- potta_coffee 8y ago
  That's true, I forgot about Reddit. I check some sub-reddits that I'm interested but in general the format and quality of discussion is much lower than that of the now-dead forums that I used to check for similar content. The internet is like a barren wasteland to me now.
veddox 8y ago
You know, I'd completely forgotten about forums? I used to be active on two. Doing a quick search now: one seems to have disappeared, but I managed to log in to the other one for the first time in nine years! (Those were the days before I used a password manager.) And it's actually still semi-active...

enraged_camel 8y ago

>>I think we're eventually going to see a resurgence in open platforms where content creators better control their content. Sure, but as those platforms grow, they will run into the same problem: having to pay for infrastructure. That shit ain’t cheap once you get past a certain size.