3 ms·

I mostly agree, but I think there was a bit of a difference in quality up until about 15 years ago. This was due to the nature of the competition between news

I mostly agree, but I think there was a bit of a difference in quality up until about 15 years ago. This was due to the nature of the competition between news outlets. It you have only few suppliers in any domain, then a possibility of a "price war" is relatively small. It's much easier to predict how our counterparts will behave and dumping prices hurts all the participants. It forces the competition to move to different areas - like marketing and quality of service. Once there were more competitors, due to the internet being a thing, all bets were off. No one could hold to their position just because he was considered more reliable by a marginal degree.

dexen 6y ago
>I think there was a bit of a difference in quality up until about 15 years ago. Going by those excellent charts[1], there were two distinct "kinks" in intensity of change; around 2000 and around 2015. >the internet The best explainer I've seen thus far is that loading articles with keywords improves searchability and readership metrics. My far fetched hypothesis is that it is a side effect of the present form of search - dominated by one vertical that has strayed far, far away from the original Page Rank idea. -- [1] use of progressive keywords in newspapers, a thread https://twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1133441085118853120 https://twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1133441085118853120 [1.1] more terms, NYT https://i.imgur.com/CZfsLsk.jpg https://i.imgur.com/CZfsLsk.jpg