4 ms·

How many clicks come from Facebook vs. G+ vs. Twitter vs. reddit vs. Digg?

7 points by dotcoma 15y ago

For example, for major newspapers. Thanks.

michaelpinto 15y ago
G+ is still in an early phase, so if you're in tech it can be a great source — but perhaps not for a New York Times. Facebook can be good, but you have to really build up your page and work it right -- and the same goes with playing Twitter. As for reddit it's very hostile to linking outside, the entire front page is a Gen Y confessional booth combined with a ton of links to imgur. And as much as I love Digg, it's a shadow of what it was even two years ago...
- dotcoma 15y ago
  Thanks, but I'm pretty much in the know (I work in this field) and a big reddit fan in spite of being twice the age of Gen Y. What I was looking for was numbers. I know reddit is now a more important source of links than Digg (even though I can't find the data right now) but I was wondering how it plays out with the rest, in particular vs. Twitter. Thanks again for any help :)
  - michaelpinto 15y ago
    Actually everyone I use to know from Digg (the front page makers) are mostly into StumbleUpon rather than Reddit. I also have another friend from my Digg days who built up his Facebook page via ads and that gives his blog quite a few page views. But i don't really see many folks trying to push content on reddit — the front page is off limits so you're stuck with the sub-reddits (which can be good but they can also be a waste of time). I don't have any good numbers on reddit or Twitter because I haven't really pushed stuff there for quite some time (so sorry if this didn't help you much).
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - dotcoma 15y ago
      Thanks, but I'm not interested in "pushing" anything, really (I call that spam). I'm just trying to position Twitter where it belongs amongst the "link sharing" websites (yes, you're right, I should also take StumbleUpon into consideration): how big is it really, how over-hyped, how over-valued etc.
hussong 15y ago
I think the question is a little too broad for helpful specific answers.
- dotcoma 15y ago
  How would you reformulate it? My curiosity was mostly along the lines of: how in the world is it possible that reddit is run by 4 people and Twitter has 300 employees, got 300 million in VC money and just got another 800 million? Isn't Twitter in the end "just another link sharing service"?
  - flignats 15y ago
    'just another link sharing service' You only need to look at recent events to see that Twitter goes far beyond a link sharing service. It's been the representation of freedom of speech to the childlike ranting medium of Charlie Sheen.
    - dotcoma 15y ago
      >It's been the representation of freedom of speech to the childlike ranting medium of Charlie Sheen. I'm sorry, but I think I don't understand. Could you please explain the above sentence to me? Thanks.
  - Joakal 15y ago
    Your OP question seems phrased at click-throughs whereas your current question is about technical execution. What are you really asking?
    - dotcoma 15y ago
      Ok. To me, there are no "social networks". There is the open web, where Google (not search.twitter.com) is the tool we use to find stuff, and then there's the closed web, Facebook. I am puzzled - to say the least - about Twitter. I'm trying to understand how big - and important, more than big, really - it really is vs. how over-hyped, how over-valued etc. Hope this can help you help me. Thanks :)

7 points by dotcoma 15y ago

For example, for major newspapers. Thanks.

G+ is still in an early phase, so if you're in tech it can be a great source — but perhaps not for a New York Times. Facebook can be good, but you have to really build up your page and work it right -- and the same goes with playing Twitter. As for reddit it's very hostile to linking outside, the entire front page is a Gen Y confessional booth combined with a ton of links to imgur. And as much as I love Digg, it's a shadow of what it was even two years ago...

dotcoma 15y ago
Thanks, but I'm pretty much in the know (I work in this field) and a big reddit fan in spite of being twice the age of Gen Y. What I was looking for was numbers. I know reddit is now a more important source of links than Digg (even though I can't find the data right now) but I was wondering how it plays out with the rest, in particular vs. Twitter. Thanks again for any help :)
- michaelpinto 15y ago
  Actually everyone I use to know from Digg (the front page makers) are mostly into StumbleUpon rather than Reddit. I also have another friend from my Digg days who built up his Facebook page via ads and that gives his blog quite a few page views. But i don't really see many folks trying to push content on reddit — the front page is off limits so you're stuck with the sub-reddits (which can be good but they can also be a waste of time). I don't have any good numbers on reddit or Twitter because I haven't really pushed stuff there for quite some time (so sorry if this didn't help you much).
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - dotcoma 15y ago
    Thanks, but I'm not interested in "pushing" anything, really (I call that spam). I'm just trying to position Twitter where it belongs amongst the "link sharing" websites (yes, you're right, I should also take StumbleUpon into consideration): how big is it really, how over-hyped, how over-valued etc.

hussong 15y ago

I think the question is a little too broad for helpful specific answers.

dotcoma 15y ago
How would you reformulate it? My curiosity was mostly along the lines of: how in the world is it possible that reddit is run by 4 people and Twitter has 300 employees, got 300 million in VC money and just got another 800 million? Isn't Twitter in the end "just another link sharing service"?
- flignats 15y ago
  'just another link sharing service' You only need to look at recent events to see that Twitter goes far beyond a link sharing service. It's been the representation of freedom of speech to the childlike ranting medium of Charlie Sheen.
  - dotcoma 15y ago
    >It's been the representation of freedom of speech to the childlike ranting medium of Charlie Sheen. I'm sorry, but I think I don't understand. Could you please explain the above sentence to me? Thanks.
- Joakal 15y ago
  Your OP question seems phrased at click-throughs whereas your current question is about technical execution. What are you really asking?
  - dotcoma 15y ago
    Ok. To me, there are no "social networks". There is the open web, where Google (not search.twitter.com) is the tool we use to find stuff, and then there's the closed web, Facebook. I am puzzled - to say the least - about Twitter. I'm trying to understand how big - and important, more than big, really - it really is vs. how over-hyped, how over-valued etc. Hope this can help you help me. Thanks :)