4 ms·
> What is it exactly you think these sites should do differently? Filter the signal from the noise. TC was mostly just an arbitrary filter on the noise, with
by efsavage 15y ago
> What is it exactly you think these sites should do differently?
Filter the signal from the noise. TC was mostly just an arbitrary filter on the noise, with inscrutable criteria. For quite a stretch there you were only on TC if you were somehow related to Twitter. If anything it's improved on that aspect as Arrington has been less involved (but it's still too noisy for my taste).
I never had any problem with TC itself, it's easy enough for me to not read it, my problem was that people seemed to think that it was somehow more important than it really was. Pardon the tautology but it was/is only really ever important to people who thought it was important, like how some celebrities are famous for being famous.
- nl 15y agoRegarding the noise: yes, there are a lot of stories I aren't interested in. The problem is that the stories I'm interested in and the ones you are are probably different. TechCrunch isn't important except as a source for documenting history of tech startups. I find that useful - I think it is good to show how attitudes to Google, Apple and Facebook change over time, and Techcrunch reflects that. It is also important in closing the loop between companies and investors. Beyond those things? I dunno - you are probably right. But that doesn't excuse the hate people seem to have.