5 ms·

Why would it be a search engine's role to provide the entirety of every creators' livable wage? That would obviously be impossible for many reasons, and I don't

by bryans 4y ago

Why would it be a search engine's role to provide the entirety of every creators' livable wage? That would obviously be impossible for many reasons, and I don't see Yep making any claims about being a primary (or even significant) revenue source. Instead, they're proposing that the value of search comes from the end content, not the results page. The creator revenue stemming from that is inherently the appropriate amount. Inciting the notion that they're individually responsible for the whole of content creators' income only encourages more ads or even nefarious behavior -- which is completely antithetical to your own company's philosophy, so it's not clear why you're so publicly holding a competitor to a different standard.

freediver 4y ago
It seems we read the same article and understood it differently. The announcement post said : "Say Anne from Kentucky helps 4,000 people learn how to build container gardens via her Wordpress blog every month. She would receive $1,000 monthly from the search engine in return." To me this sounds like the idea of this model is to allow an average person doing casual blogging to make significant income? Given this premise, can we make it work? To be clear I absolutely love the idea, I think it sounds fair and in the spirit of the web that I would like to see. The web needs innovative ideas like this, unfortunately I do not see this concrete one being viable.
- dotcoma 4y ago
  So every time someone clicks to that blog about container gardens, the writer/owner of the blog gets $ 0.25? Who pays? With money coming from where? And how bad will SEO efforts become to get their hands on that kind of money, which is 10 times (not 1,000 times, my mistake) more than that same blog would make with advertising, if we considered a CPM rate of $ 25 ?
  - bryans 4y ago
    For the record, freediver deceptively misquoted the blog post, and Ahrefs never claimed that those would be the revenue amounts -- they weren't even talking about their own company.
- bryans 4y ago
  Removing the context[1] from that quote feels disingenuous, at best, and purporting that they even made any claims about their product is approaching libel. The 2019 personal blog post you're referring to is a general (albeit flawed) analysis of how a Google profit share might work for the top content creators based on guesstimated information from YouTube revenues. They were very clear about all of this and plainly stated multiple times that they have no idea if their analyses are accurate, and that it's all effectively an experiment. Here is the actual portion from that post: "YouTube’s revenue [...] can approximate that top-earners receive $0.0015 for every one view. Considering how much more ad revenue Google SEPR[sic] clicks generate in comparison to YouTube views, a Google profit-share model could generate significantly higher returns for top content creators. Based on a quick analysis, serving one search could pay an average rate from $0.05 to $0.25 in the US. Say Anne from Kentucky helps 4,000 people learn how to build container gardens via her Wordpress blog every month. She would receive $1,000 monthly from the search engine in return." Given the context, you're putting many words in their mouth. It wasn't a product announcement, the product itself didn't even exist yet, they didn't actually claim a $0.25/query profit or even make any claims at all, they never made any mention whatsoever about being a substantial revenue source for "average" creators (who don't make substantial revenue to begin with), and they weren't even talking about their own product. So, again, you're holding them to an impossible standard of revenue to meet your arbitrary and unreasonable qualifications of being "impactful." It comes across as ethical posturing, and shaming someone for napkin math about a different company's offering in an old "I have an idea" post just doesn't seem appropriate from a competitor in the space. I can only presume that you wouldn't be a fan of people nitpicking quotes from your old posts, so I'm not sure why you're doing it to someone else. [1] https://medium.com/swlh/investor-money-vs-public-interest-did-google-fail-to-build-a-non-evil-platform-3a054f996ea9 https://medium.com/swlh/investor-money-vs-public-interest-di... Edit: In fact, the other person who replied to your comment just proved that what you're doing is completely irresponsible and libelous. You're sowing the idea that those two sentences were in reference to the company's actual offering, which is completely false, but you're actively convincing people otherwise. Edit: Here's a screenshot[2] of your unedited comment, since you decided to remove false information and things that I referenced. [2] https://i.imgur.com/hcJJNXJ.png https://i.imgur.com/hcJJNXJ.png
  - 4y ago

by bryans 4y ago

freediver 4y ago

It seems we read the same article and understood it differently. The announcement post said : "Say Anne from Kentucky helps 4,000 people learn how to build container gardens via her Wordpress blog every month. She would receive $1,000 monthly from the search engine in return." To me this sounds like the idea of this model is to allow an average person doing casual blogging to make significant income? Given this premise, can we make it work? To be clear I absolutely love the idea, I think it sounds fair and in the spirit of the web that I would like to see. The web needs innovative ideas like this, unfortunately I do not see this concrete one being viable.

dotcoma 4y ago
So every time someone clicks to that blog about container gardens, the writer/owner of the blog gets $ 0.25? Who pays? With money coming from where? And how bad will SEO efforts become to get their hands on that kind of money, which is 10 times (not 1,000 times, my mistake) more than that same blog would make with advertising, if we considered a CPM rate of $ 25 ?
- bryans 4y ago
  For the record, freediver deceptively misquoted the blog post, and Ahrefs never claimed that those would be the revenue amounts -- they weren't even talking about their own company.
bryans 4y ago
Removing the context[1] from that quote feels disingenuous, at best, and purporting that they even made any claims about their product is approaching libel. The 2019 personal blog post you're referring to is a general (albeit flawed) analysis of how a Google profit share might work for the top content creators based on guesstimated information from YouTube revenues. They were very clear about all of this and plainly stated multiple times that they have no idea if their analyses are accurate, and that it's all effectively an experiment. Here is the actual portion from that post: "YouTube’s revenue [...] can approximate that top-earners receive $0.0015 for every one view. Considering how much more ad revenue Google SEPR[sic] clicks generate in comparison to YouTube views, a Google profit-share model could generate significantly higher returns for top content creators. Based on a quick analysis, serving one search could pay an average rate from $0.05 to $0.25 in the US. Say Anne from Kentucky helps 4,000 people learn how to build container gardens via her Wordpress blog every month. She would receive $1,000 monthly from the search engine in return." Given the context, you're putting many words in their mouth. It wasn't a product announcement, the product itself didn't even exist yet, they didn't actually claim a $0.25/query profit or even make any claims at all, they never made any mention whatsoever about being a substantial revenue source for "average" creators (who don't make substantial revenue to begin with), and they weren't even talking about their own product. So, again, you're holding them to an impossible standard of revenue to meet your arbitrary and unreasonable qualifications of being "impactful." It comes across as ethical posturing, and shaming someone for napkin math about a different company's offering in an old "I have an idea" post just doesn't seem appropriate from a competitor in the space. I can only presume that you wouldn't be a fan of people nitpicking quotes from your old posts, so I'm not sure why you're doing it to someone else. [1] https://medium.com/swlh/investor-money-vs-public-interest-did-google-fail-to-build-a-non-evil-platform-3a054f996ea9 https://medium.com/swlh/investor-money-vs-public-interest-di... Edit: In fact, the other person who replied to your comment just proved that what you're doing is completely irresponsible and libelous. You're sowing the idea that those two sentences were in reference to the company's actual offering, which is completely false, but you're actively convincing people otherwise. Edit: Here's a screenshot[2] of your unedited comment, since you decided to remove false information and things that I referenced. [2] https://i.imgur.com/hcJJNXJ.png https://i.imgur.com/hcJJNXJ.png
- 4y ago