3 ms·

I imagine it's a different type of "engagement" for a lot of viewers, something the article only alludes to euphemistically.

stavros 4y ago
It doesn't matter how you measure engagement though, in the end all ad-supported sites want to maximize it.
- blowski 4y ago
  True. It would be interesting to read specific comparisons to YouTube. The problem for an article like this is discussing details of something that's extremely intimate for most people.
- bmacho 4y ago
  Why would they? Imagine you are an organization to create something, and you ... do that, while having ads, (with additional other supports). E.g. I don't think phoronix.com is optimized for engagement. Why can't Michael (phoronix guy) do the articles because it is his job, and not because he want to maximize the ads?
  - stavros 4y ago
    Because ads are what's paying him to do his job.
    - failedengineer 4y ago
      and because it's almost trivial to run a subscriber supported site out of business 3 steps: 1 - fund high quality, totally free content, great UI, minimal ads 2 - poach customers from subscriber sites, wait them out. will take about a year. they'll go broke. 3 - start to optimize for "engagement" (ad views). profit.
  - account42 4y ago
    Phoronix is very much optimized for people staying on the site (most links in articles will go to phoronix.com) as well as for maximizing ad views (articles split into many short pages). Not really a fan of either but it's not like there are many sites for Linux benchmarks and harware news to choose from.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    You can have a compromise. There is a minimum number of $$$ you need to stay in business. The less ads you have in total, the more supply and demand allows you to charge. Most sites though are not at the point anyone will pay them more than someone else, so if you show less ads you won't be able to charge more for the few you show. (the super bowl famously can charge very high rates, but for the average web site you are competing with every other website and so less space isn't significant to all customers) I strongly believe that most web sites are leaving a lot of money on the table by not having their ads in-house. It will be more work (and cost) in the short run, but a good ad salesman can find those customers who really want to target the people reading your website in ways algorithms do not. The big automakers and fast food don't care about targeting - nearly everyone is a potential customer so they can get everyone. Most care about targeting and so by selling direct you ensure that their ads never go to someone who won't buy anyway because of the algorithm.
polishdude20 4y ago
Maybe it's optimizing not for you staying for a longer session but for you to keep coming back? Have more exclusive videos , easy to use UI, fast connection etc. So they're more in it for the long game?

stavros 4y ago

It doesn't matter how you measure engagement though, in the end all ad-supported sites want to maximize it.

blowski 4y ago
True. It would be interesting to read specific comparisons to YouTube. The problem for an article like this is discussing details of something that's extremely intimate for most people.
bmacho 4y ago
Why would they? Imagine you are an organization to create something, and you ... do that, while having ads, (with additional other supports). E.g. I don't think phoronix.com is optimized for engagement. Why can't Michael (phoronix guy) do the articles because it is his job, and not because he want to maximize the ads?
- stavros 4y ago
  Because ads are what's paying him to do his job.
  - failedengineer 4y ago
    and because it's almost trivial to run a subscriber supported site out of business 3 steps: 1 - fund high quality, totally free content, great UI, minimal ads 2 - poach customers from subscriber sites, wait them out. will take about a year. they'll go broke. 3 - start to optimize for "engagement" (ad views). profit.
- account42 4y ago
  Phoronix is very much optimized for people staying on the site (most links in articles will go to phoronix.com) as well as for maximizing ad views (articles split into many short pages). Not really a fan of either but it's not like there are many sites for Linux benchmarks and harware news to choose from.
- bluGill 4y ago
  You can have a compromise. There is a minimum number of $$$ you need to stay in business. The less ads you have in total, the more supply and demand allows you to charge. Most sites though are not at the point anyone will pay them more than someone else, so if you show less ads you won't be able to charge more for the few you show. (the super bowl famously can charge very high rates, but for the average web site you are competing with every other website and so less space isn't significant to all customers) I strongly believe that most web sites are leaving a lot of money on the table by not having their ads in-house. It will be more work (and cost) in the short run, but a good ad salesman can find those customers who really want to target the people reading your website in ways algorithms do not. The big automakers and fast food don't care about targeting - nearly everyone is a potential customer so they can get everyone. Most care about targeting and so by selling direct you ensure that their ads never go to someone who won't buy anyway because of the algorithm.

polishdude20 4y ago

Maybe it's optimizing not for you staying for a longer session but for you to keep coming back? Have more exclusive videos , easy to use UI, fast connection etc. So they're more in it for the long game?