2 ms·
For some reason whenever this comes up there'll be one person saying "I bet you didn't know it's for copyright" and another saying "I bet you didn't know it's f
by iudqnolq 4y ago
For some reason whenever this comes up there'll be one person saying "I bet you didn't know it's for copyright" and another saying "I bet you didn't know it's for SEO". I've yet to see either prove anything beyond that it's a plausible explanation that could fit the minimal known facts.
- jackthetab 4y agoI can't find the reference atm, but Jeff Jarvis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Jarvis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Jarvis) says that this _is_ to get around copyright law; the same technique was being done over a hundred years ago (possibly more, that's why I want to reference!). Instead of blogs, think pamphlets. The More You Know...
- WorldMaker 4y agoI feel alone sometimes as seemingly the one person adding "I bet you didn't know it is because blogs sometimes have regular readers and regular readers drive ad revenue more reliably than SEO or concerns about copyright". I think it fits the facts better, by far, but it's really interesting to see how many HN commenters under-estimate the readership of cooking blogs because they only ever interact with recipes as utilitarian data at the end of a specific web search and aren't often themselves the sorts of people who are the regular audience of recipe blogs so they discount that such audiences exist. (I had my cooking show phase and have friends and loved ones that hooked on the stories of some of the bigger name recipe blogs and I love letting them tell me about the sorts of things they are reading. It's amazing the blinders that the general HN commenter sometimes wears without realizing it.)