4 ms·

Nope, SEO ruined web search all by itself without adblockers needed to explain it.

senttoschool 3y ago
15 years ago, I used to write a blog where I wrote free content in my area of expertise (PhD). The blog paid for itself via Adsense ads. It was a part-time thing. Eventually, the revenue dried up and I moved on. Today, I'd never imagine myself being able to put out free content as a main source of revenue without either some sort of sponsorship/affiliate and or subscription. It's more likely that I will write but put my content behind a subscription on Substack or something like that. And because of that, people lost the ability to read my content for free. I'm not saying that my content was insanely valuable but there exists a gap in which the content is valuable to many people but not valuable enough that people are willing to pay a subscription to read it. In addition, subscriptions usually mean that you have to write full-time. Most experts in their fields would not likely to quit their main jobs just to write on Substack. This means Substack writers aren't likely to be at the top of their field - they're just good at writing and they write consistently.
- Dah00n 3y ago
  >This means Substack writers aren't likely to be at the top of their field - they're just good at writing and they write consistently. One could easily argue the same argument about those "in the top of their field". In some big western countries (at least one) social and fundraising skills is as much a contributor to being "in the top" while in other countries or areas of expertise it is the ability to spew out papers. Rarely are "the top of the field" equal to "the best in their field". I'd even argue sharing knowledge like you did for free for everyone is a plus towards "top of the field" while not doing it is a negative. The most important part of knowledge is for it to be shared, freely, not held ransom for fundraising or better pay as happens all too often. I'm glad that GDPR keeps the grubby hands that vie for my personal info at least a bit out of reach these days. All that has changed is that you could no longer swap out your visitors information (which most back then nor today hardly understand the concept of) for a paycheck. The knowledge wasn't shared for free - someone else paid the bill - often with no knowledge, understanding or choice.
- manuelmoreale 3y ago
  > Today, I'd never imagine myself being able to put out free content as a main source of revenue How about doing it not as a main source of revenue? How about writing and sharing content you're passionate about just because it's a good thing to do?
  - senttoschool 3y ago
    >How about doing it not as a main source of revenue? How about writing and sharing content you're passionate about just because it's a good thing to do? Sure, if I'm wealthy, I'd be happy to do it. But as someone who needs to feed a family, it's hard to. At least with Adsense, I could make enough to make it worth the time without caring about sponsors, affiliates, subscribers.
    - manuelmoreale 3y ago
      Do you really need to be wealthy to keep a site up and post something once or twice a year? I’m not judging, just curious about how other people see their presence on the web. I personally find having a site rewarding from a personal and human level and I earn absolutely nothing from it.
  - 082349872349872 3y ago
    see https://www.theonion.com/fucking-weirdo-really-good-at-something-that-she-not-tr-1850544910 https://www.theonion.com/fucking-weirdo-really-good-at-somet... (but seriously: 30 years ago it was possible to write and share content without worrying about monetising it ... at least if your name wasn't Ted Nelson)

15 years ago, I used to write a blog where I wrote free content in my area of expertise (PhD). The blog paid for itself via Adsense ads. It was a part-time thing. Eventually, the revenue dried up and I moved on. Today, I'd never imagine myself being able to put out free content as a main source of revenue without either some sort of sponsorship/affiliate and or subscription. It's more likely that I will write but put my content behind a subscription on Substack or something like that. And because of that, people lost the ability to read my content for free. I'm not saying that my content was insanely valuable but there exists a gap in which the content is valuable to many people but not valuable enough that people are willing to pay a subscription to read it. In addition, subscriptions usually mean that you have to write full-time. Most experts in their fields would not likely to quit their main jobs just to write on Substack. This means Substack writers aren't likely to be at the top of their field - they're just good at writing and they write consistently.

Dah00n 3y ago
>This means Substack writers aren't likely to be at the top of their field - they're just good at writing and they write consistently. One could easily argue the same argument about those "in the top of their field". In some big western countries (at least one) social and fundraising skills is as much a contributor to being "in the top" while in other countries or areas of expertise it is the ability to spew out papers. Rarely are "the top of the field" equal to "the best in their field". I'd even argue sharing knowledge like you did for free for everyone is a plus towards "top of the field" while not doing it is a negative. The most important part of knowledge is for it to be shared, freely, not held ransom for fundraising or better pay as happens all too often. I'm glad that GDPR keeps the grubby hands that vie for my personal info at least a bit out of reach these days. All that has changed is that you could no longer swap out your visitors information (which most back then nor today hardly understand the concept of) for a paycheck. The knowledge wasn't shared for free - someone else paid the bill - often with no knowledge, understanding or choice.
manuelmoreale 3y ago
> Today, I'd never imagine myself being able to put out free content as a main source of revenue How about doing it not as a main source of revenue? How about writing and sharing content you're passionate about just because it's a good thing to do?
- senttoschool 3y ago
  >How about doing it not as a main source of revenue? How about writing and sharing content you're passionate about just because it's a good thing to do? Sure, if I'm wealthy, I'd be happy to do it. But as someone who needs to feed a family, it's hard to. At least with Adsense, I could make enough to make it worth the time without caring about sponsors, affiliates, subscribers.
  - manuelmoreale 3y ago
    Do you really need to be wealthy to keep a site up and post something once or twice a year? I’m not judging, just curious about how other people see their presence on the web. I personally find having a site rewarding from a personal and human level and I earn absolutely nothing from it.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  see https://www.theonion.com/fucking-weirdo-really-good-at-something-that-she-not-tr-1850544910 https://www.theonion.com/fucking-weirdo-really-good-at-somet... (but seriously: 30 years ago it was possible to write and share content without worrying about monetising it ... at least if your name wasn't Ted Nelson)