6 ms·

The causes seem two-fold. One is that most people consume content in apps, so most creators create contents for that audience. TikTok, Twitter, Reddit, Faceboo

The causes seem two-fold. One is that most people consume content in apps, so most creators create contents for that audience. TikTok, Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, YouTube, etc are where users are, so it's where creators put their content for visibility. Related to this is, I feel, the switch to mobile, where the more limited UX of the device makes it a LOT easier to just stay in the same app rather than type URLs or manage a ton of bookmarks. For many people who weren't computer literate in the 2000s, they find apps on their phone MUCH easier to use than a browser with mouse/keyboard. The other is the huge rise of SEO spam sites. They dilute search results and waste time. Combined with the first point, there's now far less signal and far more noise than ever, so often looking for websites isn't fruitful. This creates the feedback loop: users aren't looking for websites, so why create content on websites? EDIT: I'll add that I often think of StumbleUpon, which my friends and I really enjoyed using around 2010. It was enjoyable clicking a button and being taken to a random page on the Internet: a funny video, a deep dive on WW2, a quirky page devoted to someone's pet tarantula. The variety of topics and experiences you would encounter were much broader than what you'd see today, where most content follows the same patterns to achieve success for its respective platform. StumbleUpon could not be successful today.

chankstein38 3y ago
I miss StumbleUpon on a regular basis! I feel like now adays it'd just be flooded with spammy garbage sites unfortunately.
pksebben 3y ago
Stumbleupon! What a gleaming ray of sunshine in the vast landscape of the web! I agree with you that it couldn't survive today, but I often wonder why. If I had access to stumbleupon as it was, I would absolutely be using it - but when I try to think about how to reimplement it there are a couple sticking points that I don't have any solutions to: - Engagement: SU lived and died on it's users, a paragon of the crowdsourced model. For it to work you'd have to have it pull enough interesting people from the mire to function - Gaming the system: One of the things that made SU great was that there wasn't so much goddamn SEO out there. If you 'stumbled' on a thing, it was because it was interesting, engaging, funny, or otherwise *actually valuable*. These days, I can't imagine a successful platform *not* getting beleaguered by the SEO vultures.
- cloverich 3y ago
  I think the SEO problem would be harder. Even though there's definitely a network effect, a few dedicated users can curate a thousand interesting web sites, and that's probably enough to draw in anyone moderately interested.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  In regards to "Gaming the system," I do not think popularity begets SEO spam. SEO spam is a specific game to rank high in google search so that you get ad revenue from visits. If you have genuinely valuable content and get popular from Stumbleupon that doesn't create an incentive to implement SEO spam. Ads maybe - but not publishing garbage to rank high on google search because you already solved the discoverability problem.
  - sideshowb 3y ago
    It's not the successful website that turns to seo spam, it's seo spammers that spam the StumbleUpon api with bots "liking" their spam.
  - reaperman 3y ago
    > SEO spam is a specific game to rank high in google search The same SEO mindset/paradigm is used to make sure someone's spam surfaces on any variety of platforms, not just Google Search. We can argue about the specific semantics of "SEO" (Search Engine Optimization) not being the right word to use for gaming TikTok, Reddit, Instagram, Facebook, or Snapchat algorithms. Perhaps a different word is needed. But the above poster's sentiment is not flawed, even if you think it's overreaching within a specific meaning of "SEO".
- longwave 3y ago
  This site has seemingly solved both of those problems. So isn't HN the modern StumbleUpon, albeit with more focus on technical topics?
  - immibis 3y ago
    SU was always one of the many aggregators in the addth.is toolbar, alongside places like Reddit. They do both serve the same function of making the Internet more discoverable - noting that early Reddit didn't have comments.
dpkirchner 3y ago
I'd add a third fold: the huge rise in garbage ads above, below, overlapping, and surrounding content. Facebook et al have ads, of course, but they are extremely "tame" by comparison. Renting out every pixel ruined many sites.
- mangodrunk 3y ago
  I agree with you, and I don’t understand why some of these small blogs on niche topics even have ads. How much are they making a month? I’d be surprised if it’s even $5 a month for many of them.
  - dspillett 3y ago
    > I’d be surprised if it’s even $5 a month for many of them. I doubt it is even that, or close, if you take any average reading. > I don’t understand why some of these small blogs on niche topics even have ads. I think in many cases they have the ads there just in case one day they randomly get mentioned in a high-profile place, get a pile of traffic, and that makes them an amount in ad revenue worth caring about. Of course, they probably underestimate the effect of such a glut of traffic, most likely their site will grind to a halt long before much ad revenue is totted up, and their “15 minutes” will be over before it is back up again. In some cases it is simply that they've chosen to host somewhere “free” where they have little or no control over the ad content, and probably never see a penny of any revenue from it (the host takes that in exchange for the “free” services).
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    Sometimes they're put there by the hosting provider. The blog author doesn't get the money, it all goes towards hosting costs. Which are, you know, real. Running a blog costs continuous money even if you don't have many visitors because of constant crawling, spam attacks, the need to have a machine online 24/7 etc.
    - Dah00n 3y ago
      >constant crawling, spam attacks It seems a bit wild if those two could make any difference in costs. I mean, if you have one visit a month and pay per megabyte then sure, Google would maybe show up in stats, but otherwise?
interroboink 3y ago
Re StumbleUpon: you might be interested in the "random page" feature of wiby.me: https://wiby.me/surprise/ https://wiby.me/surprise/
jwells89 3y ago
IMO "apps" is something of a red herring. I don't think a whole lot would change if somehow everybody switched to web versions of big social media; they'd just be endlessly scrolling in a single browser tab instead of in a single app. This effect was apparent back before smartphones became ubiquitous, where desktop users (especially more casual/less technical) were spending disproportionate amounts of time on Facebook and YouTube. It's where we first started seeing people sourcing their news exclusively from social media. Some qualities of apps may bolster this effect, but the root problem lies in the addictiveness, convenience, endlessness, and network effects of large platforms.
- shuntress 3y ago
  "Apps" in this contexts means "Platforms" or a "Closed" web vs the "Open" web.
  - dividefuel 3y ago
    Yes, this, thank you for clarifying. These major platforms offer a much more streamlined UX for passively consuming content than a web browser, and most people seem to prefer that simpler UX.
- dylan604 3y ago
  But these platforms want you on their app instead of webpages. That's why the apps exist. There's a reason they are willing to go through the hassle/expense of maintaining native code apps instead of just one website. It is the core of their business.
  - jwells89 3y ago
    Of course, platforms are going to do everything in their power to exert as strong as a grip as possible on users. The thing is though, with the amounts of money involved even small improvements in engagement and retention justify considerable expenditures. Their willingness to spend on things like native apps is not necessarily representative of the impact of those things.
Paul-Craft 3y ago
I'll give you spam sites, but I'll also note that at least 4 of the 5 examples you gave of where people go to consume content in apps also have highly functional and usable websites, even on mobile. I'm not familiar with TikTok, so I can't comment on it. I'd also note that if you want to just, say, consume from YouTube, spam sites are no longer in the picture.
codexon 3y ago
I believe you are missing the crucial reason why all the people are consuming content in apps now. Google is in large part to blame for this, if not the main reason. Many years ago, Google started updating their search algorithm to heavily prefer specific domains like govs, edus, or handpicked ones like Reuters or Microsoft. I used to run my own blog and forum, and it used to be on the top of the search results for the niche it occupied. After the changes, it fell off the front pages and I'd often see the top search result being a link to a random reddit comment mentioning the search phrase and no other content. It was at that point I realized that there was no point in running your own website to create "content". You can't compete with domains whitelisted by Google unless you have a lot of money to spend on SEO. Some people point to the "Panda" update as when this all started happening.

chankstein38 3y ago

I miss StumbleUpon on a regular basis! I feel like now adays it'd just be flooded with spammy garbage sites unfortunately.

pksebben 3y ago

Stumbleupon! What a gleaming ray of sunshine in the vast landscape of the web! I agree with you that it couldn't survive today, but I often wonder why. If I had access to stumbleupon as it was, I would absolutely be using it - but when I try to think about how to reimplement it there are a couple sticking points that I don't have any solutions to: - Engagement: SU lived and died on it's users, a paragon of the crowdsourced model. For it to work you'd have to have it pull enough interesting people from the mire to function - Gaming the system: One of the things that made SU great was that there wasn't so much goddamn SEO out there. If you 'stumbled' on a thing, it was because it was interesting, engaging, funny, or otherwise *actually valuable*. These days, I can't imagine a successful platform *not* getting beleaguered by the SEO vultures.

cloverich 3y ago
I think the SEO problem would be harder. Even though there's definitely a network effect, a few dedicated users can curate a thousand interesting web sites, and that's probably enough to draw in anyone moderately interested.
nonethewiser 3y ago
In regards to "Gaming the system," I do not think popularity begets SEO spam. SEO spam is a specific game to rank high in google search so that you get ad revenue from visits. If you have genuinely valuable content and get popular from Stumbleupon that doesn't create an incentive to implement SEO spam. Ads maybe - but not publishing garbage to rank high on google search because you already solved the discoverability problem.
- sideshowb 3y ago
  It's not the successful website that turns to seo spam, it's seo spammers that spam the StumbleUpon api with bots "liking" their spam.
- reaperman 3y ago
  > SEO spam is a specific game to rank high in google search The same SEO mindset/paradigm is used to make sure someone's spam surfaces on any variety of platforms, not just Google Search. We can argue about the specific semantics of "SEO" (Search Engine Optimization) not being the right word to use for gaming TikTok, Reddit, Instagram, Facebook, or Snapchat algorithms. Perhaps a different word is needed. But the above poster's sentiment is not flawed, even if you think it's overreaching within a specific meaning of "SEO".
longwave 3y ago
This site has seemingly solved both of those problems. So isn't HN the modern StumbleUpon, albeit with more focus on technical topics?
- immibis 3y ago
  SU was always one of the many aggregators in the addth.is toolbar, alongside places like Reddit. They do both serve the same function of making the Internet more discoverable - noting that early Reddit didn't have comments.

dpkirchner 3y ago

I'd add a third fold: the huge rise in garbage ads above, below, overlapping, and surrounding content. Facebook et al have ads, of course, but they are extremely "tame" by comparison. Renting out every pixel ruined many sites.

mangodrunk 3y ago
I agree with you, and I don’t understand why some of these small blogs on niche topics even have ads. How much are they making a month? I’d be surprised if it’s even $5 a month for many of them.
- dspillett 3y ago
  > I’d be surprised if it’s even $5 a month for many of them. I doubt it is even that, or close, if you take any average reading. > I don’t understand why some of these small blogs on niche topics even have ads. I think in many cases they have the ads there just in case one day they randomly get mentioned in a high-profile place, get a pile of traffic, and that makes them an amount in ad revenue worth caring about. Of course, they probably underestimate the effect of such a glut of traffic, most likely their site will grind to a halt long before much ad revenue is totted up, and their “15 minutes” will be over before it is back up again. In some cases it is simply that they've chosen to host somewhere “free” where they have little or no control over the ad content, and probably never see a penny of any revenue from it (the host takes that in exchange for the “free” services).
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Sometimes they're put there by the hosting provider. The blog author doesn't get the money, it all goes towards hosting costs. Which are, you know, real. Running a blog costs continuous money even if you don't have many visitors because of constant crawling, spam attacks, the need to have a machine online 24/7 etc.
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    >constant crawling, spam attacks It seems a bit wild if those two could make any difference in costs. I mean, if you have one visit a month and pay per megabyte then sure, Google would maybe show up in stats, but otherwise?

interroboink 3y ago

Re StumbleUpon: you might be interested in the "random page" feature of wiby.me: https://wiby.me/surprise/ https://wiby.me/surprise/

jwells89 3y ago

IMO "apps" is something of a red herring. I don't think a whole lot would change if somehow everybody switched to web versions of big social media; they'd just be endlessly scrolling in a single browser tab instead of in a single app. This effect was apparent back before smartphones became ubiquitous, where desktop users (especially more casual/less technical) were spending disproportionate amounts of time on Facebook and YouTube. It's where we first started seeing people sourcing their news exclusively from social media. Some qualities of apps may bolster this effect, but the root problem lies in the addictiveness, convenience, endlessness, and network effects of large platforms.

shuntress 3y ago
"Apps" in this contexts means "Platforms" or a "Closed" web vs the "Open" web.
- dividefuel 3y ago
  Yes, this, thank you for clarifying. These major platforms offer a much more streamlined UX for passively consuming content than a web browser, and most people seem to prefer that simpler UX.
dylan604 3y ago
But these platforms want you on their app instead of webpages. That's why the apps exist. There's a reason they are willing to go through the hassle/expense of maintaining native code apps instead of just one website. It is the core of their business.
- jwells89 3y ago
  Of course, platforms are going to do everything in their power to exert as strong as a grip as possible on users. The thing is though, with the amounts of money involved even small improvements in engagement and retention justify considerable expenditures. Their willingness to spend on things like native apps is not necessarily representative of the impact of those things.

Paul-Craft 3y ago

I'll give you spam sites, but I'll also note that at least 4 of the 5 examples you gave of where people go to consume content in apps also have highly functional and usable websites, even on mobile. I'm not familiar with TikTok, so I can't comment on it. I'd also note that if you want to just, say, consume from YouTube, spam sites are no longer in the picture.

codexon 3y ago

I believe you are missing the crucial reason why all the people are consuming content in apps now. Google is in large part to blame for this, if not the main reason. Many years ago, Google started updating their search algorithm to heavily prefer specific domains like govs, edus, or handpicked ones like Reuters or Microsoft. I used to run my own blog and forum, and it used to be on the top of the search results for the niche it occupied. After the changes, it fell off the front pages and I'd often see the top search result being a link to a random reddit comment mentioning the search phrase and no other content. It was at that point I realized that there was no point in running your own website to create "content". You can't compete with domains whitelisted by Google unless you have a lot of money to spend on SEO. Some people point to the "Panda" update as when this all started happening.