5 ms·

Agreed. And splitting hairs here, but he's a Forbes contributor, not a writer there. Forbes is using its magazine's name to make its federated/outsourced blog s

by clinth 14y ago

Agreed. And splitting hairs here, but he's a Forbes contributor, not a writer there. Forbes is using its magazine's name to make its federated/outsourced blog system sound more credible. forbes.com has a lot of blogspam.

smcnally 14y ago
What are examples of what you consider blogspam on forbes.com?
- someperson 14y ago
  Here's one (but by no means the only) example: http://nickoneill.com/how-fortune-stole-a-new-york-times-article-and-got-all-the-traffic-2012-02/ http://nickoneill.com/how-fortune-stole-a-new-york-times-art... From what I've seen, articles on forbes.com are mostly low-quality - often blogspam or tabloid-style journalism. They seem to have a good reputation in society which isn't represented by their articles. I would be a happier living in a filter bubble with "forbes.com" removed from my life.
  - TrevorJ 14y ago
    I noticed that the other day, with the submission comparing Facebook to Enron. I was suprised how poorly thought out the article was, coming from a name like Forbes.
  - smcnally 14y ago
    I'm not saying there are no examples. In the one you bring up, though, I recall the piece and ensuing hullaballoo: The original NYT author, Charles Duhigg, basically admired and defended the Forbes writer's job (re taking the story in a different direction; providing more exposure to an audience outside his own; providing a prominent book plug), and then O'Neill backed off his own "link-baity" headline. http://jimromenesko.com/2012/02/21/nyt-reporter-defends-forbes-writer-accused-of-stealing-his-work/ http://jimromenesko.com/2012/02/21/nyt-reporter-defends-forb... In general (though, agreed, ~off-topic here), more can be done w/r/t quality assurance of a distributed content network. Something like "report blogspam" is highly subjective and rife with abuse potential. Slashdot's moderation / meta moderation, in combination with straight up and down votes by the wider community, can be effective. Relying on a "central editorial functions" to handle it all is inefficient and doesn't scale well. This - reputation, rewards, quality (of writers, content, community) - has been an area of interest for me for years. I'm actively working on same currently. I'll put an Ask HN together and see if it gets any traction. (Disclaimer: I work at Forbes and speak here only for myself)

by clinth 14y ago

smcnally 14y ago

What are examples of what you consider blogspam on forbes.com?

someperson 14y ago
Here's one (but by no means the only) example: http://nickoneill.com/how-fortune-stole-a-new-york-times-article-and-got-all-the-traffic-2012-02/ http://nickoneill.com/how-fortune-stole-a-new-york-times-art... From what I've seen, articles on forbes.com are mostly low-quality - often blogspam or tabloid-style journalism. They seem to have a good reputation in society which isn't represented by their articles. I would be a happier living in a filter bubble with "forbes.com" removed from my life.
- TrevorJ 14y ago
  I noticed that the other day, with the submission comparing Facebook to Enron. I was suprised how poorly thought out the article was, coming from a name like Forbes.
- smcnally 14y ago
  I'm not saying there are no examples. In the one you bring up, though, I recall the piece and ensuing hullaballoo: The original NYT author, Charles Duhigg, basically admired and defended the Forbes writer's job (re taking the story in a different direction; providing more exposure to an audience outside his own; providing a prominent book plug), and then O'Neill backed off his own "link-baity" headline. http://jimromenesko.com/2012/02/21/nyt-reporter-defends-forbes-writer-accused-of-stealing-his-work/ http://jimromenesko.com/2012/02/21/nyt-reporter-defends-forb... In general (though, agreed, ~off-topic here), more can be done w/r/t quality assurance of a distributed content network. Something like "report blogspam" is highly subjective and rife with abuse potential. Slashdot's moderation / meta moderation, in combination with straight up and down votes by the wider community, can be effective. Relying on a "central editorial functions" to handle it all is inefficient and doesn't scale well. This - reputation, rewards, quality (of writers, content, community) - has been an area of interest for me for years. I'm actively working on same currently. I'll put an Ask HN together and see if it gets any traction. (Disclaimer: I work at Forbes and speak here only for myself)