3 ms·
I don't entirely agree. Yes, there's subjectivity, but there's more to it, IMO. There are sites (eg along the lines of legacy print or established in the "earl
by rkomorn 10mo ago
I don't entirely agree. Yes, there's subjectivity, but there's more to it, IMO.
There are sites (eg along the lines of legacy print or established in the "early" internet days) that still try to generate news content for reading, but are seeking more revenue.
And then there are sites that are just modern click/impression factories that never tried to actually produce real content.
- chrisjj 10mo agoI don't agree that whether the content is "real" is anything more than subjective. If content you see laden with ads was not "real" enough to earn from sufficient readers, you would not be seeing it.
- rkomorn 10mo agoIf that were really the case, then nobody would be employed to try and understand SEO, ranking algorithms, virality, etc. Edit: what I mean by that is: I think your comment implies there's some sort of meritocracy to content people see online that isn't easily gamed. My various feeds, search results, etc, convince me otherwise.
- chrisjj 10mo agoI did not say content was never gamed. But gaming doesn't make content unreal.