5 ms·

> (...) and now it's worth about half of the New York Times. It's one of those cases where I can't help but think, you know, maybe our metrics are way off.

by apl 14y ago

graeme 14y ago
Off in that the NYT should be worth more because it makes money, or off in that Reddit should be worth more because of it's ungodly amounts of traffic and devotion?
- markdown 14y ago
  Reddit is replaceable. Shut down today, a dozen clones would rise up tomorrow. NYT on the other hand... The latter should be worth far more than it is.
  - kami8845 14y ago
    >Reddit is replaceable. Shut down today, a dozen clones would rise up tomorrow. You don't understand the value of reddit. As I've written in other posts in this thread. It's the community and that's impossible to replace (as evidenced by the hundreds of other forums that have shit communities) Reddit is far and above many, many online communities in terms of breadth & depth.
    - DanBC 14y ago
      People would have said the same about MySpace or text-only Usenet at one time. Imgur has some voting stuff now, and it'll be interesting to see if that helps it take off or not. And there are other sites trying to develop good communications. Hubski, for example.
      - kami8845 14y ago
        Hubski looks interesting. I'll keep an eye on them, though do they do still look very tiny. I don't think Imgur will ever take off. There is no fostering of individual subcultures like there was with subreddits. Basically their entire content revolves around funny images. Their comments never become thoughtful like reddit's. MySpace started in 2003 and lost the battle to FB in 2008. Reddit was founded and has been growing steady and strong for 7 years, killing competitor Digg along the ride (Digg mainly caused it's own decline but I find the easy availability of a close competitor made it much easier). I stand by the above statement. Reddit's community grew slowly and organically while the admins went through great pains to remain as "hands-off" as they could. They have major respect for their community and understand that that's the make-or-break aspect of the site.
        eurleif 14y ago
        >I don't think Imgur will ever take off. Huh? Imgur already has more traffic than reddit. http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=400&h=220&o=f&c=1&y=r&b=ffffff&n=666666&r=2y&u=imgur.com&&u=reddit.com&#38 http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=400&h=220&o=f&c...;
    - natrius 14y ago
      When I actively read them, I valued the communities of Slashdot, Fark and Metafilter just as much as I value the Reddit community. Reddit is less unique in that regard than you might think. It is absolutely more replaceable than the New York Times. It's mindboggling that I even had to type that last sentence.
      - kami8845 14y ago
        I guess different strokes for different folks. For me and the vast array of different specialist subreddits I use day-to-day, not only to consume but also to help others and participate in discussion I find the situation as I find it currently unique on the internet and incredibly hard to replicate. Added to that the karma system which consistently promotes good content (it's amazing what people will do to get karma, it works amazingly as an incentive). To me the NYTimes is "articles with pictures". I can get that on a dozen more sites on the internet. And without a paywall.
      - rm999 14y ago
        Your evidence that reddit is replaceable is you've used similar sites (most of which are basically dead in the water at this point). But in the same paragraph you exempt the new york times from that same reasoning. There are several large high-quality newspapers out there competing with the new york times (washington post, wall street journal, la times, chicago tribune, etc). I love the times, but "it may be less unique than you might think." If anything, the internet has made the media extremely fungibile. Social networks are the opposite - as they grow the ability to switch between them becomes more difficult.
        natrius 14y ago
        "Your evidence that reddit is replaceable is you've used similar sites (most of which are basically dead in the water at this point)." That's the point. Internet communities come and go all the time. None of them have proven to be hard to replace. Quality news organizations don't pop up every few years. The New York Times has competitors, but not equals. All of the papers you mentioned (except for the WSJ, which is indispensable in its niche) have a small fraction of the subscribers the New York Times does, which seems like a pretty good metric for unique value.
    - markdown 14y ago
      > You don't understand the value of reddit. You'd take that back if you saw my karma level. I use selfcontrol.app to keep Reddit at bay. > It's the community and that's impossible to replace I've been a member of lots of better communities... there's only so far you can get 'attached' to people who are anonymous. Your entire argument is that a venue to discuss things is more important than the source of the discussion topic. I just can't agree with that. Throw out the water cooler and I'll take my discussion to the coffee machine. But throw out the discussion topic (Exposé on corruption at the FDA in the NYT), and water cooler or coffee machine, what will we talk about... Honey Boo Boo?
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  The last I heard the NYT had an estimated value roughly equal to that of the real estate it occupies (i.e. the paper, website, etc. are worth nothing).
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    Their stock is down 83% since 2002.
kami8845 14y ago
Why is the NYT this wholy grail, that no company ever can aspire to be worth more than? For me personally Reddit is much more important than the NYT will ever be. If the NYT disappears tomorrow I couldn't care less. There's other publications that will fill its place. Reddit has allowed me to meet great people, have in-depth conversations on topics that no one in my near vicinity cares about and expand my knowledge into fields I never knew possible. It's a great place.
- loganfrederick 14y ago
  NYT is one of the very if, possibly only, newspaper media companies with a worldwide brand recognition to actually have value/goodwill in its own right. That is why it is considered to be worth more than other media companies; it is due to its brand and reputation. Not to say this couldn't or won't change at some point.
  - clobber 14y ago
    And now Mark Thompson, who is tied to the Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal at the BBC, is CEO of NYT. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/mark-thompson-ceo-new-york-times_n_2115399.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/mark-thompson-ceo-n...
    - chimeracoder 14y ago
      I'm sorry, what does that have to do with their value as a news organization? Furthermore, Jill Abramson is a far more relevant figure than Thompson in this context.
- markdown 14y ago
  > For me personally Reddit is much more important than the NYT will ever be. Honey Boo Boo is much more important to me than NatGeo and NPR.
  - kami8845 14y ago
    Why? I'd love to know what value Honey Boo Boo provides you that's unique and can't be filled by others.
stdbrouw 14y ago
What's worth more, producing excellent journalism that occassionally exposes wrongdoing, or entertaining millions of people every day? Is police officer a more laudable occupation than movie director? What about a farmer versus a politician? I don't think it's so obvious that the NYT does more for society than Reddit. (Though you could argue that Reddit is more replaceable.)

> (...) and now it's worth about half of the New York Times. It's one of those cases where I can't help but think, you know, maybe our metrics are way off.

by apl 14y ago

> (...) and now it's worth about half of the New York Times. It's one of those cases where I can't help but think, you know, maybe our metrics are way off.

graeme 14y ago

Off in that the NYT should be worth more because it makes money, or off in that Reddit should be worth more because of it's ungodly amounts of traffic and devotion?

markdown 14y ago
Reddit is replaceable. Shut down today, a dozen clones would rise up tomorrow. NYT on the other hand... The latter should be worth far more than it is.
- kami8845 14y ago
  >Reddit is replaceable. Shut down today, a dozen clones would rise up tomorrow. You don't understand the value of reddit. As I've written in other posts in this thread. It's the community and that's impossible to replace (as evidenced by the hundreds of other forums that have shit communities) Reddit is far and above many, many online communities in terms of breadth & depth.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    People would have said the same about MySpace or text-only Usenet at one time. Imgur has some voting stuff now, and it'll be interesting to see if that helps it take off or not. And there are other sites trying to develop good communications. Hubski, for example.
    - kami8845 14y ago
      Hubski looks interesting. I'll keep an eye on them, though do they do still look very tiny. I don't think Imgur will ever take off. There is no fostering of individual subcultures like there was with subreddits. Basically their entire content revolves around funny images. Their comments never become thoughtful like reddit's. MySpace started in 2003 and lost the battle to FB in 2008. Reddit was founded and has been growing steady and strong for 7 years, killing competitor Digg along the ride (Digg mainly caused it's own decline but I find the easy availability of a close competitor made it much easier). I stand by the above statement. Reddit's community grew slowly and organically while the admins went through great pains to remain as "hands-off" as they could. They have major respect for their community and understand that that's the make-or-break aspect of the site.
      - eurleif 14y ago
        >I don't think Imgur will ever take off. Huh? Imgur already has more traffic than reddit. http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=400&h=220&o=f&c=1&y=r&b=ffffff&n=666666&r=2y&u=imgur.com&&u=reddit.com&#38 http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=400&h=220&o=f&c...;
  - natrius 14y ago
    When I actively read them, I valued the communities of Slashdot, Fark and Metafilter just as much as I value the Reddit community. Reddit is less unique in that regard than you might think. It is absolutely more replaceable than the New York Times. It's mindboggling that I even had to type that last sentence.
    - kami8845 14y ago
      I guess different strokes for different folks. For me and the vast array of different specialist subreddits I use day-to-day, not only to consume but also to help others and participate in discussion I find the situation as I find it currently unique on the internet and incredibly hard to replicate. Added to that the karma system which consistently promotes good content (it's amazing what people will do to get karma, it works amazingly as an incentive). To me the NYTimes is "articles with pictures". I can get that on a dozen more sites on the internet. And without a paywall.
    - rm999 14y ago
      Your evidence that reddit is replaceable is you've used similar sites (most of which are basically dead in the water at this point). But in the same paragraph you exempt the new york times from that same reasoning. There are several large high-quality newspapers out there competing with the new york times (washington post, wall street journal, la times, chicago tribune, etc). I love the times, but "it may be less unique than you might think." If anything, the internet has made the media extremely fungibile. Social networks are the opposite - as they grow the ability to switch between them becomes more difficult.
      - natrius 14y ago
        "Your evidence that reddit is replaceable is you've used similar sites (most of which are basically dead in the water at this point)." That's the point. Internet communities come and go all the time. None of them have proven to be hard to replace. Quality news organizations don't pop up every few years. The New York Times has competitors, but not equals. All of the papers you mentioned (except for the WSJ, which is indispensable in its niche) have a small fraction of the subscribers the New York Times does, which seems like a pretty good metric for unique value.
  - markdown 14y ago
    > You don't understand the value of reddit. You'd take that back if you saw my karma level. I use selfcontrol.app to keep Reddit at bay. > It's the community and that's impossible to replace I've been a member of lots of better communities... there's only so far you can get 'attached' to people who are anonymous. Your entire argument is that a venue to discuss things is more important than the source of the discussion topic. I just can't agree with that. Throw out the water cooler and I'll take my discussion to the coffee machine. But throw out the discussion topic (Exposé on corruption at the FDA in the NYT), and water cooler or coffee machine, what will we talk about... Honey Boo Boo?
Turing_Machine 14y ago
The last I heard the NYT had an estimated value roughly equal to that of the real estate it occupies (i.e. the paper, website, etc. are worth nothing).
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  Their stock is down 83% since 2002.

kami8845 14y ago

Why is the NYT this wholy grail, that no company ever can aspire to be worth more than? For me personally Reddit is much more important than the NYT will ever be. If the NYT disappears tomorrow I couldn't care less. There's other publications that will fill its place. Reddit has allowed me to meet great people, have in-depth conversations on topics that no one in my near vicinity cares about and expand my knowledge into fields I never knew possible. It's a great place.

loganfrederick 14y ago
NYT is one of the very if, possibly only, newspaper media companies with a worldwide brand recognition to actually have value/goodwill in its own right. That is why it is considered to be worth more than other media companies; it is due to its brand and reputation. Not to say this couldn't or won't change at some point.
- clobber 14y ago
  And now Mark Thompson, who is tied to the Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal at the BBC, is CEO of NYT. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/mark-thompson-ceo-new-york-times_n_2115399.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/mark-thompson-ceo-n...
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    I'm sorry, what does that have to do with their value as a news organization? Furthermore, Jill Abramson is a far more relevant figure than Thompson in this context.
markdown 14y ago
> For me personally Reddit is much more important than the NYT will ever be. Honey Boo Boo is much more important to me than NatGeo and NPR.
- kami8845 14y ago
  Why? I'd love to know what value Honey Boo Boo provides you that's unique and can't be filled by others.

stdbrouw 14y ago

What's worth more, producing excellent journalism that occassionally exposes wrongdoing, or entertaining millions of people every day? Is police officer a more laudable occupation than movie director? What about a farmer versus a politician? I don't think it's so obvious that the NYT does more for society than Reddit. (Though you could argue that Reddit is more replaceable.)