3 ms·

Having Business Insider as an example in support of articles written with analytic is ironic. BI is full of cheap articles that tries to bait you to read artic

• patrickk 13y ago
  Same with Gawker. I used to read Lifehacker quite a bit, have up years ago as the articles have become steadily worse.
• dmethvin 13y ago
  It's not ironic at all, it's the intended consequence. Thoughtful, in-depth, well-researched articles are not only more time-consuming to write, they're more time-consuming to read and that's not what a lot of people want as they browse aimlessly on the web to fill their work breaks. You'll get better traffic from a catchy headline and a few emotion-inspiring comments, and that can give you the page views needed to display enough ads to get some accidental clicks. The shorter the article, and the catchier the headline, the more pages they'll click. That's what the analytics will tell you. This isn't a new concept. Since the 1950s, William Gaines of Mad Magazine fame refused to do a study of their readers because they didn't want to begin pandering to 13-year-old boys (the presumed audience). Instead, he wanted the writers and artists to do what they thought was funny.
• 001sky 13y ago
  BI and Gawker were expressly formed as "Tabloids" for online. They are supposed to be super-market-isle throwaway attention fodder. That is literally their mission. Totally different than other areas of the biz.