Reddit prepares to launch new news website 'Upvoted' | Hacker News Reader

Reddit prepares to launch new news website 'Upvoted'

wired.com

79 pointsjsnathan81 comments

> Rather it will post sponsored content paid for and approved by advertising partners—and written by the same editorial team that writes editorial posts. “They’re going to be just as interesting as actual content,” Chang says. “It could be a piece on Tesla, a piece on how WiFi works, no matter what it’ll be good content—and it’ll just happened to be sponsored.”

This gives me some disquiet. I realise that this is what advertisers want - high quality ads that can't be blocked, but I think its harmful. In general, I avoid going to sites that have a policy of doing this.

Sites like Buzzfeed are cashing in hard with this kind of sham so this fad will ruin a lot more sites in the coming years.

I talked to an Australian magazine that will remain nameless where the executive on the other side of the table told me their business model was 100% sponsored content. I couldn't tell, from their website. Every single article was a sophisticated ad. He said they were doing fantastically and growing fast, users wanted that kind of stuff.

It reminds me of Ogilvy's book on advertising [1]; Ogilvy's experience taught him that informative ads that explained the advantages of the product were most successful with customers. Sponsored content is exactly that, and the opposite might be something like clickbait [2].

Sponsored articles are accessed voluntarily by the customer clicking on them and reading them, and returning to the site; they are unobstrusive being mostly made of text and of (relatively) higher editorial quality, with good photography and so on. I wonder if they are the future of advertising.

On the topic of being unable to filter advertorial content from, well, content, I don't think it's as clear cut as ads vs not-ads, since every writer has their own set of opinions and presents their world view only (with few exceptions). A necessary life skill is critical thinking, learning to dissect an argument, examine its assumptions and data, and come to an independent conclusion as to the point it is making.

[1] core principles are summarized in his "house ad": http://smartonlinesuccess.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dav...

[2] famously (NSFW): http://www.lazygamer.net/general-news/a-history-of-evony-ads...

In Norway, this would basically require them to disclose the sponsorship on each and every post... I wonder how having to do that would affect such a model... In other words: Do users care?

Same in UK. The regulators are pretty strict that sponsored content has to be clearly labelled as such before the user clicks the link.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/26/vloggers-must-t...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30203816

https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2014/Maki...

Wait, so if I link to someone else's sponsored content, I need to declare that it's such? Surely that can't be the case.

No, only if you've got some connection with the content sponsor.

If Oreo cookies give me money and I make videos about Oreos I need to include the word "advert" or similar in the name of the video.

You can link to that how you like. I can't, I need to make sure there's a difference between promoted content and my real content.

In Denmark, you are required by law to state if an article is paid content or not. The law extends to both articles in magazines, but also the web, including blogs.

The ads are not only happening in articles, it is also happening on Vine, where companies sponsor videos of popular users:

http://mashable.com/2014/07/22/sneaky-vine-ads

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YhqXUekgEc

How on earth do they define that? If an advertiser gives me a discount off their product, does that count? What if an advertiser provides a "review copy" of something? What if a company already pays for advertising on my site, and I write about one of their products?

It is written like this:

>§4. An advertisement shall be designed, in a way that it will be clearly recognisable as an advertisement of whatever form and whatever media in which it is placed."

If you receive a review-copy you should state that, and if you get a discount you should also write that. I am not sure about if the company already pays for advertisement, but they want to stop hidden advertisements.

Some bloggers have received hefty fines for violating this, but it seems like the readers are more used to the concept now.

How does this work in TV programs where there are embedded product placements?

It is a mess.

On all Danish produced TV production created after 01/07-2013, product placement is banned. This includes films as well, since they can be broadcasted.

But foreign produced films and series are not included in this, so we can still be able to enjoy James Bond on TV.

The trade association suggested to show a notice in the program, or afterwards, when they used product placement, but it was never put in law, and was it was banned instead.

Well, the simplest solution is to clearly state what, if anything, they've done - saying "they gave me a review copy" clears everything up, if all they did was give you a review copy. I'm pretty sure they have a quite in-depth statement of what you can and can't do, but I would expect that clearly stating what's going on at the start of each review would be enough.

I think it's actually against the law in the US as well. There has been a big push back against video game journalists not disclosing when they are paid for their reviews, and the FTC regulations have been why they are citing.

The FTC recently clarified their disclosure rules for exactly these situations [1], largely thanks to the GamerGate campaign.

[1] http://www.dataprivacymonitor.com/social-media/ftc-clarifies...

> core principles are summarized in his "house ad": http://smartonlinesuccess.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dav...

"#32 Yes people read long copy [...] (This page contains 1909 words and you are reading it.)[...]"

Found a text transcript here, mentions late '60s publication: http://www.infomarketingblog.com/ogilvy-mather-direct-ad-4-h...

Yes things are different today, but not so different.

For example, he mentions in his books that people enjoy having something to read whilst waiting for a bus. I personally love long wordy ads in the metro or on the bus as they help me pass time between stops. Even when the content is utter crap.

He sold Rolls-Royce by going and talking to their engineers - at the plant! - and figuring out what made the cars special. Then he wrote a snappy line that captured the gist of it, and some text underneath for those interested enough to keep reading. The ad [1] is now a classic in the industry.

Interestingly, his position was that he would never do political advertising. Key to the success of his ads were telling the "truth" about the advantages of your product (sure, embellish it, but do not lie as you get found out) and he was disgusted by the fact all political campaigns were entirely made of lies and often attacks.

[1] http://bordiniuc.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/1ss01.jpg

The Rolls ad is a blast. The man sure loved to toss some emphasis in them there texts ...

People have mentioned other countries, but even the US FCC has endorsement rules: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...

In talking to a person who at the time worked for a magazine in the music industry, I also learned that a predominant amount of content was sponsored - either submitted and paid for by publicists, record labels, or another entity. I'm not a follower of "music bloggers" but I am aware there have been some sponsored content / pay-to-review type inorganic accusations thrown about as well. Payola never really died, it simply evolved and went digital.

> He said they were doing fantastically and growing fast, users wanted that kind of stuff.

So he said, and maybe even believes, yet the magazine will remain nameless, and from looking at the website even a knowledgeable person wasn't able to tell it's all sponsored content.

Sounds like the downfall of Digg all over again.

Very happy as long as thee is an 'Ad' tag on there somewhere - like Digg does.

Me too. Native advertising is plain evil, in a way even the worst drive-by malware flash popups aren't. They're ads designed with the sole purpose of tricking readers into thinking they're viewing a real article, and they abuse the trust readers have towards the news source. I think John Olliver covered the topic well enough[0], so let me just say that I only hope that Upvoted will label the ads clearly so that it's obvious for everyone they're reading paid content (imagine advertisers letting them do that, though...).

> It could be a piece on Tesla

Wait, since when Tesla does native ads? Do they do ads at all?

[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc

As of Tuesday at midnight, here's what you see at http://upvoted.com: http://i.imgur.com/KsnPvXN.png

Could it end up being built on WordPress?

Sure. Something to monitor reddit for highly upvoted and interesting content. Once it hits a certain threshold, add the post to WP. Generate the cache entry and you're pretty well set.

Well, I was commenting in particular on the fact that the site is currently a private WordPress server. The plan appears to be a bit more involved than aggregation, comprising interviews with Reddit OPs and curated articles written by Reddit staff themselves (although they’re probably hiring mostly new people to work on that).

This sounds like まとめサイト, "curation site" for 2ch.net .

Take interesting threads from the main site and edit comments to make it more palatable for the wider audience.

It generates quite a revenue from affiliate contracts, I hear.

I don't know if it still is, but most of Yahoo's magazine content is run on Wordpress.

There is nothing weird about building news sites on Wordpress.

IMHO that looks really awful.

Almost no mention of it on Reddit prior to this story [0] aside from rumors in a couple small Subreddits. Feels weird as a Reddit user to see something like this out in the news without attempts for creating community buy-in, as if the Reddit team has lost faith in aligning with their user base and instead leans toward working around them.

EDIT: The Wired article is starting to make its way around [1]

[0] https://www.reddit.com/search?q=upvoted.com&sort=new&t=week

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3nnw6v/reddit_l...

I think it makes sense as a strategy to leverage the existing backend with a new frontend that caters to an entirely different audience. If I were building that to attract a new audience, I wouldn't particularly care what current users think. For example, I think it's pretty well known that reddit is much more successful among men whereas women have preferred other aggregators. If executed well, a new view that sidelines the traditional reddit interface could be a valid alternative for people that are turned off by aspects of reddit's community.

I think it depends on whether reddit is being smart (targeting pinterest) vs retarded (targeting 9gag).

Lets be honest here: Reddit has done a lot of censoring lately. It's not a surprise you're not hearing anything about Upvoted on Reddit, it's just sad.

...what? How does that make sense? You think Reddit is censoring discussion of its own news website?

They have made it pretty clear over the last couple of years that want to jettison their original userbase for a much larger, more mainstream userbase. There is more money in it so I can't say I blame them, but they had better hope they have the critical mass needed to make that happen.

I think it's a smart and awesome decision.

Curated reddit. It solves so many problems and can offer a lot of value to everybody.

- People who want "clean" and moderated reddit get what they want,

- advertisers get what they want,

- and, hopefully, reddit users get what they want(because there will be less pressure to moderate reddit.com).

At the very least they will capture all the value that buzzfeed and other bad blogs are currently taking from reddit.

Everybody wins.

Hardly any will be captured by this new venture. This is in competition with clickbait sites and internet culture sites like 9gag. At best it will capture some lurkers.

less pressure to moderate reddit.com

I very much doubt it; the pressure to moderate harder comes from within redditors as well whenever the toxic subreddits leak.

I feel that this can disincentivize commenting. I am probably going to be a user of Upvoted, taking me out of Reddit where I comment when a story compels me to do it. If there is more people like me, you will reduce your commenting user base.

> But most importantly, it just isn’t Reddit.

I think the thing that would set Upvoted apart, and that's basically the one reason it could work, is the fact that under the hood it is Reddit. Reddit has an enormous community that practically supplies stories and also validates them as "traffic-worthy".

I've seen several articles on other news sites that were clearly inspired by a popular post on Reddit, though I can't currently find a good example. If other people are doing it, why not Reddit themselves?

Every terrestrial radio station I've listened to has a story a couple times a month about the "top 10 things people said about something" that is lifted directly from a top post in /r/AskReddit. Some stations mention that it's from Reddit, but some don't.

Buzzfeed, usvsth3m, The Metro and their ilk just recycle reddit submissions anyway, I think it makes sense for reddit to take a slice of that pie themselves.

Eh. This feels like what Digg pivoted into, a news website. Except of course, Reddit will be providing the content so it will be more straightforward. Interestingly they mention that it has been in the works for the last year, it seems like this is going to be a basic Wordpress site (unless the hosting page currently is misleading).

Using wordpress as a CMS would be quite suitable. I would assume what makes more than 'just another wordpress site' will the back end. Load balancing, caching etc.

I would have expected a custom landing page though.

DNS for the domain only has a 300 second TTL. The site can easily be pointed somewhere else before the launch.

  ;; QUESTION SECTION:
  ;upvoted.com.                   IN      A

  ;; ANSWER SECTION:
  upvoted.com.            300     IN      A       192.0.79.33
  upvoted.com.            300     IN      A       192.0.79.32

Seems they are indeed using Wordpress (based on the page source). The real site is here: https://redditupvoted.wordpress.com/ - I think you'll find they're using existing plugins for load-balancing and caching. I don't know specifics though, so a fair bit could be custom but it seems to me 90% of this site was probably design and 10% development.

I've got a feeling that the Reddit community won't be too keen on this, mostly seeing it as another news organization "stealing" their content. IMO a good way to get users behind this would be to compensate the original posters for their content being posted on Upvoted.

Meh. I'm putting it on Reddit, I'd rather they profit from it than Buzzfeed.

9.5-year-old Reddit account here, so perhaps my view is atypical, but I see this as Reddit's answer to the new Digg, and to the broader trend of editorial curation as a counterpart (not necessarily a competitor) to aggregation.

Reddit has web aggregation and communities pretty much sewn up as a market. How can they grow? By leveraging their insight into that traffic to create their own publication. I think they see their audience for Upvoted as people who know what Reddit is, and perhaps use it, but aren't power users and just like to have interesting and entertaining stuff presented to them.

Best of luck to them, I certainly don't think Upvoted's success is written in stone (especially given Reddit's history of half-delivering on their initiatives).

>I see this as Reddit's answer to the new Digg

Why does the new Digg need answering though? It's now nothing but an obscure website that is only mentioned in connection to how big it once was.

I wish companies would stop trying to grow, and just continue doing their best at what they do best. Everything that tries to keep growing always goes to shit after a while.

I'm pretty sure the Reddit community is exactly what they want to get away from with this.

> Nor, despite its name, will it have any kind of upvoting system

Well the name says the stories have already been upvoted, so no system of the sorts are really implied anyway. I'm sure there are more takes on that though.

If I wanted editorial content and spin I'd read mainstream news.

Seems like Reddit has the same fate as Digg after all.

So tomorrow Reddit launches its own version of 9gag?

More like own version of Digg

> Reddit has a reputation as the dark, unruly id of the Internet

Stopped reading there.

Someone needs to introduce the author to /b/.

Sorry, but it's true. From what I've observed, Reddit has started to supplant 4chan in that role in the public eye.

? From what I've observed, people either don't know much about Reddit (usually over 40 y/o), or they talk about Reddit like an established site. See Bloomberg's interview with Sam Altman posted today. See the consistently incredible turn out of famous figures to Reddit's AMA series.

I mean, how can a website with 200 million users be considered a "dark corner"? Absurd.

I'm over 40 and my reddit badge looks like this:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/redditstatic/award/9_year_club-40.p...

I don't think it's an entirely absurd statement.

archagon is making the hasty generalization combined with a biased sample fallacy.

There are over 300,000 Subreddits. Plenty of room for dark corners, even if the thing as a whole is well known.

The community on reddit has changed a lot from even just a few years ago. I'm seeing a lot more trolling and overt racism in the fringe subreddits (/r/WTF /r/worldnews etc) bleed into /r/all.

What I think gets ignored often in debates like this, is the fact that every year a newly-minted set of adults graduate from teenage-hood and make their way into the world - this cyclic wave of culture is a natural phenomenon and yet it is discounted every time these kinds of articles come up. Moral pontificating about the 'underbelly of the Internet' is one thing : but it is important to recognize that this underbelly is in fact a new generation of thinkers and doers, freshly unchained from their parents' shackles, willing and able to upset the world at all cost ..

On the Internet, nobody knows your age.

Because you mentioned age, the one thing I noticed over 30 years of owning a few fast food restaurants, is that kids do a lot of growing up between the ages of 18 and 20. We might hire in someone at 18, for summer help, and just want to shoot ourselves in the head but that same kid comes back the next year, and the next, and you can see the maturity level change dramatically in that short span.

That is indeed a very insightful observation and I am rewarded by having considered it.

Those subreddits are huge. What's your definition of a mainstream subreddit?

Reddit is just the world, unfiltered.

Whoever thinks Reddit is especially racist, sexist or whatever should just go out more often, or get out of their San Francisco political correctness bubble.

It's true that Reddit is more or less representative of young, American, mostly white men. But that's not "the world". Not even close.

Reddit is not the world, and it's not unfiltered. It's the same comments being upvoted and downvoted in similar patterns again and again and again. 4chan is much more unfiltered because it's anonymous and there's no voting mechanism to filter unpopular opinions. 4chan is still not the world though, it's mostly white American men.

I think it's bullshit too, but most people online just want Cable TV With Hyperlinks. Reddit is actually raw and unfiltered to those users.

Everything else on their radar is an editorial outlet, the home shopping network or the classifieds section. The closest they get to interacting with real people is Twitter and Facebook. Which appeal to the user's vanity, and following mechanics keep them in some approximation of the social bubbles they're in offline.

But Reddit has pseudonymous randos, with too many different names for a user to meaningfully fit in their brain, so it becomes a single voice to them. And they have ideas that aren't carefully crafted for palatability before presenting them. So reddit becomes "id."

ideas that aren't carefully crafted for palatability

That's quite an impressive euphemism for some of the stuff that you might see if you were to hit the "random NFSW" link. Not to mention the racial and misogyny hate groups that turn up, or the ubiquity of NSFW usernames.

I was mentioning where the bar is set by commercial platforms creating content to appeal to their audience, not how far below that bar other things can get.

But since you mention it, trendy clickable blogs can and do sell hate, sex and gratuitousness all the time, it is all in how they package it. NSFW is by definition the sorts of images and words that can't be repackaged in a way cubical dwellers can have on-screen while slacking, but site like The Chive still run right up to the NSFA (Not Safe For Advertiser) line with it.

It's unequivocally true and I've been saying it for years.

Yup. Every hero( read project ) needs a villain( read risky opposite ) Then inject a bit of marketing and major push via partnered or paid off media campaigns and baby - you have a stew goin'.

I know that first hand and see this as nothing new. Digg, Reddit or whichever are not immune from pressures to perform fiscally. This is probably just a first step, let's see if it works for them.

Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10336961.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com