DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks
css-tricks.com
css-tricks.com
Interestingly, DigitalOcean has a knack for acquiring these technical dev sites, in 2019 it acquired Scotch.io[0] which was one of the better technical web development sites out there.
Fun fact about Scotch, the founder (Chris Sev[1]) sold the site to DO, joined their team, and later managed to broker a deal to 301 redirect a lot of the pages to his new project Better.dev[2].
Absolute genius.
[0]: https://www.digitalocean.com/blog/scotch-io-is-joining-digit...
there are a lot
Also, your example is ambiguous because "lot" is a singular noun (you wouldn't use "are" if the object is a parking lot, for example) but if you're truncating a longer phrase like "a lot of widgets" then "a lot" is modifying a plural noun (you'd definitely use "are" for that, or the informal apostrophe+s we're discussing).
Phonologically, it makes sense that it would gain traction as it's a means of avoiding the effort of the 'ere are' vowel combination. It's an addition rather than an elision, but the underlying motivation of saving effort is the same.
The word "literally" has been commonly used for hyperbole in English for hundreds of years. There is nothing grammatically wrong here.
> : in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
They justify this in a few places, including
> The "in effect; virtually" meaning of literally is not a new sense. It has been in regular use since the 18th century and may be found in the writings of Mark Twain, Charlotte Brontë, James Joyce, and many others.
edit: HN was loading really weird for me, I didn't see the sibling comment make this point already!
Kelsey?
>1. Contraction of here is.
>2. (nonstandard) Contraction of here are.
Note this has been listed since at least 2006, based on the history.
"She's raining" - "Who is?" - "Mother Nature"
Not that it matters anyway, since "have got" is a weird double-barrelled construct: It means exactly the same as just "have" or "got" on their own, so take your pick.
If you've got something, you have it. Sure, you could, logically, have got rid of it in the meantime -- but that's ridiculous pedantry; in the GP's context, it's the same question. All that was, though, a side note.
> so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious)
The actual question, OTOH, was which of the (implied) original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?" the reply "I do" was in answer to. And as an unambiguous matter of grammar, "I do" is correct in reply to the latter and nonsensical in rey to the former; there, the reply would have been "I did".
So my answer was correct. And that should have been obvious to anyone who knows even the rudiments of English (wich may not include you).
Here, BTW, have some capitals and a full stop: D, S, .
unsure how this little solipsism bolsters your argument or who you're trying to convince. I still contest that it is not the same question. "I do" can follow "do you have?", but not "have you got?". it's not being asked if you have, rather if you have got. of course you could have something without getting it, and other playground grammar, but that just detracts
>The actual question, OTOH, was which of the (implied) original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?" the reply "I do" was in answer to. And as an unambiguous matter of grammar, "I do" is correct in reply to the latter and nonsensical in rey to the former; there, the reply would have been "I did".
why bother mixing tenses and rephrasing? you're trying to complicate something simple so you can cleverly unravel it, which is just pointless. the point being: "I do" is an unacceptable response to "have you got them?", and if anything is implied it's "do have got" in the first answer, which again is the point of being nonsense
>So my answer was correct. And that should have been obvious to anyone who knows even the rudiments of English (wich may not include you).
of course it was, for you. obviously
>Here, BTW, have some capitals and a full stop: D, S, .
I made the decision to use those more sparingly when I became a scholar of latin - so that little dig came back to bite you and I relish in your embarrassment. since you muddied the waters, you can help yourself to some spelling corrections for 'rey' and 'wich', plus some extra acronyms and commas as you seem, amongst other things, full of them LMAO GTFO ,,,,,,,,
Let me direct your attention to:
>>> that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??"
Where you yourself originally acknowledged that the question had been apparently interpreted as "do you have?". So...
> "Have", obviously. That's the only one that goes with "do", being in the present tense.
...still stands.
> why bother mixing tenses and rephrasing?
To illustrate what was actually being answered; do try to keep up. And, hey... Who introduced the mixed tenses?
> you're trying to complicate something simple so you can cleverly unravel it, which is just pointless.
Sure, if one is determined not to get the point. Actually what I said was pretty simple: Of the two alternatives "do what.. do have? do got??", "do have" is obviously the intended one, because it has the same tense throughout; "do got" is ungrammatical and never used. What's "complicated" about that?
> the point being: "I do" is an unacceptable response to "have you got them?", and if anything is implied it's "do have got" in the first answer, which again is the point of being nonsense
If anything is nonsense, I would have thought it's "which again is the point of being nonsense".
> I made the decision to use those more sparingly when I became a scholar of latin
Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.
> - so that little dig came back to bite you and I relish in your embarrassment.
Not at all. Swim in your own in stead.
> you can help yourself to some spelling corrections for 'rey'
Fucking backspace next to 'l' on the phone KB... Ate the 'p' and of course never entered the 'l' in 'reply'. When will I learn not to post to HN on that fucking contraption?
> and 'wich',
My bad.
> plus some extra acronyms and commas as you seem, amongst other things, full of them LMAO GTFO ,,,,,,,,
Why would I need those if I'm so full of them already?!? Get off your high horse, "latin" boi. The Romans valued clear logic, and you're embarrassing them.
>>>>it's not being asked if you have, rather if you have got
apparently? no, but from where you falsely quote the 'original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?"'
again, having and getting are not the same thing
>...still stands
having tripped up so many times you'll be lucky if anything stands again
>To illustrate what was actually being answered
so, to provide a false foundation for your phoney answer. got it
>Who introduced the mixed tenses?
you did with "Did you get them?". keep up laddy!
>Sure, if one is determined not to get the point. Actually what I said was pretty simple: Of the two alternatives "do what.. do have? do got??", "do have" is obviously the intended one, because it has the same tense throughout; "do got" is ungrammatical and never used. What's "complicated" about that?
if anything it's a contraction of "do have got", if it was interpreted as just "do have", then we come back to the point of having not being the same as getting. you're complicating it by changing the verb, which in turn invalidates your answer. throwing the oneage around to try and sound sophisticated doesn't change this fact
>If anything is nonsense, I would have thought it's "which again is the point of being nonsense".
I can't account for your inability to process simple information. swerve noted
>Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.
sarcasm from a dimwit, how befitting. punctuation and capitalisation are independent from or at best optional in language. you didn't lose any context and were able (albeit limitedly) to read it, so..
that's also a misuse of sic, but never mind, it's expected at this point
>Not at all. Swim in your own in stead.
remind us one more time
>Fucking backspace next to 'l' on the phone KB... ..
yeeeah, you sure are something special
>Why would I need those if I'm so full of them already?!?
to satisfy your own gluttony? funny how you've refrained though
>Get off your high horse, "latin" boi. The Romans valued clear logic, and you're embarrassing them.
whoosh get off your inferior plodding ass and have a nice day
> you did with "Did you get them?". keep up laddy!
Again, for the umpteenth time:
>>> that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??"
"Have got": past participle or whatever; "do have": present tense. That's yours, the original introduction of mixed tenses.
> >Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.
> that's also a misuse of sic, but never mind, it's expected at this point
No, it's a perfectly valid use of "sic" in the sense of "this is exactly how that word is supposed to be written". (Given how it's a proper name, and all.) What, you were only familiar with the other sense, that of "this is exactly how you wrote it, you numbskull "? Better piss off back to middle school and get some Bildung then.
You're boring me. See ya when you've grown up.
"have got" is present tense, "had got" is the past tense
>it's a perfectly valid use
also expected
>"this is exactly how that word is supposed to be written"
you're meant to leave the supposed error in situ, not replace it with your supposed correction YAWN
>"this is exactly how you wrote it, you numbskull "
I don't understand this, but couldn't care less now
>Better piss off back to middle school
it's been like teaching a backwards child - you belong there more than I
>You're boring me. See ya when you've grown up.
your life is boring. I accept your concession
This:
>>>> Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.
Was my own usage of it in the correct form, hence the second sense of sic, "this is how it's supposed to be written" -- not the first sense, pointing out an error. Sheesh, your reading comprehension really is below-third-grade, isn't it? Or is it just that you have the attention span of a gnat on crack? Probably both.
> your life is boring.
Only to the extent that you persist in crashing into it. Please stop that.
> I accept your concession
So, no, you lost again. Now grow up PDQ, or POAD.
>your reading comprehension really is below-third-grade, isn't it?
wow, your desperation has no limits it seems
thank goodness I never suffered an American "education"
>Only to the extent that you persist in crashing into it
so I'm to blame for you biting off more than you can chew
>So, no, you lost again. Now grow up PDQ, or POAD
stubborn little madam aren't we? no thank you
> wow, your desperation has no limits it seems
My exasperation has no limits.
> thank goodness I never suffered an American "education"
So you think I did?
GOTO https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30789267 , the bit about reading comprehension.
There, let's hope the bot stays stuck in that loop.
clearly the former
>So you think I did?
that's quite philosophical - do simpletons suffer..?
>There, let's hope the bot stays stuck in that loop
o-kay..
Nor did I have one I was indifferent to.
Maybe that's why I'm better at English than you.
I'm sure you think you're good at a lot of things and are better than everybody else, but the facts will tell a different story
back to your hovel, Diplodocus Rex
Written contractions are meant to faithfully represent spoken English, in which people indeed say “there’s” for both the singular and the plural.
But doesn't con-traction mean "pulling together"? You pull the last letter over towards the first ones, squishing out the ones between. Only there is no 's' at the end of "there are" to pull over next to "there".
So "there's" can't really be a contraction of "there are", AFAICS.
> Written contractions are meant to faithfully represent spoken English, in which people indeed say “there’s” for both the singular and the plural.
Sure, it may be a perfectly valid usage, so it's something... But as matter of terminology, whatever that something is, I don't think it's a contraction.
It's the difference between written English and spoken English.
In conversation, it's not unusual for someone to use "here's" in this context. To be correct, especially for display in print or on a screen, the correct words are "here are."
I think that people use "here's" instead of "here are" because "here are" can be difficult to say quickly in conversation, and can sound like "herere," which is indistinct and unpleasant-sounding.
The internet has popularized the use of spoken English online because most English speakers speak English well enough, but fewer English speakers write English well.
He starts with "Hey I'm Chris Sev" because it's a better headline, which is defined as something that is more likely to make people read the rest of the page. (Defined specifically because I see lots of complaints here that headlines should be descriptive of the actual content, which isn't really what matters, functionally. (I get the impulse though, really.))
Since it is informal, it can be read as "Hey I'm Chris Sev. Here's My [Collection/Set/List of] Courses", which is grammatically correct.
If he doesn't even proofread his headline, how sloppy will the rest of the site be?
i'm not really sure what they bought to be honest
And then eventually was redirected to DigitalOcean.
Also, just to add my own thought to this - CSS-Tricks is of course very loved by people who learned things there, and people who respect Chris Coyer as a designer. But, these acquisitions do have an effect on how people perceive a project, and skepticism is very high on that list.
They seem to be keeping the "Write for Us" option open, with 300$+ a pop per guest post + promotion to your project. If anything, it will become a haven for those kind of posts. If not, they might by some miracle find a really good person (dev or designer) who is willing to take on the reigns for a while. Unlikely, though.
Consider Hubspot buying The Hustle, Robinhood buying MarketSnacks, Stripe's various acquisitions (like IndieHackers), Insight Partners bought The New Stack.. and this is all happening in the developer space too. Subscription based companies with high cashflow but high customer acquisition costs will continue to buy attention-based companies with relatively low acquisition costs because, frankly, the owners of the latter are generally quite happy with "modest" (<$40m, say) exits that the former can easily cover.
For those who are not familiar (if that's possible), check out https://cooperpress.com/publications/
To your (& Balaji's) point - one of tried and true methods of customer acquisition for SaaS is content marketing, but it's a very long game and you need to have quality content. Acquiring a blog or a media company that already has that has clear ROI.
DO already has a solid knowledge base of articles ("How to ... on Ubuntu Server" almost always leads to DO) but mostly for the back-end part of the stack. From that perspective, buying CSS-Tricks is not too surprising.
I don't disagree with the thesis, but is the ROI actually there? Why not just pay the media company to be an exclusive partner? Maybe it's just putting the acquisition cost on the balance sheet instead of the income statement?
It diminishes their early insights to cast this acquisition as merely part of a trend.
I distinctly remember multiple Library articles getting rewritten about a week later and appearing on DO’s site with just enough distance to be unique, but it was clear that our work was on the screen while they wrote it based on document structure and technical approach (this was in the early “catch up” phase, roughly 2011-2012; it’s probably established enough now that this is no longer the case). More than once they not-so-subtly rewrote the technical approach to distinguish it and ended up breaking the instructions. They took verb ideas, they took X ideas, they took whole documents and shoved them in a blender with their systems. This is likely provable with Internet Archive but I’ve never bothered to look - I left Linode a decade ago.
I wouldn’t have left this seemingly negative for no reason comment had you not identified DO’s documentation strategy as an early insight. It was an early insight, but absolutely, definitively not theirs. They raised the VC to get exposed to this audience and successfully presented nearly all of Linode’s business insights as their own, and it’s understandable that it seems that way if you didn’t follow Linode before DO.
The first several years of DigitalOcean’s existence made it very clear they looked at Linode and said that, but with funding rounds. And that’s fine. They’ve done well. But let’s not attribute insights to their copies of things; their primary corporate insight all along was realizing Linode was handicapped with bootstrapped capital alone. And to give them credit, it was undeniably savvy to apply Linode’s successes to scaling DigitalOcean. It just means it’s not their ingenuity in any sense of the word.
I won't get into the weeds of Linode vs. DigitalOcean but there were very important differences in approach, and eventually Linode was copying DO's ideas (for example, the introduction of low-resource low-cost servers, the design...). Linode was a trailblazer in the industry, for sure, but DigitalOcean wasn't just "Linode plus capital".
edit: Linode started paying in 2014[1] after DigitalOcean[2]
[1] https://www.linode.com/blog/linode/write-for-linode-get-paid... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20131111064358/https://www.digit...
Of course Linode eventually copied DO back. That was the terms of the relationship established by DO. We were too busy dreaming of copying AWS at the time to see the threat. We ruled out $10 and lower Linodes again before DO was founded due to our support resources. DO forced that hand later (I assume, that was after I left).
I am obviously biased having worked there (worth noting I left on awful terms), and I am aware of that, but some of what I’m saying is purely objective and, again, probably provable with study of IA. If you’re going to refute my first hand, lived experience and call it revisionism, you’ve proven my point of making this comment at all.
I was a Linode customer at the time the library launched, I was a Linode customer when DigitalOcean launched, and I was a Linode customer years after DigitalOcean launched: Linode was the best VPS provider of the time, undoubtably, and influential for those that followed (including DigitalOcean) but DigitalOcean was much more than a VPS provider and they pushed the industry forward in ways that Linode never even tried. Diminishing what they achieved as being "Linode but with money" is nonsense.
What you remember and what is true aren't one and the same, as is evidenced by the Linode blog showing payments began for articles in 2014.
Again, I left on horrible terms. That’s really important to remember as you think about my motivations. I’m not here to score points for a side, which you seem to have inferred.
"I wouldn’t have left this seemingly negative for no reason comment had you not identified DO’s documentation strategy as an early insight. It was an early insight, but absolutely, definitively not theirs. They raised the VC to get exposed to this audience and successfully presented nearly all of Linode’s business insights as their own, and it’s understandable that it seems that way if you didn’t follow Linode before DO.
The first several years of DigitalOcean’s existence made it very clear they looked at Linode and said that, but with funding rounds. And that’s fine. They’ve done well. But let’s not attribute insights to their copies of things; their primary corporate insight all along was realizing Linode was handicapped with bootstrapped capital alone. And to give them credit, it was undeniably savvy to apply Linode’s successes to scaling DigitalOcean. It just means it’s not their ingenuity in any sense of the word."
I did follow Linode before DigitalOcean. I did espouse the wonders of Linode, day in, day out. I did resist switching from Linode to DigitalOcean for years because of brand loyalty. I do consider Linode very important in shaping the industry, but I categorically disagree with the assertion that DigitalOcean's core insight was that Linode were cash-poor and all someone needed to do was "Linode but with VC". Your time at Linode and your damaged relationship with Linode are not evidence that DigitalOcean is Linode-but-with-money.
We aren't discussing your lived reality, we're discussing your dismissal of the achievements of DigitalOcean.
I’m sure DO took a lot of inspiration from Linode, but it always seemed like the heir apparent to Slicehost, which was the best designed/marketed/documented VPS host until it was sold off/shutdown.
I miss them too. They were respectful competitors and I know they were generally liked by competitors. There’s just a fine line between getting the idea for a funnel and copying its entire execution down to subscribing to RSS. I think there was mutual respect between both companies on that. With DO, not so much.
To be clear, it’s not Apple vs Google here, it’s the idea of DO coming out of the gate with that execution being a stroke of genius. They had (thanks for the reminder) multiple precedences and actively copied from at least one.
I'm curious when you think Linode lost the ball (I am assuming you accept that premise at this point in time given their size differences) and why?
Digital Ocean seemed to execute better and scale further, you put forth it was simply fueled by VC money. I know Linode had some major security incidents over the years which have harmed its reputation.
Curious if you're willing to share your thoughts on how it all played out for an industry observer?
https://boingboing.net/2021/02/15/silicon-valley-investor-ca...
This was VC's way to invest in a media company.
DO has some really great documentation for their services so I am hopeful they will only enhance/make-better css-tricks.
If a DO link is returned in my search, I tend to click on it.
The insane amount of SEO spam articles you get whenever you look for guides/examples on Google makes it almost impossible to rely on just searching on Google when you need it. So I'm finding myself having to go back to looking for curated lists of quality websites...
There is a lot of good stuff published that's hard to find. I wish I had a better catch all resource page.
Codepen.io is a good playground to play around with html/css/javascript and it has some javascript frameworkstuff too.
A lot of people put together good content. It seems to surface though blogs and twitter. Some links/papers we used (without the CSShints pages). A lot of them have more content if you explore.
https://cssclass.es/materials/#elements-and-tags
https://chenhuijing.com/blog/how-i-design-with-css-grid/#%F0...
https://www.wpkube.com/html5-cheat-sheet/
https://programmingdesignsystems.com/what-is-a-design-system...
https://atomicdesign.bradfrost.com/chapter-1/
http://alistapart.com/article/the-king-vs-pawn-game-of-ui-de...
https://brucelawson.co.uk/2018/the-practical-value-of-semant...
https://alistapart.com/article/my-accessibility-journey-what...
Articles are discussed here often: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=joshwcomeau.com
PS: I love the Idea of calling a single server a "Droplet" in the "Digital Ocean". Nice one DO.
Only a shame they rolled out all the affiliate credits. In the first year I generated like $1,500 in affiliate revenue from a single review post I did.
At the rate of $5 per droplet, that's 25 years worth of hosting. I didn't get the full 25 but still happy to pay for their services.
I have a Droplet I haven't accessed in 7 years. I'm pretty sure if I look at it the wrong way it will break, but it's been running the same app with no downtime like a champ.
One can hope that a tweet gets picked up by HN or other media to get their attention, but alas, such is not typical.
I couldn't recommend them for any real business. Great to start with maybe, but make sure you have an exit plan.
also, the "popular this month" thing on the top front of css-tricks.com is buggy as hell (buttons go flying left and right depending on where you move the mouse, and other things, not sure how its even meant to be displayed)
i have another rant now: why do devs lack basic awareness which would be required to be aware of the fact that lazy loading content is bad for the user experience? is it because they are paid $100K-$200K (for now, this trend wont last forever) starting salaries in their bubble with fast connections? literally every single country outside the west has slow computers and internet, and every single piece of modern software are unusable on them. in the US meanwhile, you cant get fast internet either and 50% of users are on mobile which also once again brings you back to square one.
like wtf imagine being SOOO unaware of how your product is used that you think its only used on Reference hardware. seriously what have webdevs done in the last 14 years while i wasnt looking? i dont see one single thing that was improved. im pretty sure what happens is in their world they are hyper focused on some little head scratcher like "making this UI element be able to be hooked up in a declarative document cleanly in this specific way and having a declarative model of how it interacts with these other declarative components" and dont realize everything still sucks overall and is getting worse. none of that should be surprising though, because the web already obviously a bad idea 30 years ago when people decided that website owners should be able to make users do shit before being able to read/view the content
Are you sure that was in the original spec?
Words are hard
this number is public: https://css-tricks.com/thank-you-2021-edition/
total traffic 88m, flexbox is 6.7m of that. speaks to their deep bench tbh.
Just saved flexbox and grid guides using the SingleFile extension, something I discovered a couple of weeks ago here on HN. HN warns and provides solutions.
flexbox https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/a-guide-to-flexbox/
grid https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/complete-guide-grid/
Also, requesting your non-flexbox layout for your documents on how to do flexbox seems rather ironic.
https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/a-guide-to-flexbox/ https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/complete-guide-grid/
DO seems to value quality over quantity for documentation. Documentation appears to be their 'doing well by doing good' strategy. What BackBlaze is to hard drive reviews, DO is to a subset of platform agnostic cloud technologies. I don't know what they do now, but at one point a couple years ago they were soliciting 'paid' articles, but rather than paying you directly they would make a donation to an organization on their list on your behalf.
If I were telling an intern where to look for technical knowledge on the internet, my advice would be something like this: start at their website (mostly for due diligence, since 4/5 times you won't find what you want there), Stack Overflow, Google, Digital Ocean, and then look for either books by the authors (if you're a bookish sort), or find conversations with the authors on the internet.
Though now Google is falling fast. I'm on the cusp of demoting it below DO. I feel that camel straining under the weight on its back. SEO is turning into Search Engine Sabotage lately.
If DO starts buying up knowledge bases that could flip for positive reasons instead of negative ones.
To generate a ton of traffic or be worth something, I find you need to balance three things (personal opinion):
- Normal longer Blog type articles / announcements
- Quick blog / library / resource / how-tos
- Engagement / community
Each are unique for everyone.
For example, Cloudflare I would argue leans heavy to the longer blog rolls and is a lead gen for enterprise reads, investors, and also new hire folks.
For SEO though, Digital Ocean cares more about the library of resources style (I would wager). It’s why they are buying CSS-Tricks to get all that “smooth scroll css” traffic. This is very much a traffic is traffic mentality to boost their own blog traffic metrics. There are probably other factors here like community / clout. Why build all this when you can just buy it?
Then finally the last one is engagement. This is what converts and is having an active community. This is why influencers can make serious buck. This is the hardest to build and I would argue the most important. A “real following”.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this too and how you use your blog for your start up or business.
Google loves old domains with authority, and still, to this day, it's a lot easier to rank a site built on an aged/expired domain than it is on a fresh domain.
Buying powerful domains on auction sites has shot through the roof in the last couple of years. Here's a couple of example on Godaddy (Godaddy auctions tend to have the most powerful domains SEO-wise) https://www.godaddy.com/domain-auctions/gutenberg-net-414405... https://uk.godaddy.com/domain-auctions/freewebtemplates-com-...
I imagine they will eventually 301 the domain to the main DigitalOcean domain.
Congrats to the original owner on getting acquired, and by a company that will most likely do well with it.
Is it some kind of purchase of real estate for future permanent advertisement of DO?
That is to say, syndicated content is already a part of their SEO strategy. The question now is how they’ll fit CSS Tricks into that mosaic. Maybe just simple ads and links? Maybe moving it under the DO domain with 301s? We shall see.
I think they shouldn't touch it and let CSS-Tricks continue to do their own thing.
- Target long-tail searches -- queries where there may not be a lot of volume but also not a lot of competition
- Stand out with very good content (not just SEO filler)
- Build trust with the dev community
This is a time-consuming and expensive strategy. So acquiring large tranches like this makes sense.
Margins are pretty great for app platform so that's an area I would expect investment in.
Historically, CSS-Tricks has raked in a TON of money from affiliate sales to entry level hosting providers (MediaTemple sticks out in my mind). Imagine all of those affiliate sales now going to Digital Ocean instead. There's potential for a massive ROI if DO can responsibly manage the site and funnel over the next decade.
> Other than to consistently push devs consuming the content towards their services
Because CAC are high and LTV can always be higher
Sounds like a good time to sell it off though and hope they have the same success with future projects.
Congratulations Chris. Me and others owe our careers in webdev and our CSS sourcery magic to your great articles.
I was almost expecting that text to be a link to zombo.com
Congratulations, Chris!
It was actually very nice for it's time, I wonder if anyone from DO remembers this.
Edit: See http://jessecha.se/work/buoy.html
I don’t know if I trust DO as his „successor“, I’ve lost way too much money on their platform for me to consider them trustworthy. And that’s coming from a person who now uses Oracle Cloud.
I could see them using this for both subtle (the header/footer links etc) and more "sponsered" content (i.e. links to DO AppPlatform in an article/tutorial about next.js etc)
Wouldn't consumers who'd benefit from these sorts of tutorials prefer a properly managed solution rather than an IaaS?
DO is loved by developers, and so is CSS Tricks. DO bought it because of the cozy relationship CSS Tricks has with developers and vice-versa.
But even still, I'm mainly an infra/devops/backend guy who occasionally needs to hack on front end, and I've ended up at CSS Tricks a number of times. So it's probably a great buy if used as an advertising hole and to boost SEO credibility.
> [no]
Shame. Thanks for all the help over the years Chris!
If so beware.
Dang, TIL, it was a business.
We will miss you CSS-Tricks.
I wouldn't be surprised to see it start pivoting to look like the Cloud9 IDE (or Fog Creek's Glitch) of DigitalOcean, though.