Hacker News Reader

Comment by the_watcher | Hacker News Reader

I think you'd be right about BuzzFeed if this happened ~a year ago. Now, BuzzFeed has so much content, and they push it so hard on visitors, that I would be surprised if they didn't actually score pretty highly on this metric (although I was a bit unclear on if this was referring to URL level or domain level time on site). Also, so much of BuzzFeed's content are long lists with large images or gifs that people stare at that they aren't going to be hit as hard as UpWorthy (who pioneered the "You Won't Believe..." headline. Finally, BuzzFeed has actually gotten enough traction to now be able to hire real journalists to create actual content.

View on HN

Buzzfeed's problem, for me at least, is that they've acquired negative brand equity. I reject any content that carries their domain. It's actually rather disheartening to hear NPR and PRI whoring out to them, including WNYC's On the Media, an otherwise excellent program.

I was shocked when I got a link to buzz feed from a friend who basically said "I know the URL, but trust me it's good" I did, and surprisingly it was. This wasn't a quiz or some gif set but a well written article on depression or anxiety I believe.

"And surprisingly it was" highlights the problem.

Buzzfeed made hay as a bottom-feeder. They're now continuing the bottom feeding, with an occasional nugget thrown in.

I don't care to encourage what they've done, nor do I care to go through the crap to find the gold.

They've got negative brand equity. I reject them with extreme prejudice.

Buzzfeed is having a pretty rough time transitioning to an actual journalist enterprise though. They've had a few editors lately fired for outright plagiarizing a majority of their listicles, including ripping directly from Yahoo answers of all places. To combat this they've also recently culled a significant number of old listicles from their 'media-lab' era. I forget the exact number but I want to say it was on the order of 4,000+ articles that were disappeared? I get that they're trying to improve their image but at the same time quote-unquote "actual journalists" wouldn't white-wash their past and would explicitly own up to the mistakes they've made.

tl;dr Original content is the new aggregation growth-hack but can't replace a lack of ethics.

My Facebook feed is full of (IMO) low quality posts from them. Specifically, the "drop everything and watch this ice bucket challenge" videos. Seemingly every day, there is a new post declaring the king of the ice bucket challenge, to stop doing it, x has won, etc.

I suggest unfollowing/unfriending people who post those kinds of content. It sends a clear message that you don't want to see it, and you won't waste time ignoring them.

although I was a bit unclear on if this was referring to URL level or domain level time on site

It's simply time away from Facebook, since that's what they can measure.

Unless while away you are on any page with a facebook 'like' button. In which case they can monitor exactly your behavior. Fortunately there are very few of those. 0_o

They have started iframing sites on mobile, so lets to measure there and easily enough data to not need to do it at all on desktop?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com