People have generally stopped visiting blogs. Even stand-alone web sites are starting to suffer.
I recently re-enabled my Facebook account for dev purposes, and while there liked the Verge, AnandTech, etc. So now my feed is a small amount of family stuff, and a long list of tech news, most of which I quickly scroll past.
It's interesting because I essentially never visit those sites any more. Not long ago I visited the Verge probably daily, and browsed into random stories. I visited Anandtech weekly. And so on. Now I see the headlines that I skip past, and that's that.
And on the pure blog front, a lot of people rely upon sites like HN and reddit to sift through the chaff, the idea being that those killer blog posts will rise to the top. We know that isn't actually true (HN is mostly about luck and pet topics, with a lot of terrible content rising, while Reddit is horribly, horribly gamed), but the end result is that the good content suffers.
Have people "generally stopped visiting blogs?" Do "a lot" of people rely on HN?
Internet usage is 39% globally [1]. I doubt there are any statements you can make that apply to 2.85 Billion People. Feels like you are ascribing your personal opinion/beliefs/experiences to "people" in general.
Is this an example of someone adding an irrelevant citation to try to add an air of authority where they have none?
Technology blogs used to be fairly significant ventures. Now there are shockingly few that are still maintained, and even those (such as Coding Horror) detail dramatic declines in readership.
Every reality goes against your garbage post. Yet still you did it. Weird. HN gets stupider by the day.
You kind of have to keep up a regular cadence of new content to get people to keep coming back. For instance, Coding Horror has had only 9 posts in the last six months. For the most part, I don't revisit programming/software dev blogs unless there is new content or there is something relevant that I want to go review again. Ergo, if you write most of your posts on the latest teacup-hurricane scandal or the newest version of X software/hardware product, you aren't going to get the kind of long tail that sustains page views when your posting rate slows down. On the other hand, if you are producing quality content that stands the test of time (something like lazyFoo's SDL tutorials comes to mind), then you are going to move up the search rankings on that topic, which will reinforce that long tail.
For sure, but in a way it's a bit of a chicken and egg issue. Spend lots of time making content to see the same sputter and occasional luck on the social news sites.
There was a time a few years ago when you could ask what the best tech blogs where and there would quickly be thousands of posts. Now...most of those have been abandoned, and little has appeared in their place. Even among professional sites it's amazing how many technologies (for instance Intel's tablet chips) get almost no treatment at all, and astonishingly little actual effort is expended, so we just end up with some vapid, high-level commentary that is then blog spammed across autonomously created dupe sites.
It's just a wastelands. People stopped coming and people stopped being interested.
These are the worst. Marco Arment periodically does reviews of various things (coffee makers, headphones, etc), and he absolutely packs them full of Amazon affiliate links. I understand that other people have more benign impressions of this, but to me it is incredibly dubious and puts the whole venture under a huge question mark -- was the "review" motivated by pitching affiliate links? Were the items selected based upon their availability on Amazon? Were the higher commission items favored? And so on. There is simply zero legitimacy left when you use affiliate links. Similarly, if you "review" a book and pitch it through affiliate links, I no longer know whether it's even worth my time (most technical books simply are not), or whether your impression of it, and encouragement of its purchase, was motivated by commission links.
Probably the least offputting, brand-ruining tactic is the Daring Fireball technique of periodically putting some shout out to a sponsor and encouragement of their product. I suspect it is far more rewarding both to him and his sponsors, and limits the sliminess to a single occasional post, versus selling one's credibility.
ITT - people pitching affiliate links and crapware on their tiny blogs talk up how great it is.
It's worth highlighting this as an example of authoritative-sounding comments that will put you on the wrong path, if you're not careful.
Techie websites and visitors are a very different market than your average customer, and within those technical circles, people like this comment writer will not be representative of the majority of your website's readers.
Whilst I think that the comment author is exaggerating for effect, it's always worth asking the question in your head:
- Does this person represent how one person or the majority of my visitors will think?
people like this comment writer will not be representative of the majority of your website's readers
Elsewhere you talked up the benefits of affiliate links, so I find your whole post somewhat ironic.
Further, it's worth noting that affiliate link blogs almost never make it anywhere on HN, /r/programming, or elsewhere. They generally exist on the fringe, existing on the meager search engine traffic, capturing the accidental visitor. Actual empirical reality seems to counter your claims. The only blog of any consequence that actually lowers itself to affiliate links is Marco Arment, and thankfully he confines that to standalone "review" type posts.
I think you're too suspicious in the case of developers reviewing books. There's just no where near enough upside in Amazon affiliate money, compared to what people in our profession make normally, for anyone to ruin their credibility with bogus reviews to drive affiliate link traffic.
This argument is and has always been specious, yet it's always the fallback.
If the income is so low and irrelevant, why are the links there in the first place. Why even put a question mark on it when it's just entirely unnecessary? I fairly prolifically blog, and I haven't put a single affiliate link in a post since it was a novelty in the mid-90s, because to do so takes advantage of readers and undermines credibility.
And to your root claim, I'd say it's absolutely ridiculous. I've come across blogs reviewing and recommending books that they clearly had never read, at most skimming a short ways in. Most technical books are absolutely horrendous (I understand you cite yourself as an author, almost surely motivating your down arrow), so this completely short circuits the equation.
Because it's not a question mark in the first place for most people. Does it really make you happier if Amazon keeps those pennies instead of me using them to pay Linode? If I point you in the direction of a bad product on Amazon, it's going to be abundantly clear when you see that it has terrible reviews there. That's when it would be valid for you to flip the credibility bozo bit on me, but not simply for using an affiliate link.
I agree that most technical books are pretty bad. That's why I've only made blog posts recommending 2-3 out of the dozens that publishers have sent me to review.
In fact, if you look a few years back on my blog, Intel gave me a nice Ultrabook to review and I ultimately posted saying that I could not recommend it due to the keyboard. If I'll bite the hand that feeds me $1,500 laptops, I'm pretty confident that a few Amazon dollars here and there are not clouding my judgement.
(BTW, I wasn't the one who downvoted you; I couldn't even if I wanted to since your comment is a reply to mine)
IMO affiliate links are the least offensive form of ad revenue. If they are from a product review, then they do bring the neutrality of the reviewer into question, but that's true of any review (the writer could have been paid to do the review anyway). On the other hand, if I discover something through a webpage, then that can only be a good thing.
Affiliate links are the only kind of ads that I click on, there's no real downside if I am buying the item for the same price, affiliate or not, and the writer gets some cash too. Surely that's win-win?
DF (and other people)'s shout-outs are worse IMO. They are always so shiny and positive, there's rarely any sign of neutality. At least they can be skipped fairly easily.
DF (and other people)'s shout-outs are worse IMO. They are always so shiny and positive, there's rarely any sign of neutality.
There is no illusion or pretending at neutrality: Those shout-outs are unabashed commercials, similar to the sitcom taking a break for commercials. Gruber seems to never mention the product outside of those shout outs. The alternative is someone talking about a great new book they read [BUY NOW] while drinking coffee from their french press [BUY NOW] and how oh their life is different now that they sleep on that new smart mattress [BUY NOW], and the new sous vide cooker is the bee's knees [BUY NOW]...
If the author is making clear he or she will get a commission on sales through the link, I don't think "dubious" is a fair description.
Might actually be interesting to have a review site with both positive and negative reviews, but only include affiliate links with the positive ones. The links would signify an explicit endorsement of the product. Would make it clear the reviewers don't endorse everything out there, and somewhat tie their reputation to the quality of what they endorse.
Personally, I don't have a problem with people making money from content they create, as long as their transparent about how they're making it.
Apps don't even exist. Right now they're just collecting email addresses, gaining buzz, and I highly doubt they have any capacity to actually fulfill any of it.
Somebody should validate their privacy policy. A list of active email addresses of people who desire this product could be extremely lucrative for other purposes.
There is very little in this field that can be described as objective, beyond the rawest of performance metrics, or lines of code. Most statements about code quality are just completely contrived and based upon essentially nothing.
My worst experiences encountering other people's code have been the code that followed the best practices, and defensively shielded itself from criticism. Layers of interfaces and injections and abstractions and separation of concerns yielding hundreds to hundreds of thousands of artifacts for the simplest task, always sold on the notion that it was ready for the future, but in reality would never be adapted to the future.
in terms of having a small display and a really slow CPU
One of those $100 Intel-powered Android tablets with the Z3745 processors has a processor that, core for core, equals a Pentium III or better. But instead of one core, it has four of them. And dramatically higher memory bandwidth. And SIMD. And a GPU. And shockingly fast flash storage.
And it's probably running at least a 1280x720 screen, though some options obviously go dramatically higher.
In ~2000, when these sorts of specs were common, we did all of our office work, software development, etc, on much less power.
Yeah, my tablet has a single core ARM CPU, and a 1024x600 display. Subtract the space taken up by the on-screen keyboard, and working is not much fun any more.
Also, I like having a physical keyboard. With a tablet, I end up using one hand to hold the tablet and one hand for typing. :-|
Like I said, on different devices the situation might be quite different, but my tablet is no good for working.
I can confirm that these quad-core Bay-Trail Atom processors are surprisingly fast and since it's an x86-64 CPU it is available with Windows 8.1 too and can handle Microsoft Office without a problem. The ASUS Transformer Book T100 even comes with an Office license and has detachable keyboard.
I recently re-enabled my Facebook account for dev purposes, and while there liked the Verge, AnandTech, etc. So now my feed is a small amount of family stuff, and a long list of tech news, most of which I quickly scroll past.
It's interesting because I essentially never visit those sites any more. Not long ago I visited the Verge probably daily, and browsed into random stories. I visited Anandtech weekly. And so on. Now I see the headlines that I skip past, and that's that.
And on the pure blog front, a lot of people rely upon sites like HN and reddit to sift through the chaff, the idea being that those killer blog posts will rise to the top. We know that isn't actually true (HN is mostly about luck and pet topics, with a lot of terrible content rising, while Reddit is horribly, horribly gamed), but the end result is that the good content suffers.