What about that period in Gawker's history between August 2003 and August 2004? What was happening then?
@Choire Sicha@facebook Yeah, but Upworthy is just pulling content I've already seen. Viral Nova might be stupid, but at least its stupid content I haven't seen yet.
Nothing like a "Pot calling the kettle black" article to start the morning.
@Smiler29 @Smiler29 Media companies have done a poor job of monetizing their content. Few outlets have changed the way advertisers purchase ads. Its a complex system that technology should have streamlined for both efficiency and higher values. There are still ad agencies today that don't take online ads seriously. The best components of online ads are only more recently becoming common place. Plus, people are still willing to overpay for print and broadcast or cable television ads. Even though every single ad displayed online can be linked to a specific set of eyeballs with specific demographic information, that view is still less valuable than a printed ad in a newspaper buried in the back of section B.
Is now a good time to stand up and admit I hate twitter almost as much as I hate buzzfeed?
On We Must Build An Enormous McWorld In Times Square, A Xanadu Representing A McDonald's From Every Nation
Cool story, bro.
So I guess you are really into Gothamist comments.
Yes, well now that half of Manhattan has been downzoned to the shortest little buildings possible, as well as a good portion of Brooklyn, there simply isn't enough housing. If buildings can't go up, rents will.
If content sites are earning money through subscription fees, then eliminating comments might not make much of a difference.
But assuming that a revenue model for a content site is selling ad impressions, eliminating comments means eliminating page impressions and hence ad impressions. A site that doesn't care about page impressions better have invented a new business model outside the traditional revenue from ads system or concede a portion of revenue to sites outside their own where discussions continue.
Sites where user generated comments are a burden are probably over thinking their entire system. Instead, let the internet community police messages boards, introduce better filtering options, and apply game theory to an automated comment moderation system that requires little more than computer processing power rather than a live human being.
@Shaun Robinson@facebook Sure, but that also means that the culture of the MFA program is having an increasingly profound influence on serious writers and that the people in the position to judge things like the Pulitzer Prize are taking their cues from that culture. Maybe writing cannot be taught. But what can be taught is a certain type of style, certain types of expectations within a narrative. There are a number of common themes in MFA holding authors' novels, like ambiguity in narrative, intertextuality, dialogic themes, and awareness of linguistic, critical, and historical reactions to the writing.
Maybe its a chicken-egg-chicken problem. And yes, the idea of entering in debt to participate in this discourse, particularly in light of how few job positions there are available at the university level for MFA holders, is problematic to say the least. But MFA holders are rapidly forming a hegemonic control over literary culture, as evidenced by recent past Pulitzers, positions in high paying cultural media, and university systems.
Despite what you think about MFA programs, the vast majority of pulitzer prize novels from the last two decades are written by authors that hold MFAs. That rate also increases, so that over the last ten years, the frequency is greater than the ten years before, suggesting that MFA programs are influencing the literary discourse as they grow in popularity.