Generic comments thread

Generic comments thread for http://blog.topix.net/

Rich wrote:

Generic comments thread for http://blog.topix.net/

Hi Rich,
I agree with portions of your post. Paying people cash, especially when you are paying only the top few people, seems....let me just say "weird". On the other hand, what I'm trying to do with Simpy is something completely different, as I've tried explaining in comments at http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/01/28/deliciou... .

Let me try to enumerate some important points:
- Simpy is a project, not quite a business.
- There is no board (nor investors, nor anything like that), so there was nobody who said "Oh, let's just go pay users".
- What I'm doing with Simpy and AdSense is a learning experiment, and a good will gesture. Not a gimmick, not a bait.
- I want to avoid people trying to game the system just because there is money in the system now.
- The system is designed so it works better for high quality links and meta data, not quantity.

At the end of the day, we'll see how different approached play out, and hopefully we'll all learn something from it.

I like the Simpy/Adsense idea quite a bit...it's simple and clever. Paul from Tinfinger has mentioned something like that to me as well and I think it's a good idea.

I see this sort of architecting in the rev share with the public from the start to be different than trying to get users with prizes or raffles or coffee coupons. It's acknowledging the the primary reason someone will participate is because of the service, but the service can be perceived as being more fair with a stance that in effect says if there ever is a lot of ad revenue from this content, the author is entitled to some of it.

I think this is about About.com (orig the Mining Company) was set up, actually. About Guides got 30% of the ad revenue from their pages, or something like that.

Interesting post. As a former newsguy myself, I found a lot of the comments pretty familiar to sentiments my colleagues and I shared more than eight years ago. All that said, I think it's too easy these days to just point the finger at old journalism, tell them to wake up and smell the new business model, and wonder why they haven't done it.

I don't completely agree that good journalism is a failed strategy, or that the days of editorial/advertorial separation are over. There's a reason why there's a New York Times, why there's a South China Morning Post, The Guardian, or nameless other respectable publications. They bring a viewpoint and insight that's typically unparalleled to what else is out there. They're not infallible, but they're more credible to a lot of readers.

It's not to say the blogosphere hasn't added value in providing multiple viewpoints (in addition to some scariness in giving the uneducated a platform to pontificate from). Maybe I'm a newsprint romantic, but I haven't found an individual blogger who has the cachet, rapport, trust or news judgment that I more often find from a seasoned news organization or experienced journalist, with clear news values and hopefully some professional experience that separates them from the pack. Some bloggers will break through and reach this level. Most of them will get lost in the noise.

Also, it's difficult sometimes to see the value of this since we so frequently take freedom of the press for granted. It's more visible when you look to things like Xinghua News Agency or other closed propaganda machines, where good journalism is often lost.

If there is some value to good journalism, is there a way the dead-tree editions can build value from it? I don't disagree with the premise that news organizations have lost contact with their customers. Readers like me want personalized news, more LOCAL news, practical information, trustworthy sources and relevant information (Frankly, I think a lot of those adjectives describe most the desires of most consumers and businesses of online services today -- they're the premise of a lot of what we're trying to do for local businesses on MerchantCircle http://www.merchantcircle.com --- end of shameless plug). I'm not sure papers are delivering on this promise as much as they should be.

The wealth of opportunities available to news organization online have often been lost in pursuit of the next big thing, whether that's Tribe, or Inkling, or fill-in-the-blank here.

If a news organization can deliver to me what I want, how I want, when I want it, I'd gladly restart my paid subscription. Delight me, please. I'm begging you. Until then, I'll browse for free.

-MarkH

MarkH:

Well, you start off disagreeing with me, and then make my point! I think a great news experience is worth a lot -- the issue is that a mediocre news product is available for free, and that's obviating the paper product, improving every day, and sucking up the eyeballs of the user base.

I thinkt he strategy of the newspaper buisness is to move fast to regain audience (and there are a lot of folks attmepting to do this). But rebuilding audience might very well require a difference in thinking -- perhaps a focus on building somethign the public wants, instead of buildign something that aspires to some journalistic ethic or ethos.

My point is that the newspapers were created by Hearst and Pulitzer, and achieved takeoff not with a product that was particularly high in integrity or social good, but rather with a product that sold papers.

Short summary: ditch the 'tude, and refocus your efforts around sensational, interesting news. Stop caring about Pulitzer prizes and worry about fighting for your unfair share of the user's attention, whatever it might take.

Newspapers can't do the job.

If we want something, we have to fight for it.

You act like this is somthing new. A friend of mine has been running profitable online communities since 1997, and he often uses incentives to stimulate activity. It's worked very well for him.

categorically you are right,but more specification is needed.

Most blogging networks just regurgitate what the Newspaper already say...

hi guys we r hiring u all

hi guys