Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

recode.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 451 posts

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#311

Post by heartbreak »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #227
uncoder0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voat ( https://voat.co/ ) is also an option I've heard of before but never used. However I just looked at their front page and the number 2 post is titled 'How to solve the Voat's antisemitism problem' and the image contains an antisemitic slur so that's not very promising.

Voat can be the replacement to reddit if they implement the "popular" section as reddit has - people with accounts will see what they currently see, but new users can see a more regular site. The over the next 3 inevitable reddit scandals, they can take progressively more and more reddit users. If reddit screws up the site design, and Voat doesn' screw up, Voat can take it all.

Voat has a reputation as an extremist haven.

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#313

Post by Keyframe »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #296
ipsum2 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube has undergone multiple redesigns, each better than the last, in my opinion.

Youtube is horrible more so than ever before. The recommended videos is completely broken, it keeps recommending the same videos, and half of them are not relevant to what I'm watching. It's been like this for years. If I watch a single video from any kind of niche genre, suddenly half the recommended videos for every video are from that genre. I watched one of those helmet cam videos from a cyclist today, now youtub…

I got the opposite impression. It got better. If I watch something I usually don't, it seems like recommendations on the topic at hand are temporary and go away after not much long. Video player is superb now as well. JKL keys still work, buffering got way better and it just works - compare it to abomination of vimeo's player, for example (that crap is just broken).

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#315

Post by protomyth »

Angostura wrote: post #185
provost wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall Digg did a complete redesign for version 4, even the backend systems and database. And the users abandoned it shortly after launch.

What killed Digg though, wasn't any change in look at feel, as much as a fundamental change in content policy. It went from 'users submit stuff and upvote it' to 'content publishers can automate a firehose of their stories into the system for a price' people didn't like that.

Didn’t they also remove user comments? I remember going one day and having no ability to comment on anything.

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#316

Post by unclebucknasty »

lewisl9029 wrote: post #297
ghthor wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. Though that means the Reddit killer is lurking in the waiting. I vote for some type of legit upvotw downvote system backed by a legitimate crypto currency. It would stop lots of the spam, though leave it more open for financial manipulation. Would be interesting though to see people actually making a living by being active members of the community.

Steem is almost exactly this: https://steemit.com/trending As you could imagine it has a rather heavy bent towards cryptocurrency-related posts at the moment, and the pushy salesman vibe I get from nearly all the popular posts there is extremely off-putting (the monetary incentive will inevitably attract these types of people), but I think the idea has potential.

I know a pretty heavy user of that site and when it first emerged, some were making thousands USD (in the Steem currency) when others upvoted their posts (though there's a slightly convoluted method/timeline for accessing all earnings).

Anyway, the amounts have since slowed, but it's still a pretty active community. There are, however, quite a few schemes around some version of paying people to upvote posts, which is surprisingly allowed. Overall, it's an interesting concept but seems unsustainable over the long-term.

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#317

Post by visarga »

taurath wrote: post #289
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the constant pressure from VC's for better monetization. One of the features being discussed on the thread over on Reddit that is planned to be introduced is a location-based front page. This will make targeted ads by location an easier product for Reddit to sell and mine data from.

And many many users will leave, as they did with Digg. It's too large and lowest common denominator already, and a major redesign will be the impetus for a brain drain as all users will have a shared gripe. HN is a very likely spillover target, and already is for a lot of the programmer focused discussion that used to be Reddits core user base. I've watched so many communities die from monetization, the cycle really…

I used to use 99% reddit, now it's 50% HN, 50% reddit. Reddit is too full of crap, except for specific subreddits.

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#318

Post by hyperpallium »

pmoriarty wrote: post #92
stevenj wrote: post #3

>the company is literally re-writing all of its code Wow. >An early version of the new design, which we saw during our interview, looks similar to Facebook’s News Feed or Twitter’s Timeline: A never-ending feed of content broken up into “cards” with more visuals to lure people into the conversations hidden underneath. >“We want Reddit to be more visually appealing,” he explained, “so when new users come to Reddit the…

I can't think of a single popular site redesign that actually made the site better. They're almost inevitably worse, usually much worse. A common failing is trying to make the design more shiny and pretty while decreasing functionality, dumbing the site down, adding bloat, and slowing the site down to a crawl. I really hope Reddit does not go down this road, because they really have a good thing going now. It would b…

From a market, not engineering pov: It's easy and effective to iteratively improve a website, to suit its present users. But once you've got most of that type of user, you're approaching a local maxima, and your growth slows.

When you want to grow beyond that, you have to appeal to a larger, broader, different segment - though hopefully a superset, not (too) disjoint.

For me, reddit is much less interesting than it used to be (HN also). Perhaps, if they alter it to become more like it was? e.g. subreddits partially achieved this.

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#319

Post by hyperpallium »

apercu wrote: post #152
pmoriarty wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of a single popular site redesign that actually made the site better. They're almost inevitably worse, usually much worse. A common failing is trying to make the design more shiny and pretty while decreasing functionality, dumbing the site down, adding bloat, and slowing the site down to a crawl. I really hope Reddit does not go down this road, because they really have a good thing going now. It would b…

I have no idea why I care about the NFL, but I have been going to profootballtalk.com daily for years. NBC partnered with a bunch of independent sports blogs like PFT a few years ago. They then rolled 'em all out on a new redesign. I stopped visiting after the first couple tries, then PFT backed out of the redesign and went back to their previous (crappy, old) layout. The other blogs I used to go to (pro hockeytalk a…

"The slow web" is a much better buzzword than web 2.0.

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#320

Post by unclebucknasty »

pmoriarty wrote: post #92
stevenj wrote: post #3

>the company is literally re-writing all of its code Wow. >An early version of the new design, which we saw during our interview, looks similar to Facebook’s News Feed or Twitter’s Timeline: A never-ending feed of content broken up into “cards” with more visuals to lure people into the conversations hidden underneath. >“We want Reddit to be more visually appealing,” he explained, “so when new users come to Reddit the…

I can't think of a single popular site redesign that actually made the site better. They're almost inevitably worse, usually much worse. A common failing is trying to make the design more shiny and pretty while decreasing functionality, dumbing the site down, adding bloat, and slowing the site down to a crawl. I really hope Reddit does not go down this road, because they really have a good thing going now. It would b…

>A common failing is trying to make the design more shiny and pretty...

That, and trying to make it behave like more successful (read, profitable) sites, even if the purpose/audience is totally different.

That is, "well if it works for FB it should work for us".

Post reply on HN