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

Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 567 posts

Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#1

Post by slymerson »

Medium.com is still up and running so it hasn't failed exactly, but it's not the best platform to go to anymore when it comes to blogging.

The post quality has deteriorated, and it feels like I'm reading the same posts over and over again. Not to mention the stupid paywall which is infuriating.

Why did Medium end up like this? In the beginning it was pretty good but then it started to wither. Is there any way for a platform like Medium to keep up with high quality posts while also paying their writers well?

Substack has done a good job at competing in the blogging market but it's different from Medium. Medium is more of a social blogging platform while Substack is more of a newsletter platform. Substack doesn't have an algorithm that recommends you content, but instead shows you exactly who you follow. This is nice, but I can't deny that I also like finding new content through a recommendation engine, which Medium also sucks at.

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#2

Post by paulpauper »

It did not fail. Medium blogs still generate a lot of traffic. I think rather it got superseded by Substack. Substack has a few benefits over medium, such as being less inclined to censor and writers having more control over payouts and subscribers.

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#4

Post by minimaxir »

Two main reasons, IMO:

1. At a point, Medium stopped adding value to blog posts and their network, to the point that they had to strongarm some of the larger networks to try and stay on their platform (e.g. FreeCodeCamp) and failed. Currently, Medium's best value proposition is long-tail SEO which just encourages more low-quality content.

2. In general, the long-form content landscape has shifted more toward short-form content in terms of things like Twitter and TikTok. Even Substack, which is a reasonable Medium alternative and superior if trying to build a readerbase, hasn't received as much buzz as it did years ago.

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#5

Post by pastor_bob »

Free Digital Media "Platforms" are unprofitable

Look what happened to:

1. Gawker

2. The Awl and The Hairpin

2. PolicyMic

3. Vice subsidiaries like Refinery29

It's funny, all these places tried to reinvent the tech stack too. I remember Medium being a clojure shop

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#9

Post by slymerson »

minimaxir wrote: post #4

Two main reasons, IMO: 1. At a point, Medium stopped adding value to blog posts and their network, to the point that they had to strongarm some of the larger networks to try and stay on their platform (e.g. FreeCodeCamp) and failed. Currently, Medium's best value proposition is long-tail SEO which just encourages more low-quality content. 2. In general, the long-form content landscape has shifted more toward short-fo…

Long form content will become more niche, at least when it comes to text. I prefer long form reading content over short form content so it's nice having platforms like Substack and Medium, but IMO there needs to be something better. I would love a new social blogging platform that actually does well at showing you content you'd enjoy AND that ensures the posts are quality.

Easier said than done I imagine.

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#10

Post by y42 »

Any "service" that offers money for content will fail eventually.

Take most news portals: they fill their sites with "news" to favor search engines, to deploy ads or affiliate links.

Take search engines itself: They lead to SEO which leads to "silly" and packed "WordPress" like websites whose only goal is to drop affiliate links.

And so on....

Post reply on HN