The page is AI slop, don't waste your time
Substack writers, you need a website
231–240 of 373 posts
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#232I'm pretty happy with the way I've resolved this. I publish everything to my personal blog first, then once a week I copy and paste it all into a Substack newsletter. I get to use Substack for email distribution (which would cost me hundreds of dollars a month using most other solutions, I have 66,000 subscribers now) but my own blog stays the original point of truth. Here's the tool I use for the copy-pasting: https…
Hi Simon, I'm not sure I get it completely. If I get it, you're basically using Substack as an email platform. So the blog (the "original") can use Wordpress, Ghost, whatever ; and this is the canonical place that all articles go to. But then you duplicate the content onto Substack so it gets pushed out as emails. My understanding of what it means: - the blog doesn't have its own subscription system ; you link out to…
I don't like subscription popups - see recent John Gruber rants on the subject: https://daringfireball.net/2026/05/what_is_a_dickover
I'm willing to take the hit to subscriber numbers for not having that kind of thing on my own site.
From an SEO perspective, I think I might be beating Substack comfortably.
My blog has a different page for each item, plus it ties them together with tags.
The Substack email is a full week of content in one go. I don't think that's particularly SEO-optimal.
Again though, I'm willing to take the risk. So far I've not seen any obvious downsides to this model, and I've been dual publishing in this way for a few years now.
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are probably coming at this from different angles. I don't deny those things but they're also not a counter-argument to the point I'm intending to make. As an overly dramatic example, a slave might fall in love with the wife he met on a plantation, and the family he has, and even be grateful for them. Nevertheless, you probably don't want to use those facts to be a booster for slave plantations. My argument is tha…
I think you are missing the point of talking about utility in the first place. I have no interest in lamentations. If you told someone to stay away from social networks because of their flaws, you would be doing them a cultural and professional disservice. As a more moderate metaphor it's like someone saying they like living in one city, for all its flaws, and someone else comes along and extolls the virtues of sever…
The hole in that analogy is that in some cases these other platforms aren't imaginary. The open, ad-free, privacy-protecting, you-own-your-data alternative to Twitter actually exists: Mastodon.
The problem, of course, is that the utility of a social network is right in the name: the network of users it connects. If the people you want to interact with aren't on Mastodon, then you have to use Twitter.
But ethically-good (for lack of a better term) Twitter alternatives isn't a list of imaginary cities.
I'm not the others participating in this subthread, so I can't speak to their motivations, but for me, it's possible to recognize that Facebook, Twitter, etc. have utility for many people, but also lament that otherwise-better platforms exist that haven't gained traction.
(And it's funny in this specific case, because often the reason they haven't gained traction is because of actual problems with the product: the UI is unpolished, the UX is bad, important feature XYZ is missing, etc. But in the case of Mastodon it actually is as good [or better] product-wise as Twitter. It just doesn't have the same mass appeal because of existing network effects, marketing, and first/early-mover advantages.)
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#234Counterpoint from someone who's been publishing on the internet for decades: no one will visit your website. It's as simple as that. You need a push mechanism to reach readers. RSS could be it, but it's too niche. Social media is kinda it, but algorithmic feeds reward political clickbait and just because someone clicks "follow" or "subscribe" is not a guarantee that they will ever see your posts. Substack gives you a…
I think you're conflating two things. You can absolutely have your own website, and still use Substack. Then if you do have to move off Substack, you aren't "moving" in the sense that your URLs remain the same.
Getting a list of your existing subscribers' emails from Substack in order to migrate notifications to your new platform (hosted behind the same domain name you own) is of course an important part of moving, though.
The argument from the article is that you should be hosting your writing on blog.mywebsite.com, not mywebsite.substack.com, even if those two pages are identical and are both hosted by Substack. That's the entire point it's trying to make.
Whether or not your readers visit your website or consume your content entirely through email notifications isn't relevant to the point the author was trying to make. Because despite your absolutist "no one", some people will visit your website, and having a stable location that you control yourself is important. (Also please consider that while you may have been publishing on the internet for decades, your experience may not be universal.)
It is absolutely crazy to me that anyone with a serious web presence doesn't have their own domain name, even if that website is backed by someone else's hosted platform.
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#235Wake up. The ad revenue model of websites is dying.
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#236[dead]
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
The network effects ARE the genuine utility.
And you can take advantage of their network effects by implementing a POSSE system. Publish on your own site, syndicate elsewhere. That way, your website is the source of truth and the other places are like museums you curate to. Why should you go thru the trouble? Because these social networks own your content and your audience and won't hesitate a second to drop you if they deem fit.
x.com heavily penalizes off-site links.
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
The network effects ARE the genuine utility.
And you can take advantage of their network effects by implementing a POSSE system. Publish on your own site, syndicate elsewhere. That way, your website is the source of truth and the other places are like museums you curate to. Why should you go thru the trouble? Because these social networks own your content and your audience and won't hesitate a second to drop you if they deem fit.
"Publish Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere"
(There were a dozen other, unrelated things ranking higher on Google.)
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#239Does SEO even matter these days? Google Search seems to be on the way out as the dominant discovery mechanism. Really a better discovery mechanism is what writers need that's more aligned with with readers and writers and less with platform owners and advertisers.
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could do the same thing through Ghost, which has an API, and not be using a service that proudly platforms the Tates and nazis.
Ghost would cost $288/month (or $241/month paid yearly).
With 66k subscribers you could cover that without even really trying by setting up a $5/month donation tier or putting a tip jar on the site. With a tiny bit of effort, you could make thousands a month.
Substack lets you get away with sending that many emails without attempting to monetize because you pay them in clout and with your reader data.
I think they are getting the better deal given how good your writing is and your reputation.