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

How Forbes Stole a New York Times Article and Got All The Traffic

nickoneill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: How Forbes Stole a New York Times Article and Got All The Traffic

#31

Post by keithvan »

If anything, the Forbes reblog shows how oversensationalized media is expected to be. Even in academia and many peer-reviewed journals, there is a shift towards witty or funny titles in the form of "attention grabber: what this paper really is about". The colon is an imperative. I give an example: "Looking for My Penis: The Eroticized Asian in Gay Video Porn". You can find these examples all throughout peer-reviewed journals and books -- this one came from a textbook: A companion to Asian American studies, published by Wiley.

Even academics need to grab attention, too, and it's part of the product of the information economy (where there is a surplus of information) and a scarcity of time (i.e, attention).

Re: How Forbes Stole a New York Times Article and Got All The Traffic

#33

Post by petercooper »

_delirium wrote: post #19
wingo wrote: post #10

It's definitely relevant here on HN -- a good article with a bad title probably won't go anywhere. A good article with a great title will stay on the front page for hours.

That's the main downside to HN's "don't rename the article" policy I think; it keeps people from editorializing the submissions, but favors submissions from publications that already chose more linkbaity titles to begin with. Also perhaps a downside of not having Slashdot-style summaries, in that it encourages blogspam. If I find an interesting academic paper that I think HN might like, just submitting it by itself r…

HN's "don't rename the article" policy

The guidelines state:

You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it.

I frequently write better headlines for items I submit to HN and they are not often changed by the editors.

Re: How Forbes Stole a New York Times Article and Got All The Traffic

#34

Post by veyron »

maratd wrote: post #11

This illustrates the business model NYT is pursuing. The NYT simply cannot put out an article with a headline like that. They would lose subscribers. People who subscribe to the NYT expect a higher level of discourse than "Target knows you're pregnant". Interestingly, Forbes pursues a dual strategy. I doubt they would publish a title like that in their magazine. On the web though, they might as well be The New York P…

"Forbes pursues a dual strategy"

not convinced forbes is capable of a higher level of discourse

Re: How Forbes Stole a New York Times Article and Got All The Traffic

#35

Post by [deleted] »

wyclif wrote: post #16
petercooper wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Daily Mail (UK) has a similar approach. Their site is the most popular newspaper site globally and while it shares content with its print edition, the site focuses hard on mass market and celebrity stories. The print edition, on the other hand, is IMHO mostly "immigrants are evil" and Fox News-style scaremongering that its retired, middle Englander audience relishes.

The Guardian is almost as bad. When I loaded their page just now, the top story in the sidebar was also celebrity news: http://www.guardian.co.uk/fashion/2012/feb/19/stella-mccartn... I think it's clear this kind of "news" plays across all age groups and classes, not simply "middle Englanders." Even wealthy elites have their forms of lowbrow entertainment. If the goal is to get readers to click on ads, scantily-clad…

[deleted]

Re: How Forbes Stole a New York Times Article and Got All The Traffic

#36

Post by phillmv »

Alex3917 wrote: post #30
potatolicious wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Forbes "article" would have qualified as blogspam in every community I've been in. Giving proper attribution and linkback is a necessary but insufficient requirement. The question is: how much did Forbes add to the original content to warrant a clickthrough? If nothing of value was added, then Forbes is just jacking clicks. This is something many subreddits have had to deal with - the many, may spam blogs that si…

"The question is: how much did Forbes add to the original content to warrant a clickthrough? If nothing of value was added, then Forbes is just jacking clicks." I think a better question is whether or not the Forbes article actually took clicks away from the NYT article. I doubt it actually did. If anything the NYT article probably got more clicks than it would have gotten otherwise. Yeah, it sucks that the person wh…

I read the Forbes article and shared it amongst friends.

I wasn't even aware it was originally a NYT piece; I thought it was original to Forbes.

If you find yourself paginating your summary, you're definitely acting in bad faith.

Re: How Forbes Stole a New York Times Article and Got All The Traffic

#37

Post by zecho »

maratd wrote: post #11

This illustrates the business model NYT is pursuing. The NYT simply cannot put out an article with a headline like that. They would lose subscribers. People who subscribe to the NYT expect a higher level of discourse than "Target knows you're pregnant". Interestingly, Forbes pursues a dual strategy. I doubt they would publish a title like that in their magazine. On the web though, they might as well be The New York P…

Disagree. Forbes now print comments in the magazine. It's awful. I unsubscribed.

Re: How Forbes Stole a New York Times Article and Got All The Traffic

#38

Post by kmfrk »

subpixel wrote: post #29
jyblue wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be curious to know how much views are accounted for in writers' compensation too. I would hope the editors of more reputable resources like Forbes have more sense than that.

I asked the Forbes blogger about the rules, if any, that govern repurposing content from other publications. No reply: https://twitter.com/ryandeussing/status/170337298695720960

I think there's a Cold War of plagiarism suits the way everyone and their dog seem to be copying from each other. That must be the only reason the NYT aren't throwing a fit - I know I would, if someone did that to my blog articles.

It seemed particularly bad to plagiarize a feature article like that, though.

Re: How Forbes Stole a New York Times Article and Got All The Traffic

#39

Post by arn »

potatolicious wrote: post #27
rweba wrote: post #21

(1) I object to the use of the term "stole" - there is no indication that the Forbes blogger did anything unethical. She gave links and full attribution to the NYT article and therefore helped to promote it. YES, the quotes from it are more extensive and lengthy than you would normally see but on the other hand it IS a NINE page article so I am pretty sure the excerpts still falls under Fair Use. (2) The article in q…

The Forbes "article" would have qualified as blogspam in every community I've been in. Giving proper attribution and linkback is a necessary but insufficient requirement. The question is: how much did Forbes add to the original content to warrant a clickthrough? If nothing of value was added, then Forbes is just jacking clicks. This is something many subreddits have had to deal with - the many, may spam blogs that si…

"how much did Forbes add to the original content to warrant a clickthrough? "

Forbes filtered the article and presented the most enticing part.

Filtering/curation is of enormous value - on the web and in app stores. It's ironic that you post this on a news aggregator site. The corresponding (but perhaps more obviously absurd) argument is what value does Hacker News (or Reddit) add to these stories that HN/Reddit deserve your page views? Just visit all the target sites yourself! Skip the middleman.

Post reply on HN