41–50 of 70 posts
I don't think the content has changed much, and TC is still my preferred "big tech blog". But FB comments decreased my visiting quite a bit. I used to comment with Disqus quite frequently. Trolling is down, but the comments are less interesting.
Think about what would happen to HN if we used FB profiles.
Comments are valuable content. They aren't just a widget. FB comments are bland.
I hate how people cite Compete.com traffic graphs as "fact". Fact #1 is not a fact at all. Reference point: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/macrumors.com/ (estimated traffic, graph goes down) vs http://www.quantcast.com/macrumors.com (measured traffic, graph goes up) I also like how he cites Compete's numbers for TechCrunch (1 million uniques), but doesn't use Compete's numbers for his own site PostPost. Compete say…
It's terribly inaccurate, based on my experience. For the Feb 2011 (most recent available stat they have), they were wrong by -314%. They should make the fact that their service is inaccurate obvious; otherwise, they're misleading many people. Their data points are from 2 million people. In the U.S. alone, there are 230 million+ interet users: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=it_net_us... I only took ba…
I am not a statistician, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.
The real problem isn't the small sample size (2 million is really large), it's probably that they're not representative.
It would be hard for this to smell more like an opportunity.
There's a reason Alexa measures in percent.
People can argue back and forth over exact reasons why TC is or isn't "over", but the fact of the matter is that at this time last year I found their stories interesting and hit the site at least twice a day. Now I show up once a week and I'm just not very excited about their content. How or why is for other people to figure out. I just think it's boring and borderline tabloid journalism now.
These days, I'll view it once or twice a week.
I hate how people cite Compete.com traffic graphs as "fact". Fact #1 is not a fact at all. Reference point: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/macrumors.com/ (estimated traffic, graph goes down) vs http://www.quantcast.com/macrumors.com (measured traffic, graph goes up) I also like how he cites Compete's numbers for TechCrunch (1 million uniques), but doesn't use Compete's numbers for his own site PostPost. Compete say…
It's terribly inaccurate, based on my experience. For the Feb 2011 (most recent available stat they have), they were wrong by -314%. They should make the fact that their service is inaccurate obvious; otherwise, they're misleading many people. Their data points are from 2 million people. In the U.S. alone, there are 230 million+ interet users: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=it_net_us... I only took ba…
What's more likely is that compete is based on a panel [1] [2], and the members of that panel tend not to include the type of people that read tech sites.
[1] http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/25/compete-data/
[2] http://www.quora.com/Where-does-Compete-get-its-data-from
I presume it was accidental and not a purposeful but Yared (the author of the article) should probably disclose that he knows Michael Brown (the FB guy subject to the insider trading accusations made by Techcrunch).